GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?

[Vandren]

Just a nice little "where's the money" search a friend made me aware of earlier today:

Many so-called grassroots anti-health care reform protesters are being organized by a "grassroots" organization known as ResistNet.  This organization is (openly as stated on its website) funded by another "grassroots" organization known as Grassfire.org.  This organization is in turn (not so openly) funded by Shirley & Bannister Public Affairs, a Republican PR firm.

The relevant section of this article:

    A 501(c)(4) nonprofit, Grassfire has been named as a "stealth political action committee" by Public Citizen. Its founder and president, Steve Elliott, has held up MoveOn.org as a model for where he would like to take his organization.

    ResistNet, has become a major hub for turning out hard-core right-wingers to health-care town hall meetings. The organization took in $1.5 million in 2007 (the most recent year for which information is publicly available).

    It's difficult to find out much of anything about Elliott; he manages to keep a very low profile. But SourceWatch and Public Citizen report that Grassfire is represented by the Washington public relations firm Shirley & Bannister, whose principal is Craig Shirley, the man who gave us the Willie Horton ad of the 1988 presidential election.

    Shirley promoted the movie, Stolen Honor, a Swiftboat-style smear piece made about 2004 presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. Today, Shirley's clients, according to the Shirley & Bannister Web site, include the National Rifle Association, author Ann Coulter, religious right co-founder Richard Viguerie, and other religious right figures.

    But Shirley & Bannister retains ties to GOP establishment figures; its Web site bears an endorsement from William Kristol, who served in the administration of the first George Bush, who happens to be the candidate whose campaign reaped some of its victory from Shirley's Horton ad.

    The firm also promotes the books of former Rep. Joe Scarborough, R-Fla., (now of MSNBC) and former George H.W. Bush speechwriter Peggy Noonan (who promised us a "kinder, gentler nation") -- books published by Rupert Murdoch's HarperCollins.

So, basically, the GOP disseminates false information online and gets people riled up . . . said vocal minority of people appear at meetings and attempt to drown out anyone who disagrees with them rather than entering rational discussion, all the while claiming no one sent them (except that they have effectively been "sent" by the fear mongering perpetuated by Shirley, Beck, Limbaugh, and co.) . . . then the GOP claims they're just responding to a "majority" of people who are concerned.

How exactly do people still think these are really a "grassroots" movement?

People really need to read Aldous Huxley's essays on the effective use of propaganda.  Everything he wrote in the 1950s about the 1930s is even more relevant today than it was then.

P.S. On a little side note, ResistNet, despite a supposed "no tolerance policy" re: slander and personal attacks, has numerous calls for the death and/or assassination of the sitting president.  Take a look around the site, it's rather disturbing.

[Zeitgeist]

How dare those mean Republicans organize. Bastards.

[Revolverman]

Grassroot? More like Astroturf.

[Callie Del Noire]

What cracks me up is that the slant of the article makes you think it's purely a republican tactic.

Both sides do it.. the GOP got caught this time. (bout time too)

[Bayushi]

Grassroot? More like Astroturf.

Hypocrite.(Was VERY tempted to break out Jesus' little tirade about Hypocrites and Pharisees :P)

Most Dems march in lockstep to MoveOn.org and the Huffington Post. It isn't like those two sites have corporate sponsors, right? Oh wait...

So the other side isn't allowed to organize?

So if the Republicans and/or Conservatives use Facebook to organize, would we be fake then too? I mean, it isn't like Facebook has corporate sponsors, right? Oh wait...

I read what is said by sites like Grassfire and NumbersUSA, in addition to MoveOn and the Huffington Post. I also read various independent blogs and watch vLogs. I don't donate to any site or organization(I'm too damned poor to do afford donations). So I'm 'Astroturf' now?

It isn't as if the Obama campaign wasn't heavily promoted by corporate interests. I wouldn't have been surprised if his campaign was brought to us by Pepsi, etc... television show style. Not to mention, the Democrats have the majority of the media on their side. And the Unions.

[Revolverman]

Oh, I dont care, I just wanted to use that line, haha.

Both are scumbags if you ask me.

[kylie]

Most Dems march in lockstep to MoveOn.org and the Huffington Post. It isn't like those two sites have corporate sponsors, right? Oh wait...

So the other side isn't allowed to organize? 

While I'm hardly surprised that the Republican-inclined would organize on an issue, I think the OP was more pointing to a question of how their organization represents itself.  This suggestion, for example, of a "stealth political action committee."  Emphasis: Stealth.

     As I understand, MoveOn is federally registered as a Political Action Committee.  (They do have an advocacy section listed as a non-profit.)  This may put certain limits on its contributions and activities.  Grassroots.org, on the other hand, was set up as a non-profit.  Someone tell me if I'm mistaken, but I think this allows them to release less information about their structure, and may not bring the same financial rules.

     As for the Huffington Post, I've only recently noticed them myself.  But I'm skeptical...  I think if you look closely at their offerings, they may not be conservative but neither are they focused on a specific brand of liberal.  At least if you count the more op-ed format pieces, they range around quite a bit.  My initial impression is that saying all of the Democrats follow them (emphasis on plural them), could be rather like saying all the Republican voters follow either the GOP line or [insert your favorite radical Minuteman group here].  I also don't know of any mailing list based in the Huffington Post crew that asks for any particular political action.

[Bayushi]

The worst part about it all is that these few crazies protesting with stupid signs outside of these "townhalls"(re: Propaganda for those who agree. Apparently, with things like Acorn at some of these, keeping the dissenters out of the town halls, it's obvious we're not welcome. Bipartisan my ass) are making things worse for us all. These crazies are being portrayed as the 'norm' for Conservatives.

Sad part is that it's okay if the Dem Crazies(I don't believe they're all crazy, just wrong) do their crazy protests against a Conservative politician(look at all 8 years of Bush. They didn't let up a minute). But the moment any one says a thing against them... *sigh*

I don't even know if I'm making sense right now, with it being 0250 in the morning.

I guess the point of it all is that I keep reading Liberal Blogs and Columns claiming all us conservatives are crazies and wingnuts, and are 'taking our marching orders' from Rush and Glen Beck, etc.

Frankly, it is getting pretty old, the blatant hypocrisy. The far Left Media isn't even apologetic for their absurd liberal bias, having stabbed journalistic integrity in its sleep. And in the end, they all still seem to claim to be fair or balanced. (I know Fox News still claims it's fair and balanced, but we've known for years that it is anything but, and that's been admitted by Fox itself, even).

The problem, in the end, is that because Dubya didn't want to work with the Dems a whole lot(even though he might as well have been a Democrat), they're perpetuating the problem yet again, all the while alienating a LARGE portion of the citizenry.

I'm just sick and tired of being labled a racist, a radical wingnut, a conspiracy theorist. Just because I disagree does NOT mean I am crazy.

*yawns* I'll call it here for now. If I think of more after I sleep, I'll put mention it here.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Idiotic, Communist, socialist, unAmerican, unpatriotic, not supporting the troops, dreamer, unrealistic, out of touch with the working class, hippie, tree hugger, PETA supporter, etc..I think these are a few names that get flung at liberals.

Do I think the name calling is fair?  Certainly not and I do wish it would stop, but it won’t.  Both sides make these accusations and use the media to their advantage.  When a democratic Congress took office part way through Bush’s administration, their attempts to withdraw troops was meet with accusations of hating the troops and supporting terrorism. 

Republicans are accused of following Rush and Beck, liberals are accused of following John Stewart and Michael Moore.  John Stewart I can handle, but Michael Moore…please.

I don’t even know if I should address the hypocrisy of Fox News.  A saving grace that they admit they are conservative while also stating that they present the most “fair and honest” opinion.  Please, if you want unbiased then stay awake through NPR.  Every reporter, talk show host and media personality has an opinion and an agenda.  These are businesses run by multi-million dollar corporations with CEOs that have interests in Washington.

Both parties are just as scary and horrifying when let loose.  The Republicans unleashed the United States military for reasons we still can’t verify and the Democrats just ran up a massive debt for reasons we are still uncertain about.  Not sure which is worse.

[Vekseid]

What cracks me up is that the slant of the article makes you think it's purely a republican tactic.

