Back before Obama even started publicly running for the presidency, I remember a speech he gave in which he said all Americans should put aside their disagreements and come together. I liked what he had to say, but I couldn't shake the feeling that by "come together" he meant "agree with me."
When he gave his State of the Union address, it was the same thing, but more obvious. He said he wanted us to put aside our "petty grievances" and have "unity of purpose," and that we should not have "conflict" or "discord" or "recriminations;" that if we believed, due to "worn-out dogmas," that our government is too big (and therefore, in our opinion, takes away too much of our liberty), then we are focusing on "childish things" and our "stale political arguments" no longer apply.
Translation: if you disagree with Obama, if you don't share his "purpose" or agenda -- even for principled reasons shared by most of the founders of this country -- then you are not part of us.
A lot of people didn't hear that subtext, or didn't want to. But it's proven to be more than just words. Obama has asked Americans to report people who disagree with his health care plan to the White House; he redefines "disagreement" as "spreading misinformation," of course, to make it sound good (not that misinformation doesn't exist, but it's on both sides, clearly; and further, the White House has no business being the arbiter of what is, and isn't, true).
He attacked the Tea Parties, which brought millions of Americans together in opposition to his plans, as merely astroturfing.
He later said in his health care reform speech he "will not waste time" with people who oppose his plans, instead choosing to question their motives as purely political.
He refused to do an interview with Fox News Channel only because of FNC's political leanings.
Now his two top advisors are saying that FNC is "not really news," which was said only to incite a culture war, drawing a divide between millions of Americans in a cynical attempt to throw his detractors overboard and to keep the Good Ship Obama afloat. He's already said he "will not waste time" with people who oppose his plan, so why not alienate them intentionally, if it will shore up his base? (And by the way, where's the rest of the media attacking Obama for attacking Fox? It used to be that the media took such attacks personally, even if not directed at themselves.)
If Bush had done any of these things, the left would have gone completely nuts over it. But when Obama does it, that's perfectly acceptable. Even desirable.
Bush caused division in this country by unapologetically pushing an agenda that much of the country disagreed with, even hated. Obama -- who is guilty of the same thing, of course -- is causing even more division in this country by actively pursuing it, in order to exploit it for political gains.
James Madison said in Federalist 10 that one of the "two methods of removing the causes of faction" is "by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests." He adds, "The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is ... an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government."
The only "unity of purpose" we can expect Americans to share is that of securing individual liberty, and maintaining the government that so secures it. Obama surely knows he cannot force everyone to have a "unity of purpose" in creating new and massive government programs; so, instead, he is pretending that if you don't share in that purpose -- an individual right which government is designed to protect -- then you are the enemy.
I submit that a President so disdainful of expressions of liberty is the problem, and not the people with such expressions, whatever they may be.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at October 19, 2009 09:30 AM | Email ThisMan, those death camps in Chicago, the forced nationalization of farms in Illinois... indeed!
What a macaroon. You don't have a clue about what you're talking about, do you?
Posted by: demo kid on October 19, 2009 09:43 AM"The White House and congressional Democrats are working to marginalize the Chamber of Commerce — the powerful business lobby opposed to many of President Barack Obama’s first-year priorities — by going around the group and dealing directly with the CEOs of major U.S. corporations."
-
And today we have a case of Reuters being fooled by a fake press release from the Chamber of Commerce saying that they now favor Cap-and-trade.
The fake press release was read on-air by CNBC.
Add this to the President's war on FOX News, and its avowed communist czars, and you get an idea of what they're about.
You're lying again, demo kid. I never implied any such thing. You intentionally removed the word "purely" from my comment.
Do not lie again.
-
demo kid. The White House Communication Director's favorite political philosopher is Mao.
I focus on just 2 points, which IMO are incontrovertably true (and troubling):
1... If President Bush had done what the Obama Administration has done and is doing, the left would have gone TOTALLY nuts.
2... a President so disdainful of expressions of liberty is the problem, and not the people with such expressions, whatever they may be.
Here's hoping the 2010 mid-term elections will take the (D)s well below the 60-vote threshold to cut off fillibusters in the US Senate; and that (R)s will make some significant gains in the House. And that in 2012 voters will get a chance to correct their mistake in the 2008 Presidential election (before irretrievable damage is done (I'm afraid we have gone and are going a considerable way down that road already) ).
Posted by: Methow Ken on October 19, 2009 10:06 AMHowever, I do agree that if you practice dissent against his policies, programs, and goals, he does seem to have extremely thin skin. He also seems to want to use the power of the government to put down dissent that doesn't agree with him.
