Our Bigoted Country and its Black President

Matt Welch | August 11, 2009

Michael Lind has an interesting essay in Salon today puzzling over the overdog attempt to explain political opposition to Barack Obama as the product of white southern racism. Here's how it starts:

Back in the 1960s, Seymour Martin Lipset and Richard Hofstadter and other liberal sociologists, historians and political scientists, puzzled that anyone could support Barry Goldwater rather than Lyndon Johnson, concluded that Goldwater supporters were deranged. They didn't say so directly, of course. They said that members of the radical right were emotionally disturbed victims of "status anxiety." The evidence? They didn't vote the way that Lipset and other academics thought that they should vote. Therefore they had to be crazy.

In the decades since, far better scholars than Hofstadter and Lipset, for whom history and sociology are not exercises in partisan Democratic mythmaking, have established that Goldwater and Reagan Republicans often were highly educated, socially secure individuals who happened not to share the values of liberal professors and journalists. This scholarship has been wasted, to judge by the glee with which the liberal blogosphere, in the aftermath of the ephemeral "Birther" flap, has dusted off the old conservatives-are-crazy meme, and revised it to suggest that all white Southerners are crazy.

I don't doubt for a second that there were many southern racists who found comfort in Barry Goldwater's federalist and property rights-based opposition to the Civil Rights Act, and that some overlap remains between states' rights enthusiasm and bigotry. And I've never been fond of the "what-if-they-said-the-same-thing-about-blacks" school of reverse-gotchaism.

Throat-clearing aside, the thing that is genuinely puzzling to me about the "racial anxiety" school of punditry about town hall America and opposition to Obama is that the black guy won the election. I can't tell you how many people told me during 2007-08 that America was "too racist" to elect a black president just yet, and yet not only did Obama win handily, Americans like him a hell of a lot better than they like his policies. He's likeable! Especially if you're not a racist, i.e., if you're like most Americans.

The other day I clicked the link on one of Andrew Sullivan's Quotes of the Day, by former Colin Powell chief of staff Larry Wilkerson, and was amused to find this exchange, from a Foreign Policy interview published in October 2008.

FP: What's your take on the tone of the campaign?

LW: I was fully expecting the grand wizard of the Klu Klux Klan to arrive from Maryland and endorse McCain. I was becoming frightened that we were returning to 1968, when they assassinated Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. Those were bad times.

They were bad times. Also, we're not living through them right now. Nor were we during the 2008 election, it turns out.

It's always a weird transition to go from eight years in the wilderness to eight months on the winning team, but a little advice from those of us who are always on the outside looking in: Even though it's funny and useful to dig up the latest racist e-mail from some Republican dogcatcher, and even though the GOP deserves each and every bad-karma boomerang it gets from years of whipping up racial and homophobic ugliness, using those as a proxy to explain why the president isn't getting 100 percent of what he wants remains a little on the unpersuasive side. Particularly for those of us independents who Obama needs so badly.

And if race was truly driving the debate more than genuine anxiety over health care, fiscal recklessness, and the economy as a whole, why wouldn't the crackers be going on a rampage over the impending sovereignty/tribal council reorganization of Obama's home state? Is it just that they can't spell H-a-w-a-i-i?

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

wayne|8.11.09 @ 12:06PM|#

...have established that Goldwater and Reagan Republicans often were highly educated, socially secure individuals who happened not to share the values of liberal professors and journalists.

This is inconceivable to the libs. As far as I can tell, they see everything through the race/victim lens.

|8.11.09 @ 12:13PM|#

Well they weren't bitching about "fiscal recklessness" when their guys were in charge. Even if it isn't racist, it is purely partisan.

You can't argue that racism doesn't exist. So it's reasonable to assume that a black president will up the anxiety levels in a lot of Americans. And if ever actually spent time in rural, conservative areas of the country--and realized just how many people listen to Limbaugh (whose racial rhetoric only a hack could deny exists)--you'd hear some rather extreme ugliness.

Matt Welch|8.11.09 @ 12:21PM|#

Well they weren't bitching about "fiscal recklessness" when their guys were in charge.

Define "they."

|8.11.09 @ 12:21PM|#

I was fully expecting the grand wizard of the Klu Klux Klan to arrive from Maryland and endorse McCain. I was becoming frightened that we were returning to 1968, when they assassinated Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. Those were bad times.

Man- I hope this guy has a fainting couch in his office.

wayne|8.11.09 @ 12:21PM|#

Tony,

Nice to se that you cheerfully took up the liberal mantra, "...And if ever actually spent time in rural, conservative areas of the country--and realized just how many people listen to Limbaugh (whose racial rhetoric only a hack could deny exists)--you'd hear some rather extreme ugliness.".

I have a suggestion for you, Tony: Read the Salon article that Matt Welch linked to.

Warty|8.11.09 @ 12:23PM|#

Shut the fuck up, Tony. Obama's deficit is four time the size of Bush's, you goat-fellating mongoloid.

|8.11.09 @ 12:24PM|#

And if ever actually spent time in rural, conservative areas of the country--and realized just how many people listen to Limbaugh (whose racial rhetoric only a hack could deny exists)--you'd hear some rather extreme ugliness.

That's odd- I live out here in the hick-infested Wild West, and virtually every single person I come in contact with thinks Rush Limbaugh is a drooling, yammering imbecile (like Tony).

|8.11.09 @ 12:27PM|#

Define "they."

They is:

- The people yelling "socialism" and "we want our country back" (country back from who exactly??? These people didn't "want their country back" from Clinton -- and he tried to reform health care as well -- so it is conceivable that they have a prolem with Obama rather than just his policies).

- The GOP congresspeople that voted for medicare expansion and didn't care how to pay for it. (These folks also don't seem to care how much we spend on wars in Iraq/Afghanistan)

- The tea bag "patriots" who also didn't care about fiscal responsibility during the medicare expansion. (These folks also don't seem to care how much we spend on wars in Iraq/Afghanistan)

These people didn't bat an eye when GWB doled out "socialism" nor did they care about the deficit or how to pay for it -- cuz it was their side doing it.

I'm one of those who bitched non-stop about Bush's spending, but I can think of two perfectly rational reasons someone who didn't bitch about Bush's spending could bitch about Obama's:

(1) Obama is spending a hell of a lot more.
(2) Obama is spending it on different things.

But, clearly, only someone who was a toothless, inbred racist cracker could possibly think are substantive differences.

!</ </a>|8.11.09 @ 12:30PM|#

Matt, I believe homophobic is now heterosexist. Perhaps a ruling by Sugar Free is in order.

Warty|8.11.09 @ 12:30PM|#

These people didn't bat an eye when GWB doled out "socialism" nor did they care about the deficit or how to pay for it -- cuz it was their side doing it.

This point is brought up a lot, without explaining how it invalidates their concerns about Obama's fiscal fucknuttery.

For the record, fuck George Bush. Fuck him 1/4 as much as Obama.

|8.11.09 @ 12:31PM|#

There are so many levels of neurosis to the liberal opinion of Rush Limbaugh it is hard to know where to begin. What strikes me today is how every liberal thinks that anyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh must be totally enamored with everything the guy says and get's all their views from him. No one could possibly listen to him because he can be funny and daytime radio generally sucks. Nope, everyone who listens to him is a drooling brown shirt ready to bust windows in a new Kristalnacht as soon as he says the word.