Both sides do it.. the GOP got caught this time. (bout time too)

It's not even that they got caught. Getting caught does not and will not matter.

What matters is, one would assume the GOP would prefer to avoid such... moronically Pyrrhic tactics.

Their memo states that they don't want rational debate. At this point, that is their call, and their problem. They may very well get rid of 'death panels' (which republicans originally proposed) and the public option.

The uninsured represent a sixth of the vote in this country.

It's pretty safe to say that the republicans have alienated blacks and, with the NRA forcing the party to consider Sotomayors' nomination a black mark, a good number of hispanics. A fourth of the vote.

Their pandering to the religious right has increased, at the expense of all others. Another fourth of the vote.

They already stand at odds with America's youth, as a rule.

Where are they going to get votes if they keep this up?

[HairyHeretic]

Both parties are just as scary and horrifying when let loose.  The Republicans unleashed the United States military for reasons we still can’t verify and the Democrats just ran up a massive debt for reasons we are still uncertain about.  Not sure which is worse.

How much have those wars cost to date by the way? Just in comparison to this debt that keeps getting mentioned.

[kylie]

Sad part is that it's okay if the Dem Crazies(I don't believe they're all crazy, just wrong) do their crazy protests against a Conservative politician(look at all 8 years of Bush. They didn't let up a minute). But the moment any one says a thing against them... *sigh*

Arrests of protestors during the 2004 Republican National Convention = 1,799
http://rnc08report.org/archive/318.shtml

So lately, have you noticed anywhere that fifty or a hundred people are being arrested for right-wing agitation (and for such "disorderly" things as yelling at officials, or even carrying guns with threatening signs) at any single town hall?

     Some politicians are reportedly staying away simply due to the way that the rightists are protesting.  Which is to say encouraging people to bring guns, going extra-heavy on misinformation, and generally showing more interest in being loudest and disingenuous than being accurate.  Someone is obviously still showing up for these things, in some parts...  Those hardy politicians (some of them less radical Republicans, I must say) are handling much more direct exposure to Republican "base" claims than leading Republicans tolerated from activist lefties while they were holding the presidency.  Or at least, some are putting up with another general ventfest of Repubican ire.  I'd like to hope there are reasonable claims amongst all the hype.  The frequent reliance on merely shouting unsubstantiated warnings makes me doubly skeptical.

[Callie Del Noire]

By and far, I consider myself a MODERATE Republican. (Ironic I know) though I haven't voted straight ticket since I got the right to vote. MY vote hasn't been an issue for the republican party ever.

I am not in LOCKSTEP with the party platform so I'm NOT a republican in the party lines. Since my brother's brutal experience with the Republican party (and the laughable thing they call 'loyalty') I am firmly of the opinion that the party as a while has been hijacked by the religious rightwing types and only ONE or TWO issues matter to them. To the detriment of all others. Ironically the two big button issues (Gay Marriage/Unions and Abortion) aren't were my primary concerns are.

Of course the rampant cronyism of the last eight years has hurt my trust in the party and the last election has been truly enlightening in the regard that the party officers are more concerned about control than winning elections.

Case in point
-The change in mid-stride to a candidate for governor who literally started at the last moment. And one who was operating from a traditionally LOSING position (How many mayors of Charlotte have won the gubernatorial or senatorial races?)

-The literal abandonment of certain candidates (I'm thinking of a couple congressmen and senators) because they weren't HARD enough on certain issues.

[Vekseid]

I'm pretty sure we're going to see the current Democratic party split into Progressive and Libertarian wings over the next decade or so, probably taking a good chunk of Republicans with them. Hopefully this means we get some sanity into the Libertarian party, but still.

[Callie Del Noire]

One of my BIGGEST problems with either party is this RAMPANT desire to deregulate for the sake of doing it. Over the last 30 years that has done more damage to the economy than anything else I can think of.

Look at what the deregulation of the airlines did in the 80s.. NONE of the original big American Airlines are around anymore (the NAMES might be but the actual companies have been rolled over, merged and so on for YEARS).

California's power snafu back in the 90s is another one. Deregulated power companies sold off all sorts of stuff to out of state interests.. I remember coming back from a deployment and 3 families I knew had to actually get back into navy housing because the cost of electricity spiked literally overnight.

[Bayushi]

Arrests of protestors during the 2004 Republican National Convention = 1,799
http://rnc08report.org/archive/318.shtml

So lately, have you noticed anywhere that fifty or a hundred people are being arrested for right-wing agitation (and for such "disorderly" things as yelling at officials, or even carrying guns with threatening signs) at any single town hall?

Because carrying signs and guns and yelling is illegal, as opposed to damn near openly rioting? I honestly don't care which side you're on, if you do something violent, you should pay the penalty. A lot of protestors(or just plain old anarchists) did violent things during the 04 RNConvention.

Not to mention, the only people committing violent acts during THESE protests are the Leftist Union thugs.

Hrm....

California's power snafu back in the 90s is another one. Deregulated power companies sold off all sorts of stuff to out of state interests.. I remember coming back from a deployment and 3 families I knew had to actually get back into navy housing because the cost of electricity spiked literally overnight.

Don't I know that one! That's been going on since the 80's, unfortunately.

Dad was stationed in Japan, and when we returned to the states(San Diego), we had to stay with my grandparents. Cause there was no way in hell an E-7 paycheck was affording rent and utilities at the time.

My father was quite upset about that(not the parents part, the fact that well laid plans went to hell). Grandparents went from rather unworried about things to shrill and vindictive if you left a light on in the house without being in said room.

I will not, or ever, apologize for George W Bush's policies. I did not condone them, like them, or want them.

I didn't vote for him, either. Did I protest against him? No. Why not? Because for the majority of his presidency, I was in no position to protest. I don't even REMEMBER most of 2000 and 2001, plus the first half of 2002. The second half of 2002 saw me in a hospital bed. 2003 saw me moving cross-country, then out-of-country. 2004 I came back, and ended up homeless.

Now, I am permanently disabled and in possession of an internet-enabled PC. I have nothing BUT time.

I don't even consider myself a Republican, having voted for the candidate and not the party each time I've voted. In fact, my first presidential election saw me voting for the Clinton/Gore ticket in 1996. I helped re-elect Senators Feinstein and Boxer(WHAT WAS I THINKING?!). In addition, I could hardly call myself a Republican as a lesbian, right? It'd be counterproductive.

SO STOP THROWING 'BLAHBLAHREPUBLICANS DID THISTHATTHEOTHER' AT ME, BECAUSE I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THEM. THEY ARE NOT EVEN IN POWER RIGHT NOW!

[SleepyWei]

If you don't want to talk about what the republicans did then talk about something else on some other thread. This thread is about the republicans being behind the big rally against Obama's plans, nothing more.

And calm down woman. It's not like everyone's bombing on you or assuming you're republican.

[consortium11]

It's not even that they got caught. Getting caught does not and will not matter.

What matters is, one would assume the GOP would prefer to avoid such... moronically Pyrrhic tactics.

Their memo states that they don't want rational debate. At this point, that is their call, and their problem. They may very well get rid of 'death panels' (which republicans originally proposed) and the public option.

The uninsured represent a sixth of the vote in this country.

It's pretty safe to say that the republicans have alienated blacks and, with the NRA forcing the party to consider Sotomayors' nomination a black mark, a good number of hispanics. A fourth of the vote.

Their pandering to the religious right has increased, at the expense of all others. Another fourth of the vote.

They already stand at odds with America's youth, as a rule.

Where are they going to get votes if they keep this up?

Points like this annoy me... even though I agree with every word.

In my ideal world politics wouldn't be about each party finding the policies that they calculate will appeal to the highest number of voters in key areas with minor ideological issues seperating the two. Instead it would be different parties putting forward their view of what is right, a vision not modified to sound tempting to one key demographic... simply what they believe. If that view costs them millions of votes then so be it... but it is still their view and they should stand on it.

In the UK the current big (well... big on the blog-o-sphere) debate is based around Daniel Hannan... the mep (member of the EU parliament) who made news a while back for his excellent "the devalued prime-minister of a devalued government" attack on Gordon Brown... who appeared on Fox News recently talking about the failures of the NHS. The attack dogs were loosed on him, talking about how he'd betrayed the UK by talking bad about "our NHS" in the USA and not here (despite the fact he'd co-written a book that went into the very subject), how he wanted the US system (which for the record he doesn't) etc etc... and how he was costing the Conservatives over here votes... and risking his own seat in the upcoming EU elections. Nowhere did the serious debate that should have happened about whether our current system should be reformed or replaced.