At least under Bush, the government was never used to stifle dissent to the extent the left is advocating and practicing.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 19, 2009 10:12 AMNow, if you disagree with how the healthcare insurance industry might be reformed you are a racist. If you want to point out new science on climate, such as the recent link between tree rings and cosmic rays, not temperature or CO2, well too bad, the science is settled. Etc.
demo kid and the rest of the Obama true believers are here to shout you down. Even if you don't watch Fox News, you must just be another racist, tea partying, Fox News loving, conservative hater. And if he does not like what you have to say, demo kid might even ask you to commit suicide, like he did to me on this blog earlier this year.
I disagreed with much of Bush policy, and at least last year, we had the ability to question and criticize the president. And I don't recall President Bush actively targeting MSNBC, or worse, singling out individual citizens, even though a large majority of Americans disagreed with him on many issues.
Dissent is no longer chic.
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 19, 2009 10:27 AMWake up, sunshine, you're not in Kansas anymore.
Posted by: Rick D. on October 19, 2009 10:38 AMIMMHO, couple the relationship of Ayers with Obama,
along with Ayers attendance at the World Education Forum in Venezuela and his comments there,
along with Zelaya trying to act like a Chavez,
along with Obama accusing Honduras of a Coup rather than following their constitution,
along with Obama trying to withhold millions of dollars from the current Honduras government,
along with Obama trying to force Health Care without discussion,
along with Obama forcing the stimulus bill without discussion,
along with Obama allowing the Kennedy Library Pork in the Defense Bill,
along with Obama having a $1.42 Trillion dollar deficit in 2009,
along with Obama trying to raise everyone's gas and electricity prices with Cap and Trade,
along Obama supporting David Sunstein who published a new book about "Rumors,"
along with Obama not firing Kevin Jennings for being an admitted child statutory rapist,
along with Obama hiring Anita Dunn, a Mao Tse-tung enthusiast,
along with Obama and Anita Dunn "rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was "controlled"",
along with Obama and his White House urging other news organization to stop "following Fox",
along with David Axelrod lying and declaring that Fox is "not a news organization.",
along with Anita Dunn branding "Fox "opinion journalism masquerading as news." ",
along with Obama refusing to have any of his staff appear on Fox News to discuss Obama's wrong views of Fox News,
along with Obama and his administration stifling Free Speech by accusing Fox News of being a wing of the Republican Party,
along with Obama continuing to declare war on a News organization rather focusing on critical issues,
along Obama and Anita Dunn being suprised that Fox News checks their facts even on Sunday shows,
along with Obama allowing his Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, to lie about Fox News not being Newsworthy,
along with Obama paying Brazil millions of dollars for off-shore drilling and not doing the same for the United States,
along with Obama refusing to increase our baseline power with more use of Coal,
along with Obama and his Czars pushing for a Fairness Doctrine replacement,
along with Obama not advancing Nuclear power even though he was for it during his campaign,
along with Obama driving up Federal Construction Project costs with a Union only PLA in NH,
along with Obama hiring Van Jones, Kevin Jennings and other CZARs without vetting by the Senate,
along with Obama trying to close Guantanamo and turn War Prisoners into the equivalent of American citizens,
along with Obama spewing he would not condone Pork but then signs a bill with thousands of Pork items,
along with Obama and his party spewing he would have transparency during his Term but not,
along with Obama politicizing any knowledge of ACORN problems or ACORN Federal funding,
along with Obama increasing the United States National Debt beyond support from other countries,
along with Obama stifling Free Speech with the Humana and other insurance companies Gag Order,
along with Obama negotiating "the most intrusive weapons inspection program the U.S. has ever accepted with Russia",
along with Obama refusing the dictionary definition of 'TAX',
along with Obama not coming down on Sharpton and Jackson for "fueling the flames of racial hatred further dividing us."