Of course, enlightened liberals who listen to nuts like Keith Oberman or go to Michael Moore movies or read the crazier Kos diarists are unaffected and remain totally reasonable people.

I have a good friend who voted for Obama. When I made fun of him for voting for such a buffoon, all he could do was scream about how I get all of my opinions from Rush Limbaugh. Pathetic.

Obama's deficit is four time the size of Bush's,

Because Obama has to clean up Bush's fucking mess. And Bush played accounting games with the deficit numbers as well, something Obama stopped doing.

You can disagree with stimulus spending, but Obama felt something had to be done to stimulate our economy, and deficit spending is one way to go about it. Bush inherited a good economy and fucked it up. Obama inherited a shitty one and is trying to make it better.

|8.11.09 @ 12:34PM|#

"- The tea bag "patriots" who also didn't care about fiscal responsibility during the medicare expansion. (These folks also don't seem to care how much we spend on wars in Iraq/Afghanistan)"

We are still in Iraq and Obama is massively escalating the war in Afghanistan. Does that mean he has no right to spend money on anything else?

Tom, that is the dumbest fucking argument I have ever heard. Even if you are right that Bush was a fiscally reckless, irresponsible leader, that doesn't mean it is a good idea for Obama to be worse. It is just fucking nonsense. Either Bush running up the deficit wasn't that bad or Obama is just as bad or worse than Bush. But it can't be that Bush is bad for doing something and because of that Obama gets a pass for doing the same thing.

(2) Obama is spending it on different things.

Medicare expansion and health care spendind aren't that different -- unless you are trying to be an apologist for one vs. the other that is.

It's still fucking "socialism" based on the usage of the loonies.

This point is brought up a lot, without explaining how it invalidates their concerns about Obama's fiscal fucknuttery.

It doesn't invalidate their concerns -- it just exposes those concerns as disingenuous. If you are only concerned about spending when the other party is spending it, then you don't really care about spening, but about scoring political points.

Warty|8.11.09 @ 12:34PM|#

something Obama stopped doing.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

|8.11.09 @ 12:35PM|#

"You can disagree with stimulus spending, but Obama felt something had to be done to stimulate our economy, and deficit spending is one way to go about it. Bush inherited a good economy and fucked it up. Obama inherited a shitty one and is trying to make it better."

You can disagree with invading Iraq and Afghanistan but we had been attacked and Clinton had left a mess for Bush to clean up. Bush had to do something.

That makes about as much sense Tom. Obama had to do something doesn't mean he had to waste a trillion dollars on bullshit programs. The "need to do something" and the "rightness of what you do" are not related.

Warty|8.11.09 @ 12:36PM|#

it just exposes those concerns as disingenuous.

Well, of course they're disingenuous. Politics is the art of pretending to care about shit so your team can score a touchdown. GO TEAM BLUE WOOOOOOO

|8.11.09 @ 12:37PM|#

Because Obama has to clean up Bush's fucking mess.

If somebody's dog shits on your couch, dropping your trousers and shitting on top of the pile doesn't qualify as "cleaning up his mess".

|8.11.09 @ 12:38PM|#

Either Bush running up the deficit wasn't that bad or Obama is just as bad or worse than Bush. But it can't be that Bush is bad for doing something and because of that Obama gets a pass for doing the same thing.

You are absolutely right John. Now go tell your side that supported Bush's spending to STFU about Obama's.

It's your side that is trying to have it both ways. "THE LEFT" supports expanding Medicare, and was against the war on moral not fiscal grounds. It's your side that sat silentely when Bush spent recklessly, but found their voices when it was "the other" that started spending.

Unless you are trying to pretend that during the Bush years the Democrats all of a sudden became the fiscally conservative party?

John,

People who watch Michael Moore and Olbermann and read Kos aren't told by those sources on a constant basis that every source of news on the planet except them is in a massive conspiracy to oppress them. We aren't told to take our kids out of public school and cut them off from all sources of information except what right-wing religious and political demagogues feed them. I get complacent about Limbaugh, then I listen to him. Pure, scary, racist agitprop, and he has a massive audience. Maybe you're not a racist, but lots of people are, and they gravitate to the opinionmakers who confirm their prejudices.

|8.11.09 @ 12:39PM|#

If somebody's dog shits on your couch, dropping your trousers and shitting on top of the pile doesn't qualify as "cleaning up his mess".

It's gonna cost money to clean that shit up.

Warty|8.11.09 @ 12:41PM|#

If you go into debt to clean poop, you're doing it wrong.

|8.11.09 @ 12:41PM|#

"It doesn't invalidate their concerns -- it just exposes those concerns as disingenuous."

Since when does the motivation of the speaker have anything to do with the validity of the argument? People do the right things for the wrong reasons and make valid arguments based on selfish reasons all the time. Again, Tom that is complete illogical rubish.

"If you are only concerned about spending when the other party is spending it, then you don't really care about spending, but about scoring political points."

No, you are right half of the time. You get it backwards. The time to claim hypocrisy is when one side is defending bad actions by its leaders, not when they are attack bad actions by their opponents. Here, both sides are being hypocritical. The Dems thought the deficit was a threat to civilization when it was Bush's deficit and now that they are in charge see no problem with tripling it. The Republicans never said a word about deficits and now that the Dems are in finally have discovered there is a problem.

They are both equally hypocritical. The difference is that one set of hypocrites happens to be on the right side this time. If and when the Republicans ever get back into power and start to loot the treasury that is the time to point out their hypocrisy. Not when they are trying to stop the Dems from doing the same thing.

You can disagree with invading Iraq and Afghanistan but we had been attacked and Clinton had left a mess for Bush to clean up. Bush had to do something.

That makes about as much sense Tom.

You are too stupid for words John.

Obama is spending money to try and stimulate an economy that was in recession.

Bush invaded Iraq -- well I dunno exactly why cuz every justification turned out to be false.

Those aren't anywhere near the same. One had to be done -- the other was a choice Bush made.

|8.11.09 @ 12:42PM|#

If you go into debt to clean poop, you're doing it wrong.

Not necessarily. If you are already in debt when the dog shits you are going to go into more debt to clean the shit -- unless of course you would rather choose to live with the shit.

|8.11.09 @ 12:43PM|#

I see that Tom has gone all in on Obama and TEAM BLUE. You really want to die on that hill, dude?

Shorter ChicagoTom:

"Go Team Blue!"

Since when does the motivation of the speaker have anything to do with the validity of the argument?

The argument is dumb and wrong and the motivation is political.

|8.11.09 @ 12:44PM|#

"You are absolutely right John. Now go tell your side that supported Bush's spending to STFU about Obama's."

Tom that is complete nonsense and you know it. Seem my point above about the hypocrisy of both sides. Look at what you are saying; because the Republicans ran up the deficit, the Democrats should be able to do the same thing and not face any criticism for it. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. That is just playground 3rd grade argument.

Cal Lipigian|8.11.09 @ 12:44PM|#

What strikes me today is how every liberal thinks that anyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh must be totally enamored with everything the guy says and get's all their views from him.