Daniel Hannan is... for all his faults... a man of great principle... a man who had previously turned down personal advancement in favour of standing by his principles. He doesn't care if he's cost himself votes by saying what he believes to be the truth.

Yet that was all the (few) media outlets that covered it talked about...

Shouldn't we applaud a man who stands there and speaks out whether it will be popular or not? What makes it laughable is that the same commentators who decry Gordon Brown for not admitting there will have to be spending cuts in the unlikely event he gets another term... he's not saying it because it would be unpopular to say it...

(BTW it's quite funny watching the parties over here desperately try to take over the "We love the NHS" movement... and only criticse the "nasty" Republicans rather than Obama... who also says he doesn't want an NHS type system...)

...

And of course I know you'd never get the parties not pandering to the electorate... that's why it's a perfect world.

I'm pretty sure we're going to see the current Democratic party split into Progressive and Libertarian wings over the next decade or so, probably taking a good chunk of Republicans with them. Hopefully this means we get some sanity into the Libertarian party, but still.

If the Democrats were to split, I doubt it would be into Progressive and Libertarian schools. Bill Maher (I know, I know...) did an excellent (well, excellent by his standards...) piece entitled "The Democrats are the new Republicans" about the divisions within the Democratic party. There are the moderates and those who are more socialist/progressive (whatever politically loaded term we're using today)... and it's that division that would likely occur in any split. Since the reinvention of the Democratic party there's never been a strong Libertarian streak... off the top of my head you'd have to look to the turn of the last century and the Bourbon Democrats for an organised Libertarian type movement within the Democrats.

It would be the Republicans who are more likely to form the base of a "Libertarian Revolution" as they've never given up the rhetoric and their grass-roots are quite supportive (even if they never really put their weight behind a candidate with those ideas... the horrific "electability" concept is always brought up). Of course if the GOP split it would be a horrific mess... Evangelicals, Libertarians, all out Hawks, Buisness Interest types... all could go in very different directions.

And they'll never be sanity in the Libertarian party because the drugs issue will always arise... it's near impossible to construct a Libertarian arguement for the prohibition of drug taking... hell, I think you'd struggle to prevent drunk driving using Libertarian logic... and because people want to get votes (as above), they're not going to want to have people from their party terrifying the mainstream by talking about legalising heroin and crack, however logical the arguements are.

Also, if I remember correctly isn't the current Libertarian party already pretty deeply split about immigration... and the "crazy" ideas like abolishing the Federal Bank and half the federal taxes.

[kylie]

Because carrying signs and guns and yelling is illegal, as opposed to damn near openly rioting?

I'm wondering if maybe that was a mistype.  To the best of my knowledge, yelling at these things isn't generally illegal.  I suspect there might be a grey to black area where it would become illegal for shutting down the proceedings of the existing government (such that people can't even get through their scheduled speeches at all).  But that wasn't really what I had in mind.

    In at least some cases, the guns themselves have been technically legal.  It's more situations like where people manage to make a show of signs about spilling blood, or dropping their beloved firearms on the floor (makes you wonder who just might happen to pick it up and shoot the Congressperson, no? "Oops, a totally legal accident.")...  In those cases, I don't blame security for acting preemptively on the basis of any stopgap regulation they can find -- at least to get the weapons out of there.  In some cases, they have encouraged people to put the things back in their cars, which makes perfect sense to me. 

    While carrying guns to political events may not be illegal in some states...  It seems too easy to imagine a situation where people with a history of hostile agenda keep continually testing the bounds of just what sort of carrying and display of firearms is legal.  Enough of these people, and the drain on security and potential for violence over some insult becomes a real cause for alarm.  I hope no one would try to sneak this through under some reference to an 18th century "militia," but it's amazing the excuses sometimes...  Just a few people with tightly holstered pistols here and there, well that's "just" a case of petty intimidation and cause for more bad blood (the figurative kind I should hope).

I honestly don't care which side you're on, if you do something violent, you should pay the penalty. A lot of protestors(or just plain old anarchists) did violent things during the 04 RNConvention.

What few potentially violent elements were around, does not add up to anywhere near cause for 2,000 arrests in my book.  For example:  Early on, it was well documented that the police tossed nets on top of a bicycle protest known as Critical Mass -- which emphasizes space for bicycles in existing traffic laws (and environmental degradation, among other issues).  There were about 300 arrests in that operation.  A division of the same activist group appeared at the DNC, and there were only a handful of arrests.  In New York, they also detained numerous people who were just on the street (sidewalks even) at the same time, and totally unaffiliated with the nonviolent protest. 

     This was a pattern that repeated over and over throughout the convention.  I was once among a group of maybe 150 protestors doing nothing but marching on a sidewalk with signs.  The riot police formed up and threatened to trample us for blocks.  I once watched a bunch of people just sharing stories and holding a few signs in a park for a couple hours.  Vans swept in and scooped up a few, beat cop-looking uniforms with riot helmets running around just intimidating and arresting people.  The courts also ruled that hundreds of protestors arrested during that day were held on no legal grounds whatsoever, and fined the City of New York for time past the ruling they were incarcerated.       

Not to mention, the only people committing violent acts during THESE protests are the Leftist Union thugs.

I'd be interested in any documentation to back that up.  But I'm also concerned about simple intimidation and people with more steam than logic.

[Vekseid]

Shouldn't we applaud a man who stands there and speaks out whether it will be popular or not? What makes it laughable is that the same commentators who decry Gordon Brown for not admitting there will have to be spending cuts in the unlikely event he gets another term... he's not saying it because it would be unpopular to say it...

(BTW it's quite funny watching the parties over here desperately try to take over the "We love the NHS" movement... and only criticse the "nasty" Republicans rather than Obama... who also says he doesn't want an NHS type system...)

I can give Fred Phelps credit for being the most unpopular man in America. I can't give him much more than that. Just because someone shouts what they believe in at the top of their lungs, even if it is wrong, does not make them 'heroes'. At best, it makes them objects of pity. At worst, they obstruct real progress in the world while they do so.

If the Democrats were to split, I doubt it would be into Progressive and Libertarian schools. Bill Maher (I know, I know...) did an excellent (well, excellent by his standards...) piece entitled "The Democrats are the new Republicans" about the divisions within the Democratic party. There are the moderates and those who are more socialist/progressive (whatever politically loaded term we're using today)... and it's that division that would likely occur in any split. Since the reinvention of the Democratic party there's never been a strong Libertarian streak... off the top of my head you'd have to look to the turn of the last century and the Bourbon Democrats for an organised Libertarian type movement within the Democrats.

It would be the Republicans who are more likely to form the base of a "Libertarian Revolution" as they've never given up the rhetoric and their grass-roots are quite supportive (even if they never really put their weight behind a candidate with those ideas... the horrific "electability" concept is always brought up). Of course if the GOP split it would be a horrific mess... Evangelicals, Libertarians, all out Hawks, Buisness Interest types... all could go in very different directions.

And they'll never be sanity in the Libertarian party because the drugs issue will always arise... it's near impossible to construct a Libertarian arguement for the prohibition of drug taking... hell, I think you'd struggle to prevent drunk driving using Libertarian logic... and because people want to get votes (as above), they're not going to want to have people from their party terrifying the mainstream by talking about legalising heroin and crack, however logical the arguements are.

Also, if I remember correctly isn't the current Libertarian party already pretty deeply split about immigration... and the "crazy" ideas like abolishing the Federal Bank and half the federal taxes.

I said the democrats would because the implosion of the Republican party will be just that - a horrific mess. You have a bunch of splintered parties and if the Democrats don't start unfunding huge parts of the budget - like say, the entire DEA - then someone is going to start carrying that mantle. Drug laws may actually be the catalyst, even. The abolition of drug laws is not exactly an unpopular stance, and taking a position against them only angers some of the elderly.

Fun fact: The Libertarian candidate for South Dakota governor in the 1998 race was arrested for drunk driving.