along with Obama allowing a $529M loan to Fisker Automotive, a Finland company,
along with Obama cutting Border Patrol deployment on the Mexican border,
along with Obama dithering and stalling his General's manpower requests for Afghanistan,
along with Obama not meeting with the British Prime Minister,
along with Obama campaigning and supporting the Public Option in Health Care,
along with Obama not supporting his Campaign promises to limit tax increases,
along with Obama failing as a leader to get the Olympics to be hosted in Chicago in 2016,
along with Obama failing to acknowledge or help fix Black-on-Black crimes,
along with Obama continuing his campaign over the last eight months rather than leading,
along with Obama not fixing the Unemployment Rate of 17%,
along with Obama spewing he needs an unconstitutional "Civilian National Security Force",
along with Obama withdrawing missile defense from Poland without consulting with Poland,
along with Obama contemplating he has fixed the economy with his Stimulus package,
along with Obama's stimulus package not creating jobs for our young workers,
along with Obama having closed talks with three Senators on Health Care plans,
along with Obama lying in his campaign about posting Bills online for five days,
along with Obama accusing Insurance Companies of propagating deceptive and dishonest Ads,
along with Obama campaigning about no more secrecy with Pork and Lobbyists,
along with Obama having one of the most liberal Senate voting records,
along with Obama refusing to reveal any of his grades, any of his college papers, and his birth certificate,
and the result is almost irrefutable evidence of Obama, his background, and current presidency being so extremely suspect, that he should have been not elected our President.
Posted by: Tim on October 19, 2009 10:42 AMWhy A Strong Public Option Is Essential - By jacksmith - Working Class
Robert Reich explains the pubic option: http://bit.ly/dDYSJ
Hollywood Supports The Public Option :-) http://bit.ly/3XLwPi
It's not just because more than two thirds of the American people want a single payer health care system. And if they cant have a single payer system 77% of all Americans want a strong government-run public option on day one (86% of democrats, 75% of independents, and 72% republicans). Basically everyone.
It's not just because according to a new AARP POLL: 86 percent of seniors want universal healthcare security for All, including 93% of Democrats, 87% of Independents, and 78% of Republicans. With 79% of seniors supporting creating a new strong Government-run public option plan, available immediately. Including 89% of Democrats, 80% of Independents, and 61% of Republicans, STUNNING!!
It's not just because it will lower cost. Because a strong public option will dramatically lower cost for everyone. And dramatically improved the quality of care everyone receives in America and around the World. Rich, middle class, and poor a like.
It's not just because it will save trillions of dollars and prevent the needless deaths of millions more of YOU, caused by a rush to profit by the DISGRACEFUL, GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!
It's not just because every expert in every field, including economist, and Nobel laureates all agree that free market based healthcare systems don't work. Never have and never will. The US has the only truly free market based healthcare system in the World. And as you all know now, IT IS A DISASTER!
It's not just because providing or denying medically necessary care for profit motivations is wrong. Because it is WRONG! It's professionally, ethically, and morally REPUGNANT!, Animalistic, VILE and EVIL.
THE REASON THE PUBLIC OPTION IS ESSENTIAL:
The public option is ESSENTIAL because over 200 million of you are trapped in the forest of the wolves. Which is the forest of the DISGRACEFUL, GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX! With no way out except through needless inhumane suffering, and DEATH. While the wolves tear at your flesh, and rip you limb from lib. Then feast on your lifeless bodies like a dead carcase for transplant parts.
At the most vulnerable times of your lives (when you were sick and hurting), millions of you have had to fight and loose cruel, but heroic battles. Fighting against the big guns of the DISGRACEFUL, GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX! in the forest of the wolves. All because you have no place else to go. You have no other CHOICE!
But the PUBLIC OPTION will give you someplace safe to go. And it will give us someplace safe to take you. The public option will be your refugium (your refuge). Where the wolves cannot get at you when your down, hurting, and vulnerable. Where everyone who needs it can find rest, security, comfort and the care they need. Protected by the BIG GUNS of We The People Of The United States. THE MOST POWERFUL PEOPLE AND COUNTRY ON EARTH.
This is why it is so critical that we do not lead another 50 million vulnerable, uninsured Americans into the forest of the wolves, without the protections of a Strong Government-run MEDICARE like public option. We The People Of The United States MUST NOT LET THAT HAPPEN to any more of our fellow Americans. If healthcare reform does not contain a strong MEDICARE like public option on day one. YOU MUST! KILL IT. Or you will do far more harm than good. And millions more will die needlessly. Rich, middle class, and poor a like.
To those who would continue to obstruct good and true healthcare reform for the American people, and who seek to trap millions more vulnerable Americans in the forest of the wolves. We will continue to fight you. We are prepared to wage all out war against you, and will eagerly DESTROY! you. Time...is...UP! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! No Co-op's! No Triggers! NO INDIVIDUAL MANDATES! without a Strong MEDICARE like public option on day one.
Healthcare reform can be the GREATEST! Accomplishment of our time and century. A time when future generations may say of us, that we were all, AMERICAS GREATEST GENERATIONS.
BUT WE MUST ACT!
I therefore call on all my fellow Americans and the peoples of the World. To join us in this fight so that we may finish becoming the better America that we aspire to be for everyone.
SPREAD THE WORD!