To be fair, the people who call in to the show seem to fit this profile. Any radio guy can tell you that only the dumbest 1 percent of the audience have the time and the inclination to call into a radio show, but if you extrapolate those callers to his 15 million (or whatever) listeners, it does paint a scary picture.

"The argument is dumb and wrong and the motivation is political."

Pot meet kettle.

|8.11.09 @ 12:46PM|#

John,

It's Keynesian economics 101 that deficits are usually bad, except during a bad recession, when they are necessary. I know you think that's bullshit, but a lot of credible economists that Democrats agree with don't, and it's pretty hard to argue that the GOP has been fiscally prudent, well, ever in the last few decades. They not only tossed billions of dollars into Iraq for a phony war, they did it while cutting taxes--taxes they gave an expiration date to to hide the fact that they would create unsustainable deficits. And, as Tom said, they left the war spending off the books and thus had phony numbers.

If after all of this the one thing you measure your contempt for government by is the amount of dollars it's spending, then I'd say your priorities were seriously fucked up. Not libertarians, but sane people realize that without stimulus spending we'd be in for many years of economic misery. Now it looks as if the economy might recover after only one miserable year. Good luck trying to figure out how to give the credit to the GOP.

"Those aren't anywhere near the same. One had to be done -- the other was a choice Bush made."

Of course it is stupid. That was the point. But it is an example of the same logical fallacy you are committing. You are not even trying to defend the stimulus as effective or the right thing to do. You are saying "something had to be done and since Obama did something it must be right".

Let me put this to you again in case you didn't understand it before. The need to do something says nothing about the rightness or wrongness of what you do. "Something had to be done". So what? Something had to be done and Obama did the wrong something.

Mike M.|8.11.09 @ 12:46PM|#

Bush inherited a good economy and fucked it up.

Oh please. There are certainly plenty of valid things to criticize Bush for, but to claim that the collapse of the Dot-Com Bubble and the subsequent economic downturn was his fault is as retarded as it would be to blame Obama for the collpase of the housing bubble.

|8.11.09 @ 12:47PM|#

Typical Neoliberal Behavior from the Obama Admin

What?

Shut up Tony you are out of your element.

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Some people (regardless of which "team" they're on) need to have that tattooed across their foreheads.

Warty|8.11.09 @ 12:50PM|#

One had to be done

You're not stupid enough to be this stupid, Tom. Leave this shit to Tony.

You really want to die on that hill, dude?

That put this in my head. Thanks, asshole.

|8.11.09 @ 12:51PM|#

"THE LEFT" supports expanding Medicare, and was against the war on moral not fiscal grounds.

Except for the left that supported the war. Such as, every member of Obama's cabinet that was in Congress in 2003.

Xeones|8.11.09 @ 12:52PM|#

Tony, do you STILL not know what a libertarian is?

|8.11.09 @ 12:53PM|#

"THE LEFT" supports expanding Medicare, and was against the war on moral not fiscal grounds."

And of course they are staying in Iraq per Bush's plan and escalating the hell out of Afghanistan. It looks to me like Obama plans to take all the savings from the draw down in Iraq and pump it into Afghanistan. If Bush was bankrupting the country for wars, how is Obama not doing the same thing?

|8.11.09 @ 12:54PM|#

I see that Tom has gone all in on Obama and TEAM BLUE. You really want to die on that hill, dude?

I have done nothing of the sort. I am just tired of the stupid attacks and the lies.

I have lots of concerns about Obama and his actions/decisions, but the stimulus and health care reform aren't among them (especially since Obama isn't even calling the shots on health care. His deadlines have been ignored and his own party is uncomfortable with what Obama wants. How come no one is attacking Baucus -- who actually is writing the bill?? If people were honest they would call it Baucus-care)

But at the end of the day, I am liberal. I don't mind spending for the right reasons (and yes I think spending on health care for citizens or spending when the economy is in the crapper is proper and those concepts aren't out of the mainstream. Every first world nation does those things.) And I am not gonna sit back and allow people who only care about fiscal responsibility when it isn't their side spending.

Why is it so hard for you people to get that I don't have to love Obama to not hate his economic policies. I don't have to love everything or hate everything -- i can like some things and dislike others. It isn't all or nothing

He's broken lots of promises (especially about transparency) he is abusing states secrets, he isn't as good on civil liberties as I hoped, his position on the drug war leaves much to be desired. I completely disagreed with Bush and Obama about the bailout of the financial industry. I also didn't agree with Obamas actions re GM and Chrysler. I could go on -- but it wont matter. Cuz to the feeble minded, if I dare to attack the liars and partisans who are attacking everything Obama does, Im just another Obamatron who has drank the Kool Aid. Cuz that's all you losers know how to do -- project your own simple mindedness onto others and attack anyone who doesn't agree with your little world view as stupid/mindless.

hmm|8.11.09 @ 12:54PM|#

You can't argue that racism doesn't exist. So it's reasonable to assume that a black president will up the anxiety levels in a lot of Americans.

You omitted a quantifying statement and do the same thing a lot of people do. Because some people are racist or use race as a means to judge character the majority do. The idea of systemic racism is slowly being show to be bullshit. Instead it is individuals making poor decisions and not some over reaching conspiracy. I've been called names and accused of things based on my race by black folks. I watched a black guy accuse my boss of being a racist, before he knew his wife of 20+ years was black. (was a pretty awkward and funny moment)

And if ever actually spent time in rural, conservative areas of the country--and realized just how many people listen to Limbaugh (whose racial rhetoric only a hack could deny exists)--you'd hear some rather extreme ugliness.

I'd like to invite you to come visit rural Missouri. I can show you everything from racist rednecks to some of the largest black rural communities (mostly farming) outside of the deep south. My friend Cleo, a 64 year old black farmer with a 9th grade education, will be glad to tell you why a black president is a good thing and Obama scares him over a glass of sweet tea. (bring insulin you will be diabetic within half a glass) I'll have to translate unless you can speak country ebonics.(it took me a few years to understand everything he said)

The race card is no longer an indefensible accusation as it was in the past, and the reason the left has used it over and over. It's almost turned into a parody of itself. The people who use it over and over will realize it's lost its power sooner or later.
*this of course doesn't mean racism doesn't exist, just that screaming it exists to defend something a racial minority does against criticism is losing traction fast, thank god maybe Al Sharpton will STFU

|8.11.09 @ 12:55PM|#

Maybe someone should point out that Bush isn't president. Whatever he did is done. Move on. What Obama is doing, or proposing to do, is the question open for debate.

For example, Obama campaigned on a net reduction in spending. How's that working out?

Nearly trillion dollar annual budget deficits are far as the eye can see. Forget Bush, no president (excluding WWII) has proposed such spending profligacy and fiscal irresponsibility.

No wonder the Obamabots want to change the subject and talk about something--anything--else. Obama's proposals are indefensible in a free market, constitutional republic.

Apparently Obama's got other ideas...

Xeones|8.11.09 @ 12:56PM|#

TOM'S AN OBAMALOVER PASS IT ON

|8.11.09 @ 12:57PM|#

There are certainly plenty of valid things to criticize Bush for, but to claim that the collapse of the Dot-Com Bubble and the subsequent economic downturn was his fault is as retarded as it would be to blame Obama for the collpase of the housing bubble.