[Zeitgeist]

I just find it rather amusing, when the shoe is on the other foot, the Democrats cry foul. Truth is, it works both ways. Deal with it.

The people protesting and organizing against the proposed health care insurance reform is not any less legit than any liberal protest organization, be it Move On, Acorn or what have you. Yes there are people on the fringes, on both sides that make most people cringe. And of course those fringe elements are used to castigate the whole movement as something nutty and crazy.

Frankly I could care less how much or not the protesters are organized or funded by groups. Here in America we hold the right to protest actively as sacrosanct. I really don't give a damn if some corporation is behind it, because corporations are ran by people and tax payers too.

So boo hoo. If Obama is the fabulous speaker and uniter than how is it he's lost control of the message and is unable to bring the masses together?

I predict a rather dramatic shift in party votes come mid term elections. If indeed that transpires I can only imagine the Democrats will blame it on the nefarious 'Right Wing' machine. The same machine they believed to be in deep disarray. We shall see I guess.

[Vekseid]

I just find it rather amusing, when the shoe is on the other foot, the Democrats cry foul. Truth is, it works both ways. Deal with it.

Like the Republican party did in the 2004 and 2008 conventions, perhaps?

Would you prefer for Democrats to deal with it that way? Arrest and beat people into submission?

[Bayushi]

Like the Republican party did in the 2004 and 2008 conventions, perhaps?

Would you prefer for Democrats to deal with it that way? Arrest and beat people into submission?

Except the Republican crazies aren't rioting?

[kylie]

Yes there are people on the fringes, on both sides that make most people cringe. And of course those fringe elements are used to castigate the whole movement as something nutty and crazy.

I don't know that anyone here has said the entire Republican votership is precisely "nutty."  I certainly haven't.  However, I wish I could hear some actual points of fact and reason through all the smoke and shouting the party's current big figures (Gingrich, Limbaugh) seem to be relying upon.  I also believe they lost the national election largely because their more distinctive positions are, in the main, going against the historical trend and they have little else to offer except dissent.  The reliance on volume rather than substance as a strategy in these meetings -- institutionally encouraging specifically the most noisy to show up and make a stink, and centrally financing/organizing them to do so -- is doing little to show me otherwise.   

So boo hoo. If Obama is the fabulous speaker and uniter than how is it he's lost control of the message and is unable to bring the masses together?

Of course, one can be a fabulous speaker and still be spurned or denied.  Or even have your points refused precisely for drawing attention to things people are too attached to. Some people would just rather not change their ways in the face of obvious problems.  Especially if they/their favorite political figures had an obvious stake in creating and sustaining said problems.

     After 8 years of Bush-Cheney playing the "decider" card, I'm actually a little impatient with Obama trying to play it low-key and wave the "bipartisan" flags myself.  I'm hoping this will go somewhat the way of the first economic stimulus: After the right has shown it has little to contribute but nay-saying, perhaps it will be easier to push on and actually get something done.  At the same time, it's awfully obvious when all the opposition seems to do is rant and complain about how popular the president actually is.  Bush was hardly open to that flavor of "criticism" even when he first took office.  And this is done while also demanding Obama "listened" to opposition so much as to act like it. 

[kylie]

Except the Republican crazies aren't rioting?

I really think you have the RNC confused with something else.  Try the Seattle WTO talks.  Maybe then you could have your tiny sample of actual lefty violence, which you seem very interested in finding and magnifying a thousand times to supposedly make up for the pervasive right-sponsored threats (threats upon individual politicians, not just upon "the System" since you seem fixated on discovering riots).  We could discuss which came first, the tear gas or the riot-style behavior by a few.  And whether occasional behavior by a few was used as a flimsy police excuse to attack the masses for days on end.

     I was on the streets around the RNC '04 for most of the convention.  There was so much paramilitary and police presence there before the thing even started, there was no opportunity for anyone to think about rioting.  And again, gatherings that were entirely peaceful were the vast majority of the arrests.   It's a dated site, but you can get some idea what little-to-none people were being arrested for (and often detained illegally) from this CNN report:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/02/convention.protests/

     While this is partly about police behavior as well as the political leadership, I sense a pattern where a Republican administration deploys hugely excessive and preemptive force to shut down domestic dissent, as well as to wage a war over false premises abroad...  And now the same party's leading figures are encouraging the more virulent and destructive elements to get out there and make a disruptive public display of themselves where standing Congresspeople and the President are trying to hold a policy discussion. 

     Show me that this Party, as an institution, really has anything to offer.  That is, anything beyond threats of direct violence -- not "rioting" as you put it, but rather: assassination or "making their point" with encouragement toward assault and shooting -- and demands to erase Washington from the whole political map (so that the right can then take it back after railing about how bad it is, after they led it for the last 8 years).

[Bayushi]

Show me that this Party, as an institution, really has anything to offer.  That is, anything beyond threats of direct violence -- not rioting, assassination but "making their point" with encouragement toward assault and shooting -- and demands to erase Washington from the whole political map (so that the right can then take it back after railing about how bad it is, after they led it for the last 8 years).

How about I don't show you anything about the GOP.

I have no interest in the GOP unless/until they return to their traditional values of limited government and financial constraint. Can do without the religious nonsense, however.

I think that the GOP right now is missing the one major point when it comes to the issues at hand.

The point being: The country is broke! We can't afford ANYTHING right now. STOP SPENDING.

The issue on the left's side that is being ignored in a wholesale fashion is that there are no real plans for funding socialized medicine/public option/whatever. None. The only thing they CAN do right now is tax Tax TAX.

As if we didn't have enough tax worries as it were, what with Cap and Spend on the way.

To me, this is the single most important issue in the last twenty years in this nation. I'd go further back, but past that we still had the Soviet Union to worry about.

Frankly, I'm plain sick of my problems with all this being called "manufactured", just because some political action committee or another made political actions(THE HORROR!).

Regarding Rush... well, the best advice I can really give is to just ignore him. I do(don't even listen to the radio). Gingrich, however, is more like a Libertarian than almost anyone in the Federal Government(excluding Ron Paul). He has a number of GOOD ideas.

You say that when the Right starts presenting good ideas, you'll listen. Problem is, they HAVE tried to present alternatives, most of which I've not been able to see or read, as they don't even get to committee. The problem with trusting all of this power to a single individual(Speaker of the House) is that said power gets swung like a club. I won't be disingenuous and claim that only Speaker Pelosi does or did this. But she is who we have to deal with now. She can, and does, singlehandedly exclude non-Liberals/Democrats from a number of things, closed door talks about a bill or other.

[kylie]

I think that the GOP right now is missing the one major point when it comes to the issues at hand.

The point being: The country is broke! We can't afford ANYTHING right now. STOP SPENDING.

I do hear some Republicans fussing about spending actually.  Usually in the form: Look, Democrats want to spend so much money on XYZ....  We don't have the money and anyway we assure you it will be a disaster (or at least a great Unknown we can't stomach).

     There is a general problem.  We have an economy based on jobs, consumption, and credit.  These things are all interrelated in a service economy.  Now that we have so much bad credit (and this is associated with a decline in finance regulation since at least Reagan), if there is no government spending...  Not only would we lack vital services, we would need a whole new economy.  Now, I am for a new economy but I don't see how we get from here to there without social programs and restructuring.  Those things take money, and they are worth it.  Your other choice is to go Amish or something similar; more "service in-kind" systems.  Which might not be so terrible, but I don't think everyone would accept it.  Not least the same mega-corporations that the Republicans have tended to cozy up to, somewhat more than the Democratic party. 

     I rather think most people, and corporate leaders particularly, have been weaned on a culture of inequality and cyclical crises.  We need to get out of that.  But I'm with Hairy:  We have the deficit for the wrong reasons.  We're already talking about the next hundred years of productivity affected by debt interest.  If we have somehow come to this point still breathing (and pretending to be moral with where all that money went), why can't we spend a little more and actually use the money to change that direction?

The issue on the left's side that is being ignored in a wholesale fashion is that there are no real plans for funding socialized medicine/public option/whatever. None. The only thing they CAN do right now is tax Tax TAX.