I have been privileged to be witness as many of you fought, and struggled to take your first breath, and your last breath on this earth. Rich, middle class, and poor a like. Life is precious.
Whatever the cost. WE! MUST SUCCEED.
God Bless You My Fellow Human Beings
jacksmith - Working Class
ATTENTION!! Congress Has The Votes Needed To Pass A Public Option - TODAY http://bit.ly/TCq7O
Things You Can Do To Help NOW! http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2009/09/tired_of_watching_people_die_n.html
A majority of voters would rather have a Democrats only bill with a Public Option. Than a bipartisan bill without a Public Option.
A state based insurance plan is NOT!! a Public Option. Nor is it a Strong, National, Medicare like Public Option.
No Triggers! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-rosenbaum/a-trigger-for-the-public_b_277910.html
Triggers http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/weve-seen-these-triggers_b_283583.html
Krugman on heathcare (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/)
Senator Bernie Sanders on healthcare (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSM8t_cLZgk&feature=player_embedded)
John Garamendi on the Public Option and the Grassroots: http://bit.ly/TJMty
Howard Dean on the Public Option http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SKfW2dUnow&feature=player_embedded
We're Number 37! in quality of health care http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4&feature=player_embedded
Twitter search (#welovethenhs #NHS #hc09 #hcr #healthcar #obama #p2 #topprog #) Check it out.
Posted by: jacksmith on October 19, 2009 10:47 AMIf you only got your news from outlets like the New York Times, you would have never known the whole story about Van Jones before he "stepped down".
There's a bunch of media lapdogs, and then there's Fox News and the internet and talk radio, which fortunately, Obama can't control.
Posted by: Palouse on October 19, 2009 03:20 PMThere is only one winner in this battle, and that's FOX News.
Posted by: Gary on October 19, 2009 03:37 PMI mean, when you write:
Obama -- who is guilty of the same thing, of course -- is causing even more division in this country by actively pursuing it, in order to exploit it for political gains.
that pretty much says that Obama is the ONLY one that's "causing even more division". When -- repeatedly! -- conservatives have remarked that this would be a great way to cause damage to the administration, no one in good conscience can say that this is being pursued for political exploitation by Obama alone. If you ignore that fact, you're not telling the whole story.
I mean, when you write:
If Bush had done any of these things, the left would have gone completely nuts over it. But when Obama does it, that's perfectly acceptable. Even desirable.
you could just as easily write:
If Obama had done any of these things, the right would have gone completely nuts over it. But when Bush does it, that's perfectly acceptable. Even desirable.
And in terms of Obama refusing to do interviews on Fox... how many times did Dick Cheney and George Bush do interviews with The Daily Show or MSNBC compared to Fox?
@11; Wow... how much can you lie in one comment? That's pretty priceless.
@15: FNC is the ONLY major news organization that is challenging the policies of this administration, so of course, they are trying to marginalize it.
And they're "challenging" the policies by inventing bald-faced lies about them.
Posted by: demo kid on October 19, 2009 04:46 PMShrug. Stop lying.
And you continue to lie, saying I imply Obama is the only one causing division.
No more warnings: stop lying.
Posted by: pudge on October 19, 2009 04:59 PMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct7TGWGWYzk&feature=player_embedded
Posted by: Tim on October 19, 2009 06:11 PMAnd no one will ever top the "bald faced lie" that CBS invented about Bush, and still continued to report despite overwhelming evidence that it was false by the way. How anyone could be stupid enough to trust CBS News after that, I'll never know.
Posted by: Palouse on October 19, 2009 07:20 PMMe thinks the main reason that the White House has their undies in a wad is because certain people on FNC exposed many of Obama's advisors as being far left radical Marxists who are corrupt to the core and don't have our best interests in mind. They didn't want the folks to know this. They realized that they have exposed themselves as being seditious and out to go against the wishes of the people. Fox blew their cover. Will that stop them ? Nope, they'll just go about more secretive until they get caught.
Posted by: KDS on October 19, 2009 07:36 PMObama hates FOX News because they're the only organization that is right.
By all means, Mr. President, I beg you to escalate this fight.
Their Communications Director worships Mao. FOX News told us this. Where the hell was everyone else?
Posted by: Gary on October 19, 2009 07:55 PMAnd Gary who said, "Their Communications Director worships Mao. FOX News told us this. Where the hell was everyone else?"
I watched it. I didn't understand, the woman quotes something Mao said-and that makes her a communist supporter?? She also quote Mother Teresa.