It's true that the economy hasn't been "good" for quite a long time in terms of increasing prosperity for most people. But Bush had 8 years to fix whatever was wrong and chose not to. I may not know what a libertarian is but I am pretty sure that if Bush had been a Dem you guys wouldn't bend over backward so much trying to defend him.

|8.11.09 @ 12:59PM|#

"I'd like to invite you to come visit rural Missouri. I can show you everything from racist rednecks to some of the largest black rural communities (mostly farming) outside of the deep south. My friend Cleo, a 64 year old black farmer with a 9th grade education, will be glad to tell you why a black president is a good thing and Obama scares him over a glass of sweet tea. (bring insulin you will be diabetic within half a glass) I'll have to translate unless you can speak country ebonics.(it took me a few years to understand everything he said)"

Black people are socially conservative as all get out. They vote Democrat because the Democrats have convinced them that Republicans are racist. They don't vote Democrat because they are in tuned with stuff white people like.

And of course they are staying in Iraq per Bush's plan and escalating the hell out of Afghanistan. It looks to me like Obama plans to take all the savings from the draw down in Iraq and pump it into Afghanistan. If Bush was bankrupting the country for wars, how is Obama not doing the same thing?

Well John, I personally (and the left in general) isn't pleased about Obamas escalation in Afghanistan. We would like to see a draw down. So I don't know what you are arguing against..since it's your side that would have a fucking fit if Obama left Iraq and Afghanistan. ("Defeatocrats" "Siding with the terrorists" etc.)

This is what I find so funny about your side's attacks. Your side makes it politicaly impossible for a Democrat to withdraw from Iraq/Afghanistan, and then attacks him for spending the money there.

And you think people are too stupid to notice the damned if you do, damned if you don't position you take.

I would rather see the money we are spending for wars go to health care reform. But since the opposition party would label him a cut-n-runner, he has to spend on both. Because the wars should stop necessary reform from happening.

|8.11.09 @ 1:00PM|#

"Cuz to the feeble minded, if I dare to attack the liars and partisans who are attacking everything Obama does, Im just another Obamatron who has drank the Kool Aid."

No Tom. If you make dumb ass arguments like "Because Bush ran up the deficit Republicans are wrong to criticize Obama running up a larger deficit", people are going to call you out on it. If you don't want people to think you are an Obamabot, stop defending the indefensible.

|8.11.09 @ 1:01PM|#

Maybe someone should point out that Bush isn't president. Whatever he did is done. Move on. What Obama is doing, or proposing to do, is the question open for debate.

So anything Bush did has zero consequences beyond his term? In 200 days, Bush's actions have all been invalidated?

Cuz the GOP is still blaming Clinton for shit today.

Xeones|8.11.09 @ 1:02PM|#

I may not know what a libertarian is but I am pretty sure that if Bush had been a Dem you guys wouldn't bend over backward so much trying to defend him.

Hatin' on Obama =/= defending Bush, nimrod.

Also, the part of that sentence after the "but" confirms the part before it.

|8.11.09 @ 1:02PM|#

No Tom. If you make dumb ass arguments like "Because Bush ran up the deficit Republicans are wrong to criticize Obama running up a larger deficit", people are going to call you out on it. If you don't want people to think you are an Obamabot, stop defending the indefensible.

What exactly is indefensible? Defecit spending during a time of recession/depression?

Mike Laursen|8.11.09 @ 1:03PM|#

I may not know what a libertarian is but I am pretty sure that if Bush had been a Dem you guys wouldn't bend over backward so much trying to defend him.

The first half of that sentence explains how misguided the second half was. Most of us were mercilessly hard on Bush, too. Except for a few regular commenters like John who are kind of half conservative/half libertarian.

|8.11.09 @ 1:03PM|#

"Well John, I personally (and the left in general) isn't pleased about Obamas escalation in Afghanistan. We would like to see a draw down. So I don't know what you are arguing against..since it's your side that would have a fucking fit if Obama left Iraq and Afghanistan. ("Defeatocrats" "Siding with the terrorists" etc.)"

You once again miss the point Tom. Where did I ever criticize Obama for his handling of the war? Nowhere. I have no problem with what he is doing and support him on it. The problem I have is with his supporters who ran around for the last 8 years screaming "NEOCON!!" and "No Blood for Oil" and "war never solved anything" who are now giving him a pass for pursuing what amounts to Bush's policy. That tells me that they never believed a word of anything they said and just wanted to use the war to tear down their opponents.

You're not stupid enough to be this stupid, Tom. Leave this shit to Tony.

What exactly is stupid?

Spending during a recession?

Cuz to the feeble minded, if I dare to attack the liars and partisans who are attacking everything Obama does, Im just another Obamatron who has drank the Kool Aid.

You just stated that he's done a ton of stuff you don't like, including some serious stuff in the way of civil liberties, state secrets, etc. What does he have to do to get you to stop supporting him? Seriously, does he have to kill your grandma on TV?

|8.11.09 @ 1:04PM|#

If you make dumb ass arguments like "Because Bush ran up the deficit Republicans are wrong to criticize Obama running up a larger deficit", people are going to call you out on it.

At the very least it means Republicans have no credibility on the issue. The last president and congress to actually show fiscal prudence were democrats. No one likes that the stimulus legislation was necessary, but most agree that it was. What do you think is the motivation behind the spending? Certainly not political. If it wasn't necessary would Dems and Repubs alike have signed onto it considering how unpopular it would obviously be? What's the conspiracy here? Is there anything Obama would have done that you wouldn't criticize?

Xeones|8.11.09 @ 1:04PM|#

What exactly is stupid?

Spending during a recession?

Um, yeah.

Warty|8.11.09 @ 1:04PM|#

Defecit spending during a time of recession/depression?

So, Tom, you think Obama will cut spending and balance the budget as soon as the recession is over?

Xeones, I don't know what you get out of talking to little Tony.

|8.11.09 @ 1:05PM|#

"What exactly is indefensible? Defecit spending during a time of recession/depression?"

Wasting 700 billion dollars on programs that are going to take years to do and don't have an immediate effect on demand, is indefensible.

Further, if you want to have a debate on the merits of the stimulus package, let's have one. That is the kind of debate we should be having. But when we do, defend the package on its merits and stop with the "Bush did it to, so no one has a right to say anything when Obama does it" bullshit. That is what makes you look like and Obamabot.

Mike Laursen|8.11.09 @ 1:05PM|#

Especially if you're not a racist, i.e., if you're like most Americans.

Not sure if racism is dying out, but it sure looks like African-Americans have moved up the totem pole a bit, with IllegalMexicans and Muslims taking their place at the bottom.

|8.11.09 @ 1:06PM|#

The problem I have is with his supporters who ran around for the last 8 years screaming "NEOCON!!" and "No Blood for Oil" and "war never solved anything" who are now giving him a pass for pursuing what amounts to Bush's policy.

Your complaint is a figment of your imagination
Just because you aren't paying attention, doesn't mean he is getting a pass.

The left is criticizing him for his war escalation.

Warty|8.11.09 @ 1:06PM|#

What exactly is stupid?

Spending during a recession?

Yes. Losing money is bad no matter what.