I don't see the association here.  One of the Obama arguments on health care reform is that people will be paying less, not more.  And one of his platforms has regularly been tax breaks for everyone but the very wealthy.  Honestly, I think that platform may be overly optimistic in the longer term.  However, I also think we have no real option except to reform our system in the short-term.  It's a case of spend and you might mess it up, but do nothing and the ship will sink.

To me, this is the single most important issue in the last twenty years in this nation. I'd go further back, but past that we still had the Soviet Union to worry about.

The Wolfowitz faction went to the trouble to create its own unit inside the CIA, just to exaggerate whatever military capacities the Soviets may have had.  Much like Cheney made Iraq into a great boogeyman by sponsoring his own alarmist intelligence unit -- which none of the established people agreed with.  But that's another discussion.

You say that when the Right starts presenting good ideas, you'll listen. Problem is, they HAVE tried to present alternatives, most of which I've not been able to see or read, as they don't even get to committee.

What about the last 8 years?  I'm quite unhappy with what results they have produced. 

[consortium11]

I can give Fred Phelps credit for being the most unpopular man in America. I can't give him much more than that. Just because someone shouts what they believe in at the top of their lungs, even if it is wrong, does not make them 'heroes'. At best, it makes them objects of pity. At worst, they obstruct real progress in the world while they do so.

Oh, I'm not claiming they should be seen as heroes... but respected for actually saying what they believe rather than weaseling around it. The point applies more to politicians then "activists" (and I use that term loosely in relation to Phelps)... it would seem a politicians job is to attract as many votes as possible and the issue is when pandering for votes takes the place of offering alternative policies... especially about the key issues.

Take the NHS debate over here; for the last few years the extent of that "debate" is who is going to put more money into it and the odd bit of window-dressing. There is no talk of deep reform or changes... because none of the major politicians will touch it with a bargepole as it is instinctively an unpopuar policy. The lack of serious debate means that for better or worse the NHS keeps rolling along... with no chance of even a discussion on serious change. Surely that is a bad thing?

I said the democrats would because the implosion of the Republican party will be just that - a horrific mess. You have a bunch of splintered parties and if the Democrats don't start unfunding huge parts of the budget - like say, the entire DEA - then someone is going to start carrying that mantle. Drug laws may actually be the catalyst, even. The abolition of drug laws is not exactly an unpopular stance, and taking a position against them only angers some of the elderly.

The abolition of some drug laws isn't unpopular... but I really doubt a policy of legalising crack, meth and heroin is really going to be a vote winner. Weed may well get through... but the rest are still massive skeletons in the closet which a true Libertarian has to confront.

[TheVillain]

I just wanted to say two points.

First, "far left liberal media" has been thrown around in this thread- a concept at which I laugh hysterically at. Seriously? You really fall for that old line?

Look- who owns the outlets? Who edits the stories? That's right, rich old bastards deep in the pockets of business interests. As a rule, the local media stations tend to be pretty centralist because if they go too far one way or the other they alienate too many viewers. On a national level however, the news media tends to be mild-to-intense flavors of right wing because the owners force them to be.


And Second, the problem isn't that the republicans are organizing. The issue is that the republicans are claiming that what they are doing is representing the Vox Populi when they are very clearly not, then getting mad when people figure out that they are lying. That's hypocrisy in a breath taking scale.

[Callie Del Noire]

I just wanted to say two points.

First, "far left liberal media" has been thrown around in this thread- a concept at which I laugh hysterically at. Seriously? You really fall for that old line?

Look- who owns the outlets? Who edits the stories? That's right, rich old bastards deep in the pockets of business interests. As a rule, the local media stations tend to be pretty centralist because if they go too far one way or the other they alienate too many viewers. On a national level however, the news media tends to be mild-to-intense flavors of right wing because the owners force them to be.


And Second, the problem isn't that the republicans are organizing. The issue is that the republicans are claiming that what they are doing is representing the Vox Populi when they are very clearly not, then getting mad when people figure out that they are lying. That's hypocrisy in a breath taking scale.

Funny.. seems to me the media is more 'left' than 'right' of late (Fox aside of course). I mean, folks did ALL sorts of parody's of President Bush with no comment on the media but the Obama posters in LA (the hitler ones) rated full on Media outrage. (that is the most immediate example) that comes to mind.

[TheVillain]

Funny.. seems to me the media is more 'left' than 'right' of late (Fox aside of course). I mean, folks did ALL sorts of parody's of President Bush with no comment on the media but the Obama posters in LA (the hitler ones) rated full on Media outrage. (that is the most immediate example) that comes to mind.

That's because if we used former president Bush as the meter stick, almost everyone does become a left winger. You've got the be pretty far out there for FOX to defend you pretty much to the end.

And as for the outrage over the Omana=Hitler signs, that was just a sign that a lot of people have some sense of class and taste- despite their political affiliations.

[Callie Del Noire]

That's because if we used former president Bush as the meter stick, almost everyone does become a left winger. You've got the be pretty far out there for FOX to defend you pretty much to the end.

And as for the outrage over the Omana=Hitler signs, that was just a sign that a lot of people have some sense of class and taste- despite their political affiliations.

Just pointing out that the meter stick is a bit different now that President Obama is  in office. I mean the number of things I saw out in town while I was in service against the President when it was George Bush that didn't get ANY notice was kind of surprising, and the stuff that the media calls 'insulting' to the president now are quite different.

Of course I am not defending the bush presidency.I'm still pissed that if I mention say.. things I know about a few systems I worked on I can go to jail for a LONG time and someone in the white house clearly bought a 'get out of jail free' card at the cost of 'Scooter' Libby's career.

And don't get a lot of servicemen started on the 'No-bid' Contract stuff that was utter crap.

I'm just saying the measuring stick is different now that somoene they like is in the white house.

Point. When the CIA did a single drone strike in Yemen against a known target it was 'state sponsored assassination' nowadays it's par the course.

[TheVillain]

Just pointing out that the meter stick is a bit different now that President Obama is  in office. I mean the number of things I saw out in town while I was in service against the President when it was George Bush that didn't get ANY notice was kind of surprising, and the stuff that the media calls 'insulting' to the president now are quite different.

Of course I am not defending the bush presidency.I'm still pissed that if I mention say.. things I know about a few systems I worked on I can go to jail for a LONG time and someone in the white house clearly bought a 'get out of jail free' card at the cost of 'Scooter' Libby's career.

And don't get a lot of servicemen started on the 'No-bid' Contract stuff that was utter crap.

I'm just saying the measuring stick is different now that somoene they like is in the white house.

Point. When the CIA did a single drone strike in Yemen against a known target it was 'state sponsored assassination' nowadays it's par the course.

I really doubt the drone thing started with Obama- in fact I know I didn't because stories of similiar drones being used in Afghanistan and hitting weddings and schools and such instead of their targets got out a few years back. But for the record if I had to choose a single drone over starting another war- well, I'd wonder why those were the only options but choose the drone.

And yes the meter stick has changed, the metaphorical rug has been pulled from under the feet of a lot of people with the first black president- in both good and bad ways. It's something so different for us that somethings just can't be viewed the same way as before.

Otherwise I agree that if one wanted to list the ways in which the W admin was a massive bucket of fail they'd be here all day, so we can leave it at that.

[Callie Del Noire]

You missed the point about the drone.

The first ANNOUNCED strike was under President Bush. And they (the media) were calling it 'Assassination' yet today we do the same thing and it's 'news as normal'.

[TheVillain]

What I'm saying is that it reached "News as Normal" stage under Bush, so calling it a shocking change under Obama is either ignorant or dishonest- and thanks to our crappy news media it's hard to tell which of the two it is.

[kylie]

Funny.. seems to me the media is more 'left' than 'right' of late (Fox aside of course). I mean, folks did ALL sorts of parody's of President Bush with no comment on the media but the Obama posters in LA (the hitler ones) rated full on Media outrage. (that is the most immediate example) that comes to mind.

As a "basic cable" market option, Fox News (the TV form) seems to be a default channel at many college campuses and other public facilities.  For TV news, the fact that there are fewer big, obviously far-right news outlets does not diminish the fact that many people are catching only Fox in passing.  There was also an argument in the activist inquiry Outfoxed that more traditionally centrist news organizations have actually taken hints from Fox on issues as important as the calling of 2000 election candidates, rather than risk appearing to fall "behind" on a story.