Posted by: Orypeci on October 19, 2009 09:14 PMWhat Obama didn't go on was the show Fox News Sunday, where he would have been interviewed by Chris Wallace, who is widely regarded as one of the most fair and responsible interviewers in the business. Obama was interviewed by him on that show before, and there were no problems.
The only reason Obama didn't go on was to thumb his nose at Fox News and its viewers in general, not because there was serious fear of unfair treatment. Don't believe the idiotic lies.
Bush was interviewed by NBC many times, despite the idiocies of Olbermann and Matthews and so on. If Olbermann were on Meet the Press instead of Russert, then he probably wouldn't have. And if Hannity were on Fox News Sunday instead of Wallace, you might have a point. But he's not, and you don't.
Actually Obama said: "I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it."
Big difference.
Posted by: Bruce on October 19, 2009 10:19 PMFalse.
Actually Obama said: "I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it."
Exactly. Thank you for proving me right.
You appear to take him at his words, that he is saying he is only refusing to talk to people who are attacking him out of politics instead of principle.
That's so cute, but it doesn't reflect the reality -- as has been proven time and again -- that the Obama White House pretends that if you are against his plans, you therefore have political motives. This is why they lied about the tea parties, calling them "astroturf." It's why Obama said in his State of the Union that if you believe that our Constitution limits the federal government, that you are "cynic" with "stale political arguments."
His whole M.O. is about diminishing the people who oppose him, engaging in ad hominem on a mass scale in order to win his political arguments.
Perhaps some of them exist, but I have never met a single person who wants to kill the health care plan primarily because it's "good politics." EVERYONE I have seen oppose it does so primarily because they believe -- for many reasons -- that the idea itself is wrong. Yet Obama doesn't "waste time" on the millions of Americans who have such principles, because he loathes the idea that people could possibly have a different view than he does.
I wonder if he can even comprehend the notion that millions of Americans just think his brand of health coverage for the country is simply wrong. I don't think he can. I think he is so completely blinded by his own self-righteousness and dogma that he can't understand that different people have different and valid opposing views.
That said, I agree with you that most opponents of Obama's health care plan sincerely oppose the plan. I'm not sure virtually every Republican Congressperson sincerely feels that way, though. But maybe they do. There. I managed to type this paragraph without saying how absurd many of their objections are.
Posted by: Bruce on October 19, 2009 11:12 PMIF I had ever done that, you would be right. But I never did, obviously.
And your defense is that I "appear to take him at his words"?
I have no "defense," because I have nothing to defend. I only explained what you apparently didn't understand: that you only paid attention to the words he used, and not what he SAID with those words.
No more warnings: stop lying.
Then where is a similar denunciation of the conservatives' roles in all this? I'd be more open to believing you if, you know, you were actually even-handed with this.
@28: Perhaps some of them exist, but I have never met a single person who wants to kill the health care plan primarily because it's "good politics." EVERYONE I have seen oppose it does so primarily because they believe -- for many reasons -- that the idea itself is wrong.
Yep... more naive than I thought.
@30: I only explained what you apparently didn't understand: that you only paid attention to the words he used, and not what he SAID with those words.
So again, just as with the whole "AmeriCorps is the new Brownshirts" debacle, you're putting your own interpretation on his words, and expecting that everyone should believe you? Really?
Posted by: demo kid on October 19, 2009 11:23 PMWhat do you mean by "valid"? Constitutional? Sincere? Moral? Wise?
And what would persuade you that Obama -- who throughout his career has discussed and often bridged multiple sides of issues -- does understand that some people sincerely disagree with him? Is he supposed to stop fighting for what he believes in because some people disagree?
Posted by: Bruce on October 20, 2009 12:43 AM-
What she said was the Mao was one of her favorite *political* philosophers:
"Two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa -- not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most."
I didn't make it up. I just listen to what they say. Liberals make up quotes about Republicans and then get mad when we accurately quote liberals. So, you said she quoted Mother Teresa.
What quote was that, and how is Mother Teresa a "political philosopher" anyway?
So, she has scores of great people to choose from, even Founding Fathers, and the great thinkers throughout history, and she chooses Mao.
What are we supposed to think? Don't you see a pattern yet. Is it just a coincidence that Obama surrounds himself with Commies?
So he's undecided on deciding.
I am talking about the PRESIDENT here, not everyone else. The President is unique and held to a higher standard. I compared Obama to Bush; and note well that I didn't attack the Democrats under Bush, either, who also had a "role in all this" too, because I am talking about the President.
Yep... more naive than I thought.
Thank you for finally realizing how naive you are.