Xeones|8.11.09 @ 1:06PM|#

Warty, he's like that scab you have on your face that would heal if you could just stop picking at it, but you can't.

|8.11.09 @ 1:08PM|#

what amounts to Bush's policy

This is exactly where we're disagreeing. Spending to ease the pain of a recession and to enact health care reform is something we actually believe in. Spending on elective wars and for unsustainable tax cuts for the richest 1% are things we're against. I don't think we're being inconsistent. Not all spending is equal.

Mike M.|8.11.09 @ 1:08PM|#

The last president and congress to actually show fiscal prudence were democrats.

It was a democratic president, and a republican congress.

If you can't get this simple fact right, I can see why you have no idea what a libertarian is.

|8.11.09 @ 1:09PM|#

Yes. Losing money is bad no matter what.

So is simple-mindedness. Can you seriously not think beyond simple, present-term arithmetic? Tax revenue has dropped to historic lows because of the recession. If the recession were allowed to go on for a decade, we'd be losing a hell of a lot more money. That's the entire point of the stimulus.

"Your complaint is a figment of your imagination
Just because you aren't paying attention, doesn't mean he is getting a pass.

The left is criticizing him for his war escalation."

Yeah I am sure. They are going to run a third party against him in 12 over it. That is why there are still big marchs on the Whitehouse over the war. I love it, ANSWER had a march here in Washington last March, but unlike every other year when they marched on the Whitehouse, this year they marched on the Pentegon. Gee I wonder why.

Come on Tom. The left is as critical of Obama on the war as the Right was of Bush on deficits and big government.

|8.11.09 @ 1:10PM|#

I was talking about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Tony.

That is the kind of debate we should be having

You are absolutely right. Now if people would have an intelligent critique we could have that.

But when the argument is "Obama is trying to turn us into a socialist nation" -- or "our country is being taken away from us"-- then you aren't concerned with having a rational discussion -- just attacking the other side.

|8.11.09 @ 1:11PM|#

hmmm, I just drove across your state. Can you explain this:

What kind of name is this?

Is this a Missouri thing I wouldn't understand? In driving across rural areas, I'm used to Casey's and the mom 'n pops, but I wasn't sure what I was supposed to do at this place.

|8.11.09 @ 1:12PM|#

Seriously, does he have to kill your grandma on TV?

Hopefully, by pushing her wheelchair down the steps of the Capitol into traffic, while giggling maniacally; in whiteface.

Warty|8.11.09 @ 1:12PM|#

No one likes that the stimulus legislation was necessary, but most agree that it was.

On what basis do "most" agree that the stimulus was necessary? Magic? Because it "sounds right"? IS there a rational basis that isn't ex post facto credit-taking?

|8.11.09 @ 1:13PM|#

Yes. Losing money is bad no matter what.

"Losing" money is bad. Spending money to stimulate the economy and get people back to work. Not so much.

The big problem with the stimulus is that it should have been bigger and more money should have been spent up front. Not that it shouldn't have happened.

John,

The critical difference is Obama didn't start the fucking wars. As with the economy, his job is to clean up Bush's mess. Is it all that shocking that his supporters are giving him time to do these rather daunting tasks before mercilessly savaging him? I think a lot of people are just grateful to have a president who's not a country-destroying simpleton. As cynical as I got over the last 8 years that's enough to keep me going for a while.

|8.11.09 @ 1:15PM|#

On what basis do "most" agree that the stimulus was necessary?

Most economists agree that the stimulus was necessary to prevent a recession from becoming a full blown depression. Deficit spending during times of economic crisis is actually pretty mainstream thinking. Why are you people pretending that this isn't so?

Warty|8.11.09 @ 1:15PM|#

"Losing" money is bad. Spending money to stimulate the economy and get people back to work. Not so much.

Right, if we dig and fill in enough ditches, we'll all get rich.

|8.11.09 @ 1:17PM|#

Warty, it's better than "If we cut enough billionaires' taxes, we'll all get rich."

|8.11.09 @ 1:18PM|#

As with the economy, his job is to clean up Bush's mess. Is it all that shocking that his supporters are giving him time to do these rather daunting tasks before mercilessly savaging him?

Exactly -- he has been in office 200 days. Not even one year. And he was handed quite a few lemons. (Bush on the other hand was in Iraq for 4+ years and we were constantly "turning corners" and his dead ender supporters didn't bat an eyelash -- at least the left is criticizing him even if they aren't looking for a primary opponent)

Now I wont say Obama's lemonade tastes great, but I am gonna wait a little while longer before making up my mind. And I am gonna give him a real chance before I decide that he has failed.

Warty|8.11.09 @ 1:20PM|#

aND TEH CORPURATUNS!!

|8.11.09 @ 1:20PM|#

Most economists agree that the stimulus was necessary to prevent a recession from becoming a full blown depression.

So magic it is!

Deficit spending during times of economic crisis is actually pretty mainstream thinking. Why are you people pretending that this isn't so?

I seem to remember quite a lot of hue and cry about (what in today's terms would be pauper's sums) deficit spending in the '80s. So is "mainstream" only so when it's your team thinking it?

|8.11.09 @ 1:21PM|#

Right, if we dig and fill in enough ditches, we'll all get rich.

No one is digging ditches to fill them in. This is exactly that type of bullshit sloganerring that is indicative of a dishonest debate.

Infrastructure spending puts people to work (esp. in the construction sector which has been hit pretty badly by the housing bubble popping). There is nothing wrong with spending on road construction or transit lines or high speed rail. That is hardly "digging ditches and filling them in"

If you put people to work, the economy will recover because people will feel more confident and be willing to spend that money.

wayne|8.11.09 @ 1:21PM|#

The critical difference is Obama didn't start the fucking wars...

Good point, but we had no control over Al Quaida's actions when they started the war.

Warty|8.11.09 @ 1:23PM|#

If you put people to work, the economy will recover because people will feel more confident and be willing to spend that money.

What was that about bullshit sloganeering?

|8.11.09 @ 1:23PM|#

So is "mainstream" only so when it's your team thinking it?

What's your point exactly? that politicians score political points?

Cuz what you seem to be saying is that both left and right throughout history have engaged in deficit spending during economic hard times -- so you prove my point. It is mainstream thinking.

|8.11.09 @ 1:26PM|#

Bush inherited a good economy and fucked it up.

No, actually, Bush inherited a bubble economy on its way into a recession and fucked it up.

I'm trying to determine the exact point at which Tom turned into a troll.

|8.11.09 @ 1:29PM|#

I'm trying to determine the exact point at which Tom turned into a troll.

He just can't bear to see Tinkerbell die.

Mike Laursen|8.11.09 @ 1:30PM|#

There is nothing wrong with spending on road construction or transit lines or high speed rail.

Hard to make a generic statement about road construction projects. We'd have to look at the merits of each one. But that goes both ways. You can't categorically say that all these projects are worthwhile, or even that you know what percentage of them is worthwhile.

Most transit projects are demonstrable wastes of wealth. They cost too much and are underutilized. Waste hurts the economy.

And high-speed rail. Well, we'll have to see an actual project built to see if it turns out to be a waste or not. Again, though, that goes both ways. You can't provide any hard evidence that high-speed rail projects in America would be worthwhile.