     It depends, though, on what sort of media a person relies on and what kind of info they look for.  For instance, I don't get TV these days.  Online I typically scan the New York Times, occasionally Reuters or Yahoo News (although if I see anything surprising there, I want other sources), sometimes the Guardian or recently, very selective bits of Huffington.  And then I may Google around hoping (though often in vain) for more details.  I used to and still occasionally read some other columns -- some more left like Salon and some more moderate like The Economist.  For whatever lefty trends many of these sources have, I hadn't even heard of the Hitler-color posters before.  So, I don't think you can simply chalk that one up to left-leaning media.  Maybe that claim works better for people who frequent farther-left blogs, or are more often looking for news specifically mentioning Obama.

     I also have started to pick up documentary videos on some issues.  Which leads to the next quote...

The first ANNOUNCED strike was under President Bush. And they (the media) were calling it 'Assassination' yet today we do the same thing and it's 'news as normal'.

Yes, "announced"...  But by now (or even a couple years ago), it doesn't take extensive research to learn that such operations (though more occasionally) were going on even earlier.  HBO and/or History Channel aired some boiled-down explorations of how the Clinton administration, for example, thought about when to engage Al Qaeda.  Targeted: Osama was one of the titles.

     I wouldn't argue the point that it's still state-backed assassination.  However, I think you're neglecting the context of when that rhetoric was used in regard to Bush Jr.  This was a president who made a point of injecting "God" into his justifications for foreign policy, who was widely believed to be acting to avenge threats and perceived failings of his father re: Saddam, and who generally thumbed his nose at many erstwhile allies in pursuit of the 2003 Iraq action.  Add election issues, wiretapping, ramrodding through environmental deregulation and upper-income tax breaks...  In that context, yes, every new claim of executive privilege to act unilaterally and forcefully on a little-explained case (how many in the American public have been educated about who is who in Yemen, any more than in Iraq?) was drawing scrutiny.

     You may well have a point that the particular missile strikes were in some or many cases, equally warranted for one administration or the other.  (We'd need some real education about the world, and about Middle Eastern history and oil politics and empire, to make seriously informed judgments.)  On the other hand, it's arguable that Bush Jr. actually took less effective flak over his military actions than Clinton.  In the case of Kosovo, it seemed the most politically salient, if not the main rationale for complaint, was that he "must" be hitting Kosovo simply to distract from talk of Monica.  There couldn't possibly be any other issues at play there, could there?  Oh no, it must be those terrible lefties and their bad promiscuous sexuality...

[Bayushi]

Ahem...

Hypocrisy much?

[TheVillain]

Now Akiko, what have we told you about picking on Congress people for corruption and hypocrisy? It's like picking on retards for being slow- it's pretty obvious. The only difference here is that now the disrupters are being specifically organized and almost hand-picked by an opposition that's supposed to be above such tactics.

Which if of course, still doesn't help the fact that everyone is supposed to be civil in the first place.

[kylie]

Hypocrisy much?

I watched the video, but it seems to me you could draw numerous things from it and I'm not sure where you're going exactly.  What's your take, precisely?  That many images and words used in different contexts over the course of years do not exactly speak for themselves.

     The first thing I would question is whether the situation at town halls today, where I read of over sometimes over a thousand protestors in one place simply trying to shut the whole thing down by shouting and threatening throughout the speech, is really akin to what you saw Pelosi facing.  Notice, in 2009, she is arguing specifically against a style of "campaign" that is afraid to deal in facts.  You're assuming the two kinds of opposition argue from positions of equal merit.  I'm skeptical.  At some point, we have to resolve a conflict between demands for limitless free speech by a few and calls for social welfare policy by the many.  Anyone could hold a minority filibuster on Main Street, but when the traffic can't move at all, it's a different kind of problem.  I don't see the San Francisco protestors bearing guns.  I don't even see them working as a large group to keep the entire speech from going forward.  This was not the same as what I gather from the news lately. 

     It's a lack of good arguments and reliance on false claims and bad premises plus active disruption that mark the present sort of opposition as obstruction in my mind.  That said, I bet you we would be more likely to have truly mass protests that brought positive change the day after the Right miscalculated enough to actually, fully institute too many of their slogans.  Namely, those slogans include: Privatize Everything Further (starting with health care -- just ignore Medicare), Ban the Gays, Reinforce the Rich, Punish the Blacks, and Bomb Every "Evil" abroad in the world now.  Do all of those things immediately and regardless of the history and capabilities of everyone involved, or you are a "pinkie socialist feminine weakling traitor" -- so the logic goes. 

     I want to believe radicals of that ilk are only being sponsored to show up political points and none of the Republican leaders would be inept enough to actually follow through and act on their associations with them.  But that is problematic now that a "core constituency" has been built around them.  Going forward in the spirit of being a "good, solid Republican" while relying on alliances such as these is a path that should lead to larger masses in the streets with good cause, more than a few bursts of tear gas and "free speech pens" could stop.  Not to mention an increasingly dangerous foreign response.  For better and worse, Bush-Cheney were self-preserving enough to operate incrementally and often secretively with those policies that dragged their initially bare-majority ratings (again, lower than Obama's starting support) down into the abyss. 

     The right counts on more of the lefty speakers to stay "nerdy"/"tolerant" and focused across many individual issues, while it continues to change the subject from blink to blink.  Meanwhile, the right mainly rails vaguely about "weakness" and "spending" with colorful references to its over-hyped masculinity -- whether the actual issue in question is health care, abortion or Iran -- so that its most radical people stay in more emotional lockstep.   Then, it tries to sell those few people as "everday" people or a "moral majority," which is simply implausible.  There is free speech, there are arguments...  And then there's just plain throwing fits and dressing up "Me, me, me" as if it made a majority. 

     We're not working with the protests of 2006, anymore.  Different animals, different responses.

[LaCroix]

I'll be the first to admit that the guys showing up at the protests with armed weapons does not look good for the protesters but at the same time you can't judge the entire movement by the few crazies either. I just find it funny myself, how all of a sudden, these 'protesters' showing up yelling and chanting is suddenly so bad.

Who cares who funded these people? They are showing up and protesting against something that they disagree with and that is their right. Its just funny now that it is Republicans doing the protesting, all of a sudden 'they're crazy and they shouldn't be there' is the mindset. This, from the same people, who very happily did the same thing when the Republicans were in control of the White House.

I wont say that I agree with the way any of the protesting has been handled, by the Democrats when the Republicans were in the White House, or now on the side of the Republicans, but its damn hypocritical to call these people out because they have funding from an organization or not. You want to disagree with them, disagree with the signs they're carrying around, that is all well good. Where I take issue, is the fact that people want to make them bogus or crazy, when both sides have loonies out there on fringes.

It's just damn funny to me, that's all. Suddenly these people are disingenious and violent, when they're standing in the crowds chanting the same way I've seen both sides do over the past few years.

[Callie Del Noire]

Of course it's bad.. 'they' aren't supporting the democrats! If it was 'their kind' of  protestors it would be okay.

But then.. if the republicans were in control of congress and/or the white house the dissenting side would still be looked on as 'bad'. It's the nature of the group in control to dislike dissent.

[kylie]

I'll be the first to admit that the guys showing up at the protests with armed weapons does not look good for the protesters but at the same time you can't judge the entire movement by the few crazies either.

     It's about the organization that is trying to make policy in the name of that movement.  And its leadership catering directly to the discriminatory, hyper-masculine and sometimes violent egos of the most radical fringe.  It's not precisely a statement on every Republican voter.  It's more a concern about where those votes are being invested, and how groups like the NRA and Christian Right keep limiting the options of the whole Party once a candidate is elected.  The Republican leaders have relied upon these groups for swing votes since the 1980's and therefore, they must act as if they were the whole Party's reason to be.

     But since you ask...  I do happen to think it's a little "odd" (at least) to vote for a political machine that consistently swaggers happily into disasters: 9/11, Katrina, in significant part (though not alone here), the financial crisis.  Not to mention attacking racial, gender, and sexual minorities as a matter of course.

I just find it funny myself, how all of a sudden, these 'protesters' showing up yelling and chanting is suddenly so bad.