So again, just as with the whole "AmeriCorps is the new Brownshirts" debacle, you're putting your own interpretation on his words, and expecting that everyone should believe you?
No, I am saying what he ACTUALLY SAID.
You are the one who is refusing the plain meaning of the words in context ... again. You're pretending there's this significant group of people out there who oppose Obama for solely, or even primarily, political purposes, when even Obama knows full well there isn't.
The proof is staring you in the face: Obama said he won't "waste time" with these people, and, in fact, he is not "wasting time" with the people who are trying to kill his reform for PRINCIPLED reasons. Use your OWN DAMNED LOGIC, the kind you tried, and failed, to use against me: if Obama didn't mean to include people who opposed his health insurance reform for principled reasons, why has he never significantly engaged them?
Bruce: What do you mean by "valid"? Constitutional? Sincere? Moral? Wise?
All of the above.
And what would persuade you that Obama -- who throughout his career has discussed and often bridged multiple sides of issues ...
No, in fact, he has not. This is a myth.
... does understand that some people sincerely disagree with him?
Maybe he does, but he still refuses to "waste time" with such people ... exactly as he said. And worse, he demonizes such people, pretending they are greedy, un-american, push "worn-out dogmas," and so forth.
GREEDY: Much of the money against health care reform comes from insurance companies who care more about making profit than health. They have every right to do that -- in fact, it's their main job as for-profit companies -- but if their profit-seeking is hurting the public interest, it's fair to call it greedy.
UN-AMERICAN: How has Obama used that term, if at all? I don't think he's used it to mean they dislike our country. But they are hurting our country's health and finances, so in that sense they're hurting America.
WORN-OUT DOGMAS: Actually Obama's use of this phrase in his inaugural address has been seen as a moderate message to both sides that he would seek to move forward on common ground. It is true that labelling your opposition as dogmatic is pejorative, but (a) has Obama done that? (b) I think the right has used the term "dogma" much more than the left lately, and (c) if anything qualifies as worn-out dogma, it's your sincerely-held but obsessive ideological libertarian belief in extremely limited government regardless of the real-world consequences. And while the difference between "principled" and "worn-out" is sometimes in the eye of the beholder, many Ayn Rand-idolizing, socialism-fearing libertarian arguments are, in the eyes of most Americans, worn-out.
Posted by: Bruce on October 20, 2009 09:17 AMHe is ordering news organizations what news to cover/not cover. And he's not telling them to cover dissent, is he?
False.
You view Obama through some sort of alternative universe lenses
False.
You want to be taken for your words alone, then you should pay respect to the president the same.
I do.
Playing by your rules, you have ulterior motives
False.
you fit the exact same scenario that you describe for Obama, which is "you agree with me or you are not part of us."
False.
Further, your agenda is "you agree with me or you are a liar."
Obviously false ... indeed, this is, in fact, a lie. You have seen me disagree with many people, many times, without accusing them of lying. You are lying: stop it.
You are accusing Obama of the very actions you have taken towards me and others who dare to disagree with you.
False.
But EVEN IF everything you said were true (instead of being entirely false) ... so what? I am not the President.
That's the thing you're neglecting here. Stop being so stupid.
False.
GREEDY: Much of the money against health care reform ...
... is completely irrelevant, in this discussion, to the fact that MILLIONS OF PEOPLE are against Obamacare based on their PRINCIPLES.
UN-AMERICAN: How has Obama used that term, if at all?
Nope, though his administration has directly claimed it. That said, he has implied it, by pitting "us" (Americans, who share a "unity of purpose") against "them" (those who don't).
I don't think he's used it to mean they dislike our country. But they are hurting our country's health and finances, so in that sense they're hurting America.
Exactly my point. It's an absolutely despicable view for the President to have, much worse for him to express it, as he does. Again, as James Madison said, people WILL DISAGREE on what is best for our country's health and finances, and it is the PRIMARY JOB of the government to PROTECT that disagreement, not to impugn it as "hurting America."
If YOU want to say I am hurting America by opposing stimulus and Obamacare, fine. We can disagree. But for the President to say, when it is his job to protect my disagreement, is anathema.
"The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is ... an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government." Obama not only wants to subvert our disagreement, he also wants to (by "sharing the wealth" and regulating all of the significant economic acts we engage in) diminish our diversirty of faculties.
Frankly, if I were to give him some Machiavellian advice, I'd tell him to stop trying to subvert our opinions, and instead focus on taking away our wealth and making us rely on the government, as he is trying to do more and more (and until you hear him disavow mandates, please don't imply I am making this up). More on this in another post, perhaps.