Ska|8.11.09 @ 1:31PM|#

TOM'S A NOB ANAL LOVER PASS IT ON

|8.11.09 @ 1:31PM|#

Cuz what you seem to be saying is that both left and right throughout history have engaged in deficit spending during economic hard times -- so you prove my point. It is mainstream thinking.

So your team was saying, back in the '80s, "Well, it may be mainstream thinking, but this deficit spending has to go!"?

So, again, what other than ex post facto credit-taking is proof that a) this recession was prevented from becoming a depression or b) accelerating the deficit now for benefits that may or may not be realized long after typical recessions work themselves out was a good use of money?

Magic?

nj|8.11.09 @ 1:34PM|#

It is important to note that John is not a libertarian, he is a conservative

|8.11.09 @ 1:36PM|#

As a more specific example: what good will spending a ton of money on high-speed rail in the Midwest do when not a single job has been created in association with it (outside bureaucrats performing "studies") and the time horizon is much further out than right now? Especially now that you have signs of the administration starting to take credit for a recovery? If we DO recover in short order, do you cancel the projects and return the money (created out of thin air) to the Treasury (for example)?

William|8.11.09 @ 1:37PM|#

Racist appeals didn't get Ron Paul very far. He still has a lot of libertarian fans, though.

|8.11.09 @ 1:38PM|#

"No one is digging ditches to fill them in. This is exactly that type of bullshit sloganerring that is indicative of a dishonest debate."

No we are just buying valuable assets in the form of running used cars and destroying them so people will buy new cars. And we are building roads and bridges on the basis of what political chroney benefits the most rather than what infrastructure repair the country actually needs.

Sorry Tom but the stimulus's programs are having the same effect as digging holes and filling them in and in the case of cash for clunkers is a real life example of the broken windows fallacy. I mean hell, why not just buy and rebuild every other asset in the country? We could get all new stuff and be rich making it. Right?

!</ </a>|8.11.09 @ 1:39PM|#

Tony,

Pure, scary, racist agitprop, and he has a massive audience.

You either have no clue what those words mean or you are lying about listening to that show.

|8.11.09 @ 1:41PM|#

I would call William a troll but if you spend much time reading comment boards like Slate or WAPO where Obama supporters tend to congregate, his comments are what really pass for reasoned debate among the Obamabots these days.

Warty|8.11.09 @ 1:42PM|#

We live in a nation of Lefitis, John?

I wonder what they say about us.

|8.11.09 @ 1:43PM|#

One mantra that need to be re-examined is, "The 2008 US economy was Bush's mess."

Congress holds the purse-strings. Consider the make-up of Congress from 2006 to 2008, and you'll be better able to determine reasons for the "mess".

Consider the make-up of Congress from 1994 to 2000, and you'll be better able to credit policies associated with the "boom economy".

|8.11.09 @ 1:45PM|#

"We live in a nation of Lefitis, John?

I wonder what they say about us."

At their worst, ChicagoTom and Joe and MNG are fucking Plato's academy compared to the people who post on the leftwing boards. I am not kidding. Lefititi at his worst is an average poster.

Hit and Run really is a better board than most. Even our liberals are not that bad. There are other boards that are good like Volokh or Althouse and have just as thoughtful of comentators as Hit and Run, but their liberals are annoying trolls.

Tomcat1066|8.11.09 @ 1:47PM|#

Cuz the GOP is still blaming Clinton for shit today.

And they're a bunch of fucking idiots when they do that too. What's so difficult to grasp that the vast majority here blast Republicans too?

|8.11.09 @ 1:53PM|#

Digging holes and filling them in would still be more stimulative than tax cuts for the wealthy. The attempt here was to return the economy to health by spending money on useful things (rather than, say, a massive world war).

|8.11.09 @ 1:56PM|#

Warty, it's better than "If we cut enough billionaires' taxes, we'll all get rich."

So letting a billionaire keep more of his money to invest and thereby create jobs is bad and won't work, but having the governement take more of the billionaire's money to spend on pet projects will work?

Thanks for clearing that up.

Mike Laursen|8.11.09 @ 1:57PM|#

Digging holes and filling them in would still be more stimulative than tax cuts for the wealthy.

Not that anybody here is proposing tax cuts for just the wealthy, but you're just wrong. Tax cuts for the wealthy would be more stimulative than digging holes and filling them in.

|8.11.09 @ 1:58PM|#

If the deficit spending were being spent on things that were really necessary (and a legitimate govt concern), it wouldn't be quite so objectionable. There are plenty of targets for truly smart spending.

Our national electrical grid is teetering on the brink of collapse.
Many city sewer systems are in desperate need of an upgrade.
The DOT's bridge inspection and maintenence programs are in bad shape.

et cetera...but unfortunately these worthy targets of stimulus money are (1) nearly invisible to the public, and (2) not appropriate objects to be named after congressmen*, so they won't be funded. Instead we'll see plenty of rec centers and new bridges to nowhere.

Warty|8.11.09 @ 1:58PM|#

Shut the fuck up, little Tony.

Mike Laursen|8.11.09 @ 1:59PM|#

The attempt here was to return the economy to health by spending money on useful things (rather than, say, a massive world war).

You realize that most commenters here are against all these stupid, wasteful wars, don't you? You realize some of the folks you are arguing with (John) are not particularly libertarian, don't you?

|8.11.09 @ 2:00PM|#

* I would however support naming some sewer drains after Charlie Rangel and Chuck Shumer, though.

|8.11.09 @ 2:03PM|#

Mike,

Half the people here are wingnuts and you know it. Thoughtful libertarians are really few and far between, however much ownership you take of the site. Furthermore, when wingnuts go on their insane rants, they are rarely called out on it. Witness the freaking birther threads. Models of tiptoeing civility.

|8.11.09 @ 2:08PM|#

Don't let us stop you from arguing with the libertarians in your head, Tony.

Warty|8.11.09 @ 2:11PM|#

CORPURASHUNS WINGNUTS URRRRRR

|8.11.09 @ 2:15PM|#

The attempt here was to return the economy to health by spending money on useful things

You're slipping, Tony. You forgot to yell, "MULTIPLIER!!!!!!"

Krugman will be disappointed in you.

Xeones|8.11.09 @ 2:16PM|#

Tony, every birther thread on here that i've seen has resulted in birthers getting savaged, and rightfully so. In other words, your imagination does not make up for your lack of reading comprehension. Shut the fuck up.

I do have to wonder what kind of small, bitter, twisted person you have to be to think taking less money away from people falls under the definition of "spending."

Mike M.|8.11.09 @ 2:16PM|#

By the way, for you lefties like Tony and ChicagoTom wondering why some of us hate Obama as much as we do already, here's yet another reason why: he just lied through his teeth a short while ago in his New Hampshire town hall meeting.

In response to a question from someone about health care, he said that he has never supported a single payer health care system in America, when he is on record, on camera, on multiple occasions in the past saying that he supports a single payer health care system!

The man is just a blatant stone-cold liar, plain and simple.

Xeones|8.11.09 @ 2:19PM|#

* I would however support naming some sewer drains after Charlie Rangel and Chuck Shumer, though.