Who cares who funded these people? They are showing up and protesting against something that they disagree with and that is their right. Its just funny now that it is Republicans doing the protesting, all of a sudden 'they're crazy and they shouldn't be there' is the mindset. This, from the same people, who very happily did the same thing when the Republicans were in control of the White House. 

     You're sounding offended on behalf of all the protestors.  This thread is about how they're being organized and who that organization favors most.  Sure, you can point out that there are some radical anarchists etc. who support certain Democratic platforms.  But I don't see them being centrally deployed as the Party's primary mode of argument. I also don't see their thinking reflected in the Obama administration's economic and social programs (although I also think those have been too incremental, "calmly" presented, and centrist). 
     
     You do see that when the Republican machine gets in power, it's no funding for alt-sex represented for the arts; a push for Creationism and the Ten Commandments on school walls; refusal to pay for distribution of condoms; a push in Washington to free up the flow of assault weapons to the common citizen (surely that's what "militia" meant).  This is what happens when the organization relies upon those groups shouting about a "loss" of values and then the Party gets into power.  With the Republicans, they have relied so much on the radicals to act disruptive, that it seems they can do little but follow their prescriptions.  If the Democrats claimed that their radical fringe were actually a "majority" and institutionally encouraged them as a central strategy, then you would expect much more controversial policy initiatives by now.     

[TheVillain]

Of course it's bad.. 'they' aren't supporting the democrats! If it was 'their kind' of  protestors it would be okay.

But then.. if the republicans were in control of congress and/or the white house the dissenting side would still be looked on as 'bad'. It's the nature of the group in control to dislike dissent.

Wow, Straw Man much?

Like it's been said, the source of disagreement isn't that they are protesting. That's just fine.

The problem is that the republicans are actively and intentionally recruiting and inflaming groups of people that are known for reacting borderline violently to things they disagree with. Nothing wrong with a peaceful protest but when the standard operating procedure for a lot of these people are death threats and strong arm tactics and your side is encouraging them to do these things- even helping them do them more efficiently- then that's just wrong.

[TheVillain]

I'll be the first to admit that the guys showing up at the protests with armed weapons does not look good for the protesters but at the same time you can't judge the entire movement by the few crazies either. I just find it funny myself, how all of a sudden, these 'protesters' showing up yelling and chanting is suddenly so bad.

Who cares who funded these people? They are showing up and protesting against something that they disagree with and that is their right. Its just funny now that it is Republicans doing the protesting, all of a sudden 'they're crazy and they shouldn't be there' is the mindset. This, from the same people, who very happily did the same thing when the Republicans were in control of the White House.

I wont say that I agree with the way any of the protesting has been handled, by the Democrats when the Republicans were in the White House, or now on the side of the Republicans, but its damn hypocritical to call these people out because they have funding from an organization or not. You want to disagree with them, disagree with the signs they're carrying around, that is all well good. Where I take issue, is the fact that people want to make them bogus or crazy, when both sides have loonies out there on fringes.

It's just damn funny to me, that's all. Suddenly these people are disingenious and violent, when they're standing in the crowds chanting the same way I've seen both sides do over the past few years.

Applies to this guy too, I don't remember violent anarchists being actively sought after and recruited, for example.

[Bayushi]

The problem is that the republicans are actively and intentionally recruiting and inflaming groups of people that are known for reacting borderline violently to things they disagree with. Nothing wrong with a peaceful protest but when the standard operating procedure for a lot of these people are death threats and strong arm tactics and your side is encouraging them to do these things- even helping them do them more efficiently- then that's just wrong.

Kind of like how there hasn't been ANY violence from the protestors, right?

Can't say the same for the leftist thugs... err, Union members, can we?

Seriously, this is how you all(Liberals in general) sound:

OH NO! THEY'RE WORKING TOGETHER! SOMEONE STOP THEM! WE MUST STAY DIVIDED!

Aww, what's wrong? Divide and Conquer tactics fail so you're(again, Liberals in general) flailing about calling people hateful names?

Ad hominem ftw, right?

[TheVillain]

Kind of like how there hasn't been ANY violence from the protestors, right?

Can't say the same for the leftist thugs... err, Union members, can we?

Seriously, this is how you all(Liberals in general) sound:

OH NO! THEY'RE WORKING TOGETHER! SOMEONE STOP THEM! WE MUST STAY DIVIDED!

Aww, what's wrong? Divide and Conquer tactics fail so you're(again, Liberals in general) flailing about calling people hateful names?

Ad hominem ftw, right?

At this point I question whether or not you're just trolling, because what your opponents argue and what you say they argue tend to be two completely different things. Blatantly and Consistently

On the plus side, this mean I no longer feel obligated to take you seriously in this, so here's popeye trying to pick up a hooker.

[Bayushi]

At this point I question whether or not you're just trolling, because what your opponents argue and what you say they argue tend to be two completely different things. Blatantly and Consistently

REALLY?

Cause, you know, the Liberal side of the spectrum hasn't been all about divisive politics all this time?

Horse shit!

But I can't expect a Liberal to see that. I mean, they're THE party for all those darkies, right?

I'm surprised no one's tossed out the race card yet in this thread, like Liberals seem to do everywhere else, regardless of the topic or what is said. If that isn't Divisive Politics, nothing is.

and lol @ Popeye

EDIT: I mispelled something.

[Bayushi]

Seriously.

"The people protesting are nutcases!"

Some may be "nutcases", but a large majority of America agrees with them. Maybe not their tactics, sure, but the reason behind the protests are legitimate.

However, by throwing out the race card, equating people to Nazi's and the like, the Left plays divisive politics once more.

At one point, protesting(even if organized) was viewed as being "American". But now that the shoe is on the other foot, protesters are being called "UnAmerican".

Sorry, your divisive party can't have it both ways. Protesting in America is either American or it's not.

[HairyHeretic]

Alright folks, time to step away from the keyboards for a bit. Any points you want to make can be made without name calling and sarcasm, or not at all.

[Callie Del Noire]

Wow, Straw Man much?

Like it's been said, the source of disagreement isn't that they are protesting. That's just fine.

The problem is that the republicans are actively and intentionally recruiting and inflaming groups of people that are known for reacting borderline violently to things they disagree with. Nothing wrong with a peaceful protest but when the standard operating procedure for a lot of these people are death threats and strong arm tactics and your side is encouraging them to do these things- even helping them do them more efficiently- then that's just wrong.

And how is this different from the Democrats from supporting and intenitionally encouraging discontent over Republican actions. Oh wait, that's right. They aren't getting blamed for a small portion of their supporters who take things too far. Clearly different. I'm so sorry..

And I as a RETIRED SAILOR resent the stereotyping present in the comic.
(Sarcasm off)

Look, I don't think EITHER side is a saint. GOD Knows what someone like Speaker Pelousi would do to stay in office if she was in a conservative district versus the one that she is in now.

-I think that Vice President was one of the shadiest characters to hold office since the GRANT presidency.
-I risked my promotion chances by mouthing off to an arch conservative chief by correcting him on the implications of the Patriot Act.
-I did NOT vote for George Bush
-I did not think we should have acted in Iraq.

BUT
-I support Lower Taxes, Pro-Choice and Pro-Death Penalty.
-I believe that the public interest is NOT on one side or the other, and only by COMPROMISE is the public good is served.

I am TIRED of one side labeling the other EVIL, WRONG MINDED, BIASED or STUPID because they are other side of an issue.

I am GLAD that President Obama was elected even if I didn't vote for him because no matter how good or bad he is as a president in my OPINION his greatest contribution is to get more people involved the voting process than anyone in MY LIFE time.

I'm sorry you don't see the need to accept that some people can differ in their opinions but some things the democrats have done in the past make me distrustful of them. Granted there is a LOT of stuff the Republicans have done that make me distrust them too. And saying 'See SEE they're being bad' while acting like you're lily white (lookign to both national parties for this) irks me.

[Serephino]

You know... good 'ol George Washington warned people against political parties.  He was a smart man.

I may not be edumacated (yes I know I misspelled the word) in politics, but here is what I as an average voter see.  Republicans may be sick of having George Bush Jr. rubbed in their faces, but dude, the reject fucked up royally.  He was so caught up in his stupid war everything else went to hell in a handbasket.  Congressmen did whatever the hell they wanted to.  He didn't care as long as he got the authorization do do what he wanted with the military and he got his funding. 