Obama's use of this phrase in his inaugural address has been seen as a moderate message to both sides that he would seek to move forward on common ground
Only by people who are not paying attention. The only "worn-out dogmas" he specifically referenced were on the right. He continued this theme later in his speech when he said, "What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, no longer apply." What stale political arguments? "[W]hether our government is too big." Oh right, he added "or too small," but of course, we know Obama DOES think our government is WAY too small, as he has drastically increased its size already and is working to make it far, far bigger.
It is entirely obvious (the "too big or too small" quote is a great example, but far from the only one) that he throws in those weasel words and tries to make it LOOK like he is being critical of both sides, all the while acting precisely as though he is on the one side.
Another example is in his book, where he talks a lot about how terrible it is to give false dichotomies to voters: either you have to accept this solution, or the other. He says, no, there's always other ways. And yet his push for ALL his major legislation, especially the stimlus and health insurance bills, have followed exactly that line of argument: either you are for what Obama wants, or you are for the terrible status quo.
Obama talks a good game, but he doesn't back it up with his acts. His acts inform us, retroactively, what he really (and obviously, looking back) meant. We know he didn't mean that it is irrelevant whether government is too big or too small, because he thought (and still thinks) government is way too small.
It is true that labelling your opposition as dogmatic is pejorative
I don't care about that. Seriously. If you want to call me dogmatic when I say the federal government is forbidden from running a health insurance company, that's fine by me, as long as you are not implying that there's no practical and principled reasons behind and for the dogma (some people believe "dogma," like "faith," is not to be questioned ... they are wrong on both counts).
What I object to is that he is labelling the founding principles of this nation as "worn-out" and "stale" and "cynical."
if anything qualifies as worn-out dogma, it's your sincerely-held but obsessive ideological libertarian belief in extremely limited government regardless of the real-world consequences
Yes, exactly, this sort of nonsensical belief that you share with Obama is what I am talking about, what I object to.
First, you're spouting a lie: I don't know if you believe the lie or not, but it is a Big Lie, that us little-l libertarians disregard real-world consequences. The exact opposite is true: we believe our principles have resulted, and will continue to result, in the best real-world consequences.
Second, again, you are calling the founding principles of this nation and its constitution "worn-out." It's hard to get much more nonsensical than that. You might as well reject the First Amendment if you're going to reject the Tenth (as you do).
And while the difference between "principled" and "worn-out" is sometimes in the eye of the beholder
They are entirely orthogonal. Your statement about the "difference" between them being "in the eye of the beholder" makes no sense. Something can of course be principled and worn-out, or worn-out without being principled, or principled without being worn-out. But I submit that the founding principles of this nation cannot be said to be worn out, not unless you actually go back and detail why and how.
And Obama never WOULD do that, even if he COULD, because he'd probably be thrown out of office if he tried: in order to do it you would have to deny the rule of law and the Constitution explicitly, while explaining how this was somehow not only justified, but required.
many Ayn Rand-idolizing, socialism-fearing libertarian arguments are, in the eyes of most Americans, worn-out.
Ayn Rand is not libertarian, she is objectivist. Please know what you're talking about. Many libertarians do admire and agree with Rand; I am not one of them. Most libertarians are not. (And if you actually knew anything about Rand, you would know most of her work was centered around describing the positive real-world results of her philosophy, so ... obviously you really don't.)
What a bunch of ninnies. My gawd, they're crying about Beck and Hannity.
Okay so, information the WH doesn't want us to know about counts as "not news".
Got it.
THANK YOU MR. TAPPER. This is something ALL journalists should be up in arms about.
Posted by: pudge on October 20, 2009 12:53 PMWe'll have a permanent "Press Czar".
Talk about unifying... this is an issue which should unite Left and Right alike.
I would expect that the vast majority of people--even those who presently oppose it--would support ObamaCare if they believed that it would in fact sustainably live up to all of Obama's promises and claims, and didn't have any nasty consequences that Obama would rather not talk about. Much of the opposition to Obamacare stems from the fact that the basic rules of economics predict that it will with 100% certainty have some very bad side-effects. A person need not try stopping a 50mph freight train with his bare hands to know it's a bad idea. The laws of physics predict with 100% certainty that in a collision between a freight train at 50mph and a person at 0mph, the person is going to go splat. The basic rules of economics are just as solid.
(note: Before you blame economists for the housing crash, etc. I would like to point out that the basic rules of economics predicted that the housing bubble was unsustainable; economists who used all sorts of fancier rules to justify the housing market prior to the crash did so to argue that the basic rules didn't apply--the crash shows that the basic rules applied in the long run to the housing market just as surely as to any other).
There is a need for health-care reform, but almost everything in ObamaCare will make problems worse rather than better. Government efforts to increase the amount of "affordable" anything nearly always end up being counterproductive in the long run, for entirely predictable reasons. It is hardly coincidental that in fields where government has already stepped in to make things "affordable" (education, housing, health care, etc.), costs spiral upward faster than inflation. Markets where the marginal cost to provide a good or service exceed the marginal cost to consumers are not stable. The only way to contain spiraling costs is to reduce the discrepancy between provider cost and consumer cost. Unfortunately, ObamaCare seeks to do precisely the opposite.
Posted by: supercat on October 20, 2009 03:45 PM-
Well said.
-
Well said.
I have yet to see anything Obama has done that would put him in the ranks of Mao.
And I think I should know. I've actually lived in China.
Posted by: Lenny on October 21, 2009 03:46 PMI actually LIVE in China now... About a block from Qixin Lu and Gudai Lu, out in Minhang district of Shanghai (about 11 km South of Hongqiao Airport, down South past Qibao city).
And from what I can see, the US will a much more fascist control of medicine, and is much more communistic in the treatment of people. Things like unemployment benefits, free medical, free housing, free food and the like from the State simply don't exist in "Communist" China, yet are accepted as normal in "capitalist" America.
Not to mention the extreme level of control - and ever increasing control - that the US Government exercises of businesses relative to that I encounter here in China.
Heck, I can watch Fox News over here in China; if Obama had his way I could not watch it when I am back in the US. Dissent is being more and more tolerated every day in China, you simply have to apply for your protest permit. Conversely, the powers-that-be in Washington DC seem hell-bent on eliminating dissent.
Not to mention that Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao aren't worshiped as gods, unlike the Obamassiah who is so elevated by many of his followers.
So, maybe 25 years ago your point would be valid; however, as I have said on this forum many times, China is rushing towards the freedoms and openness of America in the latter part of the 20th century; we're rushing head-strong towards the control and domination of China in the era of Mao.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 21, 2009 04:51 PMAnd yes you are right, companies are free-er to conduct business in China. But they treat their workers worse than slaves, dump multi-colored chemicals with cryptic and long names into rivers and constantly steal the intellectual property of anyone all just to make a quick buck.
People seem to forget there needs to be a balance between free enterprise and fairness between corporations and employees. What good is freedom when you're working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week for $2 a day? What good is the pursuit of happiness if a company dumped chemicals next to your house and now you're dying of Multiple Sclerosis? It clearly isn't in the companies interest to think of the worker if they can dump industrial waste into a river instead of paying someone to dispose of it properly. That's where government steps in.
So you can live in China. I'll stay here in an America in which the government actually has concern for its citizens. After all, isn't that what the US Government is supposed to do? Serve the people?
Posted by: Lenny on October 22, 2009 11:25 AMHealing broken souls of Americans sure isn't a "saviour-esque" thing, now, is it? And don't forget the paintings used by his acolytes, or the Nobel Prize won for the work he WILL DO to earn it (the promise of the messiah)...
But they treat their workers worse than slaves,
And you know this... how? Been to a Chinese factory in the last few years, have you? Want to come for a walk-through of Tianle, or GGEC, or Foxconn? Or how about a few dozen smaller suppliers? Do you know what the minimum wage is in China? What the overtime pay laws are, the limits on hours worked? And the penalty for avoiding those laws?
dump multi-colored chemicals with cryptic and long names into rivers
And doing so, now, will get you not just arrested, but probably killed (not shot, they now execute via lethal injection). Environmental agents are still few-and-far between, so some factories will run the risk, but most treat all wastewater discharge. Because the Government takes a VERY harsh view on pollution of waterways and water sources. Like die for polluting harsh.
and constantly steal the intellectual property of anyone all just to make a quick buck.
Good to know that I was dreaming last year when I used the Chinese Patent Office to enforce my own patent and trademark rights here inside of China! And that the customs office in China is wrong and that I don't have to get permission from my clients that explicitly states I can use their trademarks on products I'm exporting to the countries in which those trademarks are registered.
Seriously, Lenny, when was the last time you were here in China?
After all, isn't that what the US Government is supposed to do? Serve the people?
No, it's not to "Serve the People", it's to serve at the WILL of the People, and it's to guarantee the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. And it's increasingly denying those very rights in place of giving you what you think is Life, Liberty, and Happiness.
Government should not provide Life, Liberty, or Happiness; it should exist to merely protect what you are already granted by the Creator.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 22, 2009 01:59 PM