Dude, i don't even want my shit to get contaminated by proximity to those motherfuckers.

kinnath|8.11.09 @ 2:27PM|#

I see ChicagoTom has picked up joe's mantle and now chums the water with mindless progressive drivel in order to drive John nuts.

wayne|8.11.09 @ 2:27PM|#

Getting back on topic just a bit: How do you guys (particularly you liberals) define racism?

|8.11.09 @ 2:29PM|#

Really? You wouldn't give Schumer a Cleveland Steamer if the opportunity presented itself?

|8.11.09 @ 2:32PM|#

In response to a question from someone about health care, he said that he has never supported a single payer health care system in America, when he is on record, on camera, on multiple occasions in the past saying that he supports a single payer health care system!

I wish I had enough confidence in the Repubs to believe they could put those two clips side by side in an anti-Obamacare ad, followed by a number of other intended-to-be-soothing Obama soundbites, and maybe finishing up with Obama saying that the "public option" is sure to be inferior, because look at the Post Office compared to UPS!

J_B|8.11.09 @ 2:35PM|#

At their worst, ChicagoTom and Joe and MNG are fucking Plato's academy compared to the people who post on the leftwing boards. I am not kidding. Lefititi at his worst is an average poster.

I'll second that one John. Most HuffPo boards consist of:

(1) Goldman Sachs/Blackwater/Haliburton trying to rob us all blind.

(1a) Since 1980, the extremely rich, through deregulation, are attempting to create a world where few are insanely rich and the rest are dirt poor.

(2) Bush/Cheney guilty of war crimes.

(3) Obama is god and should you oppose dear leader's policies, you clearly are a racist RethugliCON (4th grader play on words at best) who receive talking points from Rush, the RNC, Faux News (cliché), or a number of any other right-wing sources.

(4) In all debatable issues, the facts always conform to the left-wing's view of the world (Colbert popularized this with "reality has a left-wing bias to it").

Special Mention: On occasion, you will see a post deriding Americans (not just Republicans) for believing in and doing some of the many items on this list. This slips out much more often in liberal postings. It isn't worth its own number, because liberals have smartly attempted to prevent this idea from being presented overtly. The only comparable posting on conservative sites usually involves ranting about the poor quality of economics education provided to Americans.

Cleveland Brown|8.11.09 @ 2:37PM|#

Really? You wouldn't give Schumer a Cleveland Steamer if the opportunity presented itself?

Oh that's nasty

liberal|8.11.09 @ 2:39PM|#

How do you guys (particularly you liberals) define racism?

Caucasian == racist.

wayne|8.11.09 @ 2:42PM|#

Caucasian == racist.

Sadly, that does seem to be the working definition.

Xeones|8.11.09 @ 2:43PM|#

You wouldn't give Schumer a Cleveland Steamer if the opportunity presented itself?

Absolutely not. He'd enjoy it too much.

hmm|8.11.09 @ 2:45PM|#

Is this a Missouri thing I wouldn't understand? In driving across rural areas, I'm used to Casey's and the mom 'n pops, but I wasn't sure what I was supposed to do at this place.

I got nuttin' dude.

City names here can be a little odd as well, although historically understandably so.

Knob Lick, MO

Mike Laursen|8.11.09 @ 2:49PM|#

Half the people here are wingnuts and you know it.

Actually, I'd say that we have a broad distribution along the sane wingnut spectrum. Anyways, you've apparently decided to take up residence here, so you must feel at home.

Mike Laursen|8.11.09 @ 3:03PM|#

Witness the freaking birther threads. Models of tiptoeing civility.

Huh? What birther threads? Lonewacko passive-aggressively hints that nobody can prove Obama was born in the United States and everybody tells him to shut the fuck up. That's civility?

|8.11.09 @ 3:03PM|#

Yeah RC,

All you need to do is run those two clips back to back with no comentary. Then end the commercial with "Obamacare. It is not what it seems" and nothing else. Don't step on the point. Just let the clips make the point for you. It would be brilliant.

|8.11.09 @ 3:04PM|#

The only birther thread I have ever seen was Matt Welch telling lonewhacko to shut the fuck up. What the hell is Tony talking about?

|8.11.09 @ 3:08PM|#

People who watch Michael Moore and Olbermann and read Kos aren't told by those sources on a constant basis that every source of news on the planet except them is in a massive conspiracy to oppress them.

Excuse me. Chomsky: Manufacturing Consent. Hello?

Warty|8.11.09 @ 3:10PM|#

Don't mind little Tony, John. He's so cute.

hmm|8.11.09 @ 3:21PM|#

Half the people here are wingnuts and you know it.

Well color me wingnut. You do realize you are doing the exact thing the article is talking about? This would be priceless and hilarious if I didn't think you were serious.

|8.11.09 @ 3:21PM|#

Tony is a classic troll. He's here to say things just stupid enough for us to engage him, but not stupid enough to actually stop feeding him. This is why you can't make him mad. He doesn't care about what he's saying in the least, just our reaction to it. Even admitting to being gay was part of this troll persona. It keeps most us from making the gay jokes that we routinely make toward straight commenters in insult them.

The person behind "Tony" is a masterful troll, but that's faint praise, much like being told you are an accomplished sculptor of baboon shit.

|8.11.09 @ 3:23PM|#

Hazel,

Nowhere on the left do you find exhortations to ignore the vast majority of mainstream thought and information.

Even though you don't understand what Chomsky was saying in that book, he is hardly the left's equivalent to FOX news and AM talk radio. It's an article of rightwing faith that most of journalism, academia, science, and entertainment are all biased against them, and therefore corrupt.

Xeones|8.11.09 @ 3:23PM|#

Sweet'n'Low, do you think Tony might be... Cesar??

Warty|8.11.09 @ 3:24PM|#

Toni's a queer? AWESOME.

|8.11.09 @ 3:25PM|#

It keeps most us from making the gay jokes that we routinely make toward straight commenters in insult them.

You sound like some wingnut bitching that the greatest oppression in the world is him not being able to say nigger in polite company. Why exactly should calling someone gay be an insult?

Mike Laursen|8.11.09 @ 3:28PM|#

Nowhere on the left do you find exhortations to ignore the vast majority of mainstream thought and information.

The Left looks down on mainstream thought all the time.

|8.11.09 @ 3:35PM|#

Nowhere on the left do you find exhortations to ignore the vast majority of mainstream thought and information.

For certain values of "left" and "mainstream", that's probably true.

Of course, for certain values of "right" and "mainstream", you could say the same thing.

hmm|8.11.09 @ 3:39PM|#

...but that's faint praise, much like being told you are an accomplished sculptor of baboon shit.

Damnit, so I'm not as important as I thought I was. You know how hard it is to find baboon shit in the Midwest?

Nowhere on the left do you find exhortations to ignore the vast majority of mainstream thought and information.

From my throne I can see the tide rise and fall, today I shall command it to not rise.

|8.11.09 @ 3:39PM|#

My query: I always hear the Bush tax cuts referred to by dems as "unsustainable" tax cuts. Aren't they only unsustainable if a reduction in spending has already been taken off the table entirely? Obviously, a real reduction in spending will never happen, but isn't anyone who uses this term just flat-out not even considering it at all?