He gave huge tax breaks to the rich.  One of these tax breaks happened when I was a Junior in high school.  My History teacher looked up the info on this tax break cuz Bush was really patting himself on the back.  According to what he found, someone making millions would save hundreds of thousands on their taxes.  My poor 14k/year teacher would save 13 cents.  Then there are the tax breaks for companies who outsourced.  This made the rich richer, and made them more greedy.  That led to them figuring out how to cut as many corners as possible to save as much as they could to make a product while charging the consumers the same price.  The result of that was the recall of lots of toys that were manufactered in China that had lead paint.

In the 2000 election what really ticked me off was that Bush used fear as a tactic.  He basically said that if Kerry won and pulled out of Iraq the terrorists would kill us all.  Those weren't his exaxt words, but it was heavily implied.  The tactic worked too.

Republicans often will say they are against Gay marriage, abortion, and other things because it is against God.  As a non Christian, I find that incredibly offensive.  Republican values that they preach about so much tend to be Christian values.  I happen to like seperation of church and state because I don't want the rules of someone else's religion forced on me.  There's a Christian nut I talk to sometimes who says she wishes Republicans were in power because the Democrats aren't enforcing God's Law.  My response to that is GOOD!  Freedom of religion means freedom of ALL religion.

They used the same scare tactics in this last election.  In fact, it was Sarah Pailin I believe who said Obama was a terrorist, and many people believed her.  I do give McCain credit for correcting the one woman who said it the one time he was speaking.  And y'all wanted that whacko as your VP....

As long as I live I will never forget all the fuss that was made on whether or not Obama was an American citizen after he was elected.  That was the most riddiculous and lame attempt at... well I don't know what they were trying to accomplish, but I haven't taken Republicans seriously since. 

I could go on and on, but I won't.  The point is the Republican name has been dragged through the mud by its own people.  Those in the public eye make outrageous accusaions and prey on fear.  I don't like it.  I won't say every single Republican out there is like that, but the party leaders make it seem so. 

I also won't say accusations haven't been made by Democrats.  The difference is, most of those accusaions turned out to like... be true....

[SleepyWei]

Republicans often will say they are against Gay marriage, abortion, and other things because it is against God.  As a non Christian, I find that incredibly offensive.  Republican values that they preach about so much tend to be Christian values.  I happen to like seperation of church and state because I don't want the rules of someone else's religion forced on me.  There's a Christian nut I talk to sometimes who says she wishes Republicans were in power because the Democrats aren't enforcing God's Law.  My response to that is GOOD!  Freedom of religion means freedom of ALL religion.

Kind of like John F. Kennedy being a devout catholic but not having his beliefs dictate his career in office. :-)

[Serephino]

Not sure what point you're trying to make because I don't think I was alive then, and I don't know that much about President Kennedy.  I know he was popular, and assassinated, so I guess he wasn't liked by everyone, but who is?

Now had I been alive and Kennedy was a Democrat who let his religion interfere with his job, that would upset me too.  However, we're not talking about 30 yrs ago, or whenever Kennedy was president.  I'm talking about NOW. 

What happened before I was born doesn't mean much to me.  I like History, and I think it's important to learn from it, but it's not going to affect my current views on politics. 

[Bayushi]

I would like to offer an apology to anyone who was offended by my seemingly racist remark in my last post.

Akiko is hardly racist, and was not attempting to use the term in a derogatory manner, except towards those who use racial politics to 'get ahead'.

[Oniya]

Not sure what point you're trying to make because I don't think I was alive then, and I don't know that much about President Kennedy.  I know he was popular, and assassinated, so I guess he wasn't liked by everyone, but who is?

I wasn't alive for Kennedy either, but the significance is that he was the first (and I believe so far the only) Roman Catholic to be elected to office.  A lot of people at the time were concerned that he would - as a Roman Catholic - defer to the Pope on everything including matters of State.  As for the assassination, that's one of those things that horrified the nation in the same way that 9/11 horrified it.  Everyone who was alive at the time remembers exactly where they were when the news came down, and I seriously doubt that any US citizen heard that announcement without feeling sick to their stomach.

[Callie Del Noire]

I wasn't alive during the JFK administration either, but I've talked to family and friends who were and read enough history to know that his political clout wasn't as good as his PR. Bobby Kennedy had done everything he could to alienate one of the strongest backers of his brother, Lyndon Johnson, on several occasions. To the point of sending messages to american embassies UNCODED stating that he did not have any authority to do any OFFICIAL ACTIONS on behalf of the Government.

And if you believe that his dad Joe Kennedy made some backroom deals to buy leverage in certain areas (Which having read about good old Joe) I doubt he'd get the same help in certain areas (such as parts of Chicago).

JFK was popular, yes, but some of the things he had done back then would have pissed off the wrong folks, and when those folks controlled the political machines of the time? Oh yeah..even odds he'd have gone down in flames next time around.

[Zakharra]

 I think JFK's  reelection campaign was in trouble, he wasn't a shoe-in for a second term, and wasworking on improving it when he was shot. That's what cemented his fame. Being assassinated.

[Oniya]

Well, you can't ignore getting the space race going, or pulling us back from nuclear war in '62.

[Zakharra]

 That certainly helped him, but I think he's known more for being assasinated. He also, got us into Vietnam I believe too.

[Callie Del Noire]

Well, you can't ignore getting the space race going, or pulling us back from nuclear war in '62.

Or nearly getting us INTO a nuclear war, the bay of pigs and vietnam.

He seriously shat on LBJ, who was a big force in the south, hid a very SERIOUS illness and there was more than a few indications that he was seriously (and overly) medicated during the missile crisis.

My mom (and 2 poli-sci professors I know) said he had at BEST 50/50 for re-election at the time he was shot.

[Vekseid]

One of my teachers had classmates who cheered when he was shot.

I think the moonshot happened in large part due to his assassination, rather than his own character.

[Callie Del Noire]

One of my teachers had classmates who cheered when he was shot.

I think the moonshot happened in large part due to his assassination, rather than his own character.

One of my teachers told me of something like that. No matter how much I despise the president as a person.. it is a tragedy to have one killed.

[September]

He gave huge tax breaks to the rich.  One of these tax breaks happened when I was a Junior in high school.  My History teacher looked up the info on this tax break cuz Bush was really patting himself on the back.  According to what he found, someone making millions would save hundreds of thousands on their taxes.  My poor 14k/year teacher would save 13 cents. 

That reminds me of a story.

Suppose that every day 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59."

The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Now dinner for the 10 only costs $80. The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.

The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, being sure to give each a break, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so now the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59.

Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," complained the sixth man, pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."

Then, the nine men surrounded the tenth man (the richest one, paying the most) and beat him up. The next night the richest man didn't show up for dinner, so now the nine men sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short!

And that, boys, girls and college instructors, is how America's tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table any more. There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I always find that story entertaining but also misleading.  The ten men are obviously supposed to represent the tax payer base, yet the story has them all eating at the same place.  If this was more representative then the four that pay nothing would each be eating cans of soup that the rich man contributed toward.  The next level might be eating at McDonald’s while the other was eating at an Applebee’s or perhaps a nicer establishment.  The richest eats at the finest restraunt available. 

While the rich may complain about paying more taxes, I think most can agree they also have access to the finer things this country can provide.  Sorry if they have to pay a little more to make sure the rest of us can eat too.

[Vekseid]

While the rich may complain about paying more taxes, I think most can agree they also have access to the finer things this country can provide.  Sorry if they have to pay a little more to make sure the rest of us can eat too.

Warren Buffet proudly pays his full tax burden and makes sure the companies under his control engage in no loopholes, and actually ends up paying more than the typical corporate share. And yet, he is and remains the richest man on Earth, while people who whine about short term situations (the semi-rich who complain about their 'unfair' tax burden) dream of having a fraction of his wealth.

[Callie Del Noire]

Business 'ethics' in the US are long dead and buried.

Most 'rich folks' follow the ethics of 'Gordon Gecko' from the movie. "Greed is Good."

Why look into the long term when you can rape pillage and burn today?