Straighten me out on this one, Tony.

|8.11.09 @ 3:46PM|#

"The tea bag "patriots""

I have this odd reading disability. When ever I see the word teabagger or it's equivilent (e.g., tea bag "patriots"), my brain stops reading the drivel spewed by a useless cunt.

|8.11.09 @ 3:49PM|#

"We are still in Iraq and Obama is massively escalating the war in Afghanistan. Does that mean he has no right to spend money on anything else? "

Stop picking on our chickenhawk President.

|8.11.09 @ 3:50PM|#

Tony nuzzled his way into the tender folds of Jessica's labia. He worked his tongue under the nub of her clitoris, cupping it in a curl and working at the stiff deeper roots with the tip. A shudder went through her as he slipped his index and middle finger into her vagina. The ridges along the pelvic ceiling were clearly defined. She was ready for him, but Tony just stroked along the ridges, going slower and pressing harder.

Jessica wove her fingers through Tony's hair and tugged his face forcefully into her crotch. Her thighs closed around his ears. All Tony could hear was his own ragged breath. Sweetness and flesh and sweat and the burnt flavor of traces of urine mingled in Tony's mouth. He sputtered when her bucking orgasm slammed her mons into his philtrum.

|8.11.09 @ 3:59PM|#

"You are absolutely right John. Now go tell your side that supported Bush's spending to STFU about Obama's."

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I sure am paying for far more dog chow than I'd like.

hmm|8.11.09 @ 4:08PM|#

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I sure am paying for far more dog chow than I'd like.

Just wait for the vet bill.

|8.11.09 @ 4:10PM|#

"So anything Bush did has zero consequences beyond his term? In 200 days, Bush's actions have all been invalidated?"

I think the expiration date is 9/11. GWB was held fully responsible for that. So I figure a month from today, Obama has to assume full ownership.

|8.11.09 @ 4:13PM|#

"What exactly is stupid?

Spending during a recession?"

How about spending several times more than is needed, several years out is stupid?

|8.11.09 @ 4:16PM|#

"At the very least it means Republicans have no credibility on the issue."

Who gives a fuck you gaddamn idiot? We are stuck in a train traveling 250 mpg heading straight for a concrete wall.

Is there anyone dumber than you?

hmm|8.11.09 @ 4:22PM|#

What gets me is that the short run idea of spend now while it's cheap to borrow theory of Keynes relies on a long run ability to borrow, and ultimately a long run view. Which he or his followers don't believe in or don't really care about.

Now that's just silly.

|8.11.09 @ 4:49PM|#

They were given an expiration date because they didn't want to have to show how massively they'd grow the deficit if projected long term. They are tax cuts, which is in principle the same thing as spending. They didn't even try to cut spending to pay for them, and they didn't seem to give a moment's glance to the deficit. You're right, if you want both tax cuts and deficit reduction you're talking major program cuts. Now it's just a matter of figuring out which ones to cut and why, something Bush never bothered with because there is relatively little to cut that is politically tenable.

wayne|8.11.09 @ 4:50PM|#

Sugarfree, Superb, absolutely superb. What the hell is a "philtrum"?

hmm|8.11.09 @ 4:54PM|#

Sunsets in tax code are about as common as water. Bushes were large in comparison, but they were nothing vastly out of the ordinary. They are nothing more than political tools paying people now and paying for it later.

*|8.11.09 @ 5:15PM|#

Nowhere on the left do you find exhortations to ignore the vast majority of mainstream thought and information.

Ha! Ha! That's because "the vast majority of mainstream thought and information" is leftist.

Jim Treacher|8.11.09 @ 5:48PM|#

He's likeable! Especially if you're not a racist, i.e., if you're like most Americans.

And if you don't mind being constantly lied to and/or about.

|8.11.09 @ 6:00PM|#

"And if race was truly driving the debate more than genuine anxiety over health care, fiscal recklessness, and the economy as a whole, why....."

Gee I thought you were about to go on to explain the bastion of "he's a foreigner" opinion found in polling there. But instead you see health care and fiscal policies as the big driver for the attitudes of southern whites.
How brave.

|8.11.09 @ 6:28PM|#

Is it just that they can't spell H-a-w-a-i-i?

Eh, haole boy . . . you like beef? It's spelled Hawai'i.

JB|8.12.09 @ 1:01AM|#

Michael Lind is a racist fuck. The sooner he is off this planet, the better.

|8.12.09 @ 8:33AM|#

What the hell is a "philtrum"?

The groove below your nose down to your upper lip.

The Libertarian Guy|8.12.09 @ 7:48PM|#

"You can't argue that racism doesn't exist"

Nobody sane does that, Tony. It obviously exists. But the left has successfully marketed the following bullet points:

If you're against Obama, it's because he's black. No matter who is saying what.

If you're against Barney Frank, it's because he's gay. The fact that he fucked up on the housing-prices fiasco, and that he's just plain a shitheel liberal, has no bearing on the arguments against him. It's homophobia, plain and simple, even if the opponent has no homophobic tendencies whatsoever.

If you're against Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, or Hillary Hypenated Last Name, it's because they're women. The facts of their incompetence don't matter - it's misogyny, all the time, every time. (Unless the target is a non-Democrat female.)

As a local Dem put it, ALL criticism of Dems is based in the above, and he damned near followed through with his balled-up fist when I dared disagree with him - and I'm not even a Republican. They're that cocksure of themselves, they're in "we won, now WE get to go power-mad like Bush did" mode, and they don't give half a fuck what happens to America in the process, as long as their side wins.

That attitude - on either side of the far-left/far-right spectrum - is wrong. But it's SOOO much fun to watch.

The Libertarian Guy|8.12.09 @ 7:51PM|#

"They were given an expiration date because they didn't want to have to show how massively they'd grow the deficit if projected long term. They are tax cuts, which is in principle the same thing as spending."

Not if we practiced fiscal responsibility WITH the tax cuts in place. That's the key.

Liberals think of the economy as a pizza, and there's only so much to go around, and eventually we'll have to cut the box into pieces and eat that, too.

Free-marketers think of the economy as an opportunity to bake MORE pizzas, and eat those instead of the boxes they come in.

The Libertarian Guy|8.12.09 @ 7:55PM|#

"Because Obama has to clean up Bush's fucking mess."

Fair enough.

But how do we clean up Obama's fucking mess?

The Libertarian Guy|8.12.09 @ 8:15PM|#

"Why is it so hard for you people to get that I don't have to love Obama to not hate his economic policies."

Your side has effectively marketed the idea that being against Obama = racism, 100% of the time.

It's horseshit, of course. The ratio of genuine, actual racists versus simply being againsters, is a wide one. Fifty percent of Americans cannot be racist, it's numerically impossible.

Having verbally jousted with an actual, white-supremacist/Jew-hating racist, I should know. I stayed up many a night wondering if my tires were going to be slashed by this piece of shit:

Glenn Miller for Congress

So spare us the inevitable (if you haven't already) "if you're against Obama, it's because you're an inbred gay-hating racist redneck conservative". Some of us are just plain Americans who don't give half a fuck what color someone is, how they have consenting adult sex, or any of that other liberal talking-point shit. And we don't want our country turned into East Germany, Part II.

Got it?

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements