Obamacare

New York Times Editorialist, on "Kill the bill" chants: "It throbbed in the ears, like an infection."

|

For my money, the only redeeming quality of that little bylined "Editorial Notebook" slot at the bottom of the New York Times' unsigned editorial stack is that it provides brief glimpses into the worldviews of the people behind one of the most irritating Institutional Voices in the biz. In today's example, Lawrence Downes describes his existential/patriotic horror at attending an anti-health care reform rally outside of Congress on Sunday:

A few hundred Tea Party-types clustered on the south end of the Capitol on Sunday, trying to kill health care reform, fouling the crisp spring air with shouts of violence and loathing.

Wow! Those must have been some juicy direct quotes!

"Kill the bill!," the people chanted, cheering House Republicans who came out to the balcony now and then to feel the hate. […]

Kill the bill. It throbbed in the ears, like an infection.

Downes' only other direct quote from the allegedly loathesome violence-shouting was this:

The ones who had hurled racist and antigay epithets and spat at congressmen earlier in the day were lying low in the late afternoon. Now the crowd screamed, "We want Stupak!" Not to hail Representative Bart Stupak's staunch antiabortion convictions, but to take his head off for supporting the bill.

How does Downes know that protesters "had hurled racist and antigay epithets and spat at congressmen earlier in the day," and were now "lying low"? Unless he is somehow sitting on his best material, he knows no such thing–the reported, awful-if-true outbursts, the details of which are under dispute, took place the day before. Also, the only person in this tale talking about taking anyone's "head off" is the author. And I'll give Downes $100 out of my own pocket if he believes Bart Stupak's "antiabortion convictions" are worth hailing; it is neither an inscrutable head-scratcher nor an act of hypocrisy that protesters who were gathered in opposition to a monumental piece of legislation would focus their ire on the guy whose vote-switch sealed the deal.

Surely, though, an eyewitness so shaken by what he experienced can bring some other evidence of loathesomeness to bear? Well, here it is:

Instead of pitchforks, they hoisted revolting signs. Some showed Barack Obama as a whiteface Joker, and some as Mao and Hitler. The Democrats were traitors and vermin; "government" was an evil beast. […]

The eruption had an underground source, ugly and not always unspoken. A huge spray-painted banner acknowledged it. A ponytailed guy held it up, advising "All Tea Party" on what to do "if u hear a racial slur": step away, point, boo, take the person's picture and post it on the Web.

Wait, what? The fact that a guy urged his fellow protesters to document and shame any bigot eruption is evidence and acknowledgment of racism?

Let me pivot here in sympathy with the author's worldview. I really do despise facile comparisons of American politicians to murderous totalitarians. I do not like political hyperbole (except when it's really funny). And given that multiple eyewitnesses, including American hero John Lewis (who did more to advance freedom in this country in a single afternoon than a thousand congressmen will manage in their lifetimes), have said they heard the word "nigger" shouted on Saturday, I'm inclined to believe that it happened, even if the only corroborating sources that I'm aware of (please educate me in the comments) were professional Democrats with a big stake in the outcome of the weekend's political events. Though I have written previously that in my experiences with Tea Party Nation I have seen almost no evidence that race is any kind of sizable motivator or policy concern, that doesn't mean there aren't individual examples that make me wanna hurl. Like this:

Photo by Noel St. John, 9/12/09

But here's the thing. If racism is indeed the "underground source" of public protests against a flawed bill that a majority of Americans disapprove of, then smoking-gun evidence shouldn't be that hard to come by in this age of ubiquitous camera-phones and maximally documented demonstrations. "Kill the bill" does not clear the bar, nor does totalitarian hyperbole, which has been a staple of political protests of every flavor certainly for the quarter-century that I've been covering them.

Once you've decided that your political opponents are fundamentally venal–not just on the opposite side of a policy debate, but motivated by the basest of human emotions–then when you encounter them in the disgusting flesh, you see what you want to see, and you hear what you want to hear. Even moreso when you're not actually there, and can instead extrapolate an entire broad-brush portrait from a single reported data point. See Paul Krugman's latest correction for how that mental process can play out, or if you prefer, refer back to anti-immigration types counting Mexican flags in the sea of Old Glories at the 2007 pro-immigration rallies, or pro-war Republicans during the Bush administration documenting every outrageous sign and T-shirt at International A.N.S.W.E.R.-sponsored rallies.

The inverse of this notion, obviously, works, too–when it's your own team, you don't notice the Mao paraphernalia. In fact, the pro-immigration rally on the National Mall this Sunday that Downes favorably compares the Tea Party gathering to featured at least one dude selling a bunch of Mao/Marx tracts, a data point that I'm confident escaped the attention of those many who wrote favorably about the event. And rightly so–it was just a guy selling books. But had there been a guy selling David Irving books in the middle of the anti-Obamacare rally Sunday, I'm confident we would have heard about it.

Democrats congratulating themselves today for smiting down evil racist protesters are exactly as impressive, to me anyway, as Republicans who hi-fived one another for making A.N.S.W.E.R. sad back in 2003. At some point, policy matters more–a lot more–than the worst behavior of the powerless fringe that most vocally opposes it.

And as I've said before, if the Tea Party movement is at all significantly a racial phenomenon, we will find out about it, and it will deservedly fail. With so many journalistic commentators dedicated to seeing racism even when the evidence they marshal doesn't show it, I have no doubt that any actual outbursts will be brought immediately to our attention.

NEXT: Shopping Teaches Morality and Fairness

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ahem: “Kill the bill!”

    1. Where’s Uma when you need her?

      1. Oh, nice.

        1. No, I made that joke last week.

  2. I hope those people don’t think that photo puts Obama in a negative light. People voted for him because he ran on the Robin Hood platform. I will tax the rich to pay for your services.

    1. That you’ve seemingly missed the greasy undertone in that placard is surprisingly reassuring to me.

    2. True, there’s nothing negative about insinuating that his policies are designed to benefit “The Hood”, a place in which people who share one of his races live (and in which white people do not)

  3. And as I’ve said before, if the Tea Party movement is at all significantly a racial phenomenon or if we can manufacture some I have no doubt that outbursts will be brought immediately to the Washington Post.

  4. If the Tea Party people are just racists, then liberals don’t have to answer their arguments and can continue to live in their own world. When you think about it that way, you see why the Tea Parties, at least in liberal eyes, must be racist.

  5. David Duke opposed the invasion of Iraq ; he even traveled to Syria to publicly badmouth America.

    If a single outburst makes the whole Tea Party racist, then David Duke…

    1. And of course, whatever David Duke’s arguments were about the war, the fact that David Duke was making them, doesn’t say anything about the inherent rationality or correctness of those arguments. If David Duke said that the earth rotated the sun, would be deny that because “a racist was making the point”?

      1. Actually, John, the earth doesn’t rotate around the sun, it revolves around the sun.

        1. Technically, the earth rotates as it revolves around the sun.

          1. Yes on all counts. I don’t really see any disagreement here…

            1. So Art, you don’t disagree that you, The Gobbler, and prole are racists because both you and David Duke think the earth rotates as it revolves around the sun?

              Personally, I think everything revolves around me, so as you can see, I am no racist.

              1. Well, then you obviously think black people and First Nation people and Asian people revolve around you.

                Bigot.

            2. Everything outside of earth moves in relation to earth’s position, if you want to count earth as a practical central point.

              1. There’s only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people’s cultures, and the Dutch.

  6. And even if they are motivated by racism, so what? That is just argument by ad homonym. Even an invalid source can make a valid argument.

    1. True, but unfortunately, the majority of yer typical averge `murican can’t grasp that. See, it’s consepshool, and lots of us can’t do consepshool-type stuff.

    2. If they are motivated by racism it would be reasonable to conclude that their arguments about taxes and other issues are being advanced in bad faith, that they are merely pretexts for attacking their object of hate. We don’t have to take bad faith arguments seriously in politics like we do in Philosophy 101.

      1. That still has nothing to do with the veracity of their arguments. You can call them assholes, but you still have to evaluate their arguments.

        Using their motives to dismiss their proposals just shows that you can’t defeat the proposals.

        1. Racism is both irrational and the extreme of social ineptness and viciousness. Why should we listen to anything a vocal racist has to say?

  7. *ahem* New Black Panther Party *cough* Louis Farrakhan *hock-patooey*

    1. Black people can only be racist when they are betraying their race by voting Republican.

      1. Thus proving what racist idiots so-called “black progressives” really are.

      2. That’s a load of shit, “enlightened”.

        1. Wait, wait… you’re spoofing. Cool.

  8. And given that multiple eyewitnesses, including American hero John Lewis (who did more to advance freedom in this country in a single afternoon than a thousand congressmen will manage in their lifetimes), have said they heard the word “nigger” shouted on Saturday, I’m inclined to believe that it happened, even if the only corroborating sources that I’m aware of (please educate me in the comments) were professional Democrats with a big stake in the outcome of the weekend’s political events.

    Thanks for pre-emptively pointing out the flaw in your reasoning, Matt.

    Are you really claiming that the only people in a large crowd who heard an alleged racial slur that no one can document were professional politicians whose personal political interest lies in discrediting the protesters, and that that is CREDIBLE evidence?

    1. But is that any reason to disbelieve it? In any sufficiently large crowd I bet someone shouts “nigger” at some point.

      1. Saying that it is statistically likely that a large enough crowd of people will contain at least one racist who utters at least one racial epithet is different from claiming that conclusive evidence of that racist act having actually occurred is the statements of politicians who have a vested interest in claiming that to discredit their political opponents, whether or not the act occurred.

        Or, as Matt said in rebutting himself yet again, With so many journalistic commentators dedicated to seeing racism even when the evidence they marhsal doesn’t show it,

      2. So it’s sort of a modified Godwin’s law.

      3. In any sufficiently large crowd I bet someone shouts “nigger” at some point.

        True. I believe statisticians refer to it as the Cleavton Little Casuality.

      4. A bunch of old men, I wonder how many of them can actually hear very well.

    2. @prolefeed, we had affiliates of My Daily Roast at the rally doing interviews with the protesters. In fact, one of our guys heard the racial epithet himself and directly after, the bigot was booed by the crowd and even signs were written and carried on the spot, disowning “racist remarks.”

      The point is, the comments quickly hit the mainstream media like a wildfire, and all day today, we have been hearing about the racist foundations of the TEA-party movement. Really, from my experience, it was an isolated incident. But both the media and Democratic leadership have perfectly contorted this into a sweeping indictment of the entire movement itself, which is cheap, untrue, and a typical political ploy.

      1. Funny how these Democratic politicians Matt cited failed to mention the crowd booing the racist. Did the politicians hear the single racist epithet, but NOT hear the crowd booing the epithet? Is their hearing that selective? The politicians are likely lying by omission by leaving out relevant facts that rebut their narrative.

      2. Hopefully, next time the protesters will beat the shit out of the guy. The media would have a hard time ignoring that.

        1. Double win if he’s a leftist plant.

          1. (Not just because they get to beat the shit out of a leftist, but because his affiliations are more likely to come out)

          2. “If”?

            1. It’s a word that states that a clause is conditional on the truth of another clause.

  9. Good one, Matt.

    Instead of pitchforks, they hoisted revolting signs. Some showed Barack Obama as a whiteface Joker, and some as Mao and Hitler.

    Has the left ever been more thin-skinned? “Oooh, the bad man insulted me! His signs threatened me!” What the left really wants is to ban symbolic violence. They’ll call it “hate crimes” and hope nobody notices that it’s censorship.

    1. They actually claim with a straight face that they never compared Bush to Hitler. Reason had a picture of a sign that had Bush and Hitler on it with the caption “different regime same shit” on a post a while back. And some liberal troll had the nerve to say “that picture was from Europe so fail”. No kidding. Never underestimate the Left’s ability to re-write history.

      1. Sorry. Stupid names.

      2. Especially with their penchant for getting rid of all the witnesses.

      3. Yeah but, you see, they were right. It isn’t offensive or hateful or “violent” if your cause is righteous. Comparing Obama’s treatment with George McChimpy Bushitler’s is just stupid and racist and dangerous.

  10. It throbbed in the ears, like an infection

    did the goggles do anything?

  11. Let me pivot here in sympathy with the author’s worldview.

    Bad Welch! You tracked that disgusting worldview all over this nice clean forum.

  12. John Lewis’ afternoon of advancing freedom is getting mighty close to even with his lifetime of taking freedom away.

    1. Give Lewis some credit. The man took a head-blow from a neanderthalic racist and parlayed it into 45 years of solid demagoguery. And as an added attraction, Lewis never fails to deliver, when called for, a throbbing, quivering, highfalutin, sweaty, Bible-thumping, hell-shaking, self-righteous harangue in favor of all things tribally mystical. He’d have done well in a carnival sideshow if Congress hadn’t claimed him first.

  13. Media elites and Democrats alike must undermine the credibility of the protesters, otherwise they will eventually have to compromise with them. It is much easier to disparage the individuals themselves and skew their motivations than actually address their concerns. I have been to a number of TEA party protests as an outsider, and never once have I come in contact with someone I suspected of being a racist or homophobe (not saying they don’t exist, but such individuals aren’t indicative of the movement itself).

    Yet the mainstream media would have you believe that all TEA party protesters are bigots with crazy ideas. It sells. It’s easy and requires no real investigation. And of course, it undermines a movement which they despise.

    1. Yet the mainstream media would have you believe that all TEA party protesters are bigots with crazy ideas. It sells. It’s easy and requires no real investigation. And of course, it undermines a movement which they despise.

      Does anyone remember if proponents and apologists for the invasion of Iraq painted their opponents as racist or anti-Jewish ?

  14. The left’s strategy is clearly to delegitimize the Tea Parties as bigots. Tea Party people know it and I doubt even the most racist Tea Partier would keep his mouth shut. If it was really said, then I’d think it was more likely a union plant.

    1. replace doubt with think.

    2. Well union thugs did call that guy a nigger and beat him up out in St. Louis. Despite there being a video of the whole incident, the media never covered that.

      1. Union racists doesn’t fit the template.

        1. Well, you see, racism is a function of power disparities. Unions represent disadvantaged classes.

          These conflicts are brought on by the capitalist class manipulating disadvantaged peoples into fighting eaghother instead of the powers that be. Divide and conquor.

          Unions could only be racists if they represented some powerful priviledged interest, which by definition, they can;t be. Therefore, it’s logically impossible for unions to be racist.

          1. If unions can’t be racist – and, despite all their other faults, this is true – then the tea party movement cannot be racist, either.

            INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS of either group, however, CAN be racist.

            See the distinction?

            Or, it could be union members *pretending* to be racists in order to gin up support for the liberal causes. False-flag operations are straight out of Ayers’ playbook – not that right-wingers don’t stoop to such tactics, mind you.

    3. I think the union plant is a possibility. It’s not as if they haven’t done it before.

    4. If someone indeed shouted ‘nigger’, he did you guys a huge favor, since it allows everyone to focus on what is at worst an isolated incident (or maybe some unifying myth like a union plant!) instead of grappling with the more substantive issue of whether or not there is an element of racial freak-out in the foundation of the Tea Party movement. It wouldn’t be unheard of for a political movement to fix its animus on a racial or ethnic group.

      1. It would be fairly unheard of for them to hide it so well when so many people have a vested interest in blowing any incident they can find into a national story.

        Besides which, linking them strongly to racism could backfire — a lot of people that aren’t racist but strongly agree with the TP may decide that racial tolerance and unwanted government intrusion/fiscally irresponsibility are intrinsically related — and most people have nothing to directly lose in a less racially tolerant society.

        1. I don’t know about that. I think there is an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in socialism, but it certainly hasn’t hurt the appeal of left-wing re-distributionist politics in Europe and North America. Actually, socialists dismiss any accusations structural, foundational anti-Semitism in their beliefs by waving it away in much the same way the Tea Party movement snarkily waves away any discussion of whether racial anxiety might – just might – be fuelling their membership.

        2. Sorry. I think I totally misread your comment, bad idea. On your first point, hiding racism is easy when it is normative rather than aberrant. That is, when racism forms part of the structure of people’s beliefs (i.e. Jews are good with money) it does not have to be expressed explicitly.

          On your second point, I would say a lot of people who may not be explicitly racist may have already decided that racial tolerance and government intrusion/fiscal irresponsibility are intrinsically related. That is precisely why the Tea Partiers are being scrutinized on the race issue.

  15. one dude selling a bunch of Mao/Marx tracts

    Like any astute capitalist, he knows where to find his target market.

    1. three words,
      Hemp rope Che,

      we’ll be rich!

      1. I bought three. It’s fair trade hemp.

        1. Was that hemp free-range, or grown in captivity?

          My pussy hurts. My parents named me Chad. I got picked on in school. It’s not my fault. Capitalism is enslavement. Whine, snivel.

          1. Your white person dreads are so sexy. let me give you a pity fuck.

  16. argument by ad homonym

    You’re a something that sounds like “rope”.

    1. ps- that’s not personal, John. We all know, by now, you think faster tyhan you type.

      “Ad homonym” struck me as particularly awesome.

      1. It it was actually pretty good. +1.

      2. I figure the only people who have any right to complain that goes beyond a basic free speech argument, are those that pay us to type. I have spotted three typos in my previous posts on this thread alone. It makes me wince, but the idea anyone else would have a valid opinion about it is laughable.

      3. Good post P Brooks. My comments may have indicated otherwise, but that was the real gist of what I was saying.

      4. I actually have a similar problem but not necessarily the same. I fully understand the differences between the two “yoars”:

        your = possessive of a personal pronoun both signular and plural

        you’re = contraction of “you are.”

        But goddamned if I don’t type one for the other all the damn time. It’s like the words make the sounds in my head and then they transfer to the keyboard and the homonym problems take over.

        As soon as I read it, the mistake becomes obvious (but for sites without an edit feature, unfixable) but somehow that’s like a different part of the brain than the one typing it.

        It (as well as other things) makes me look like a fool and so it annoys me.

  17. This reaction from the left, especially the left center that supported this corporate hand out of a bill, is quite understandable.

    Without fall back to the old civil rights narrative, in no conceivable way, shape or form, can they come out it being the good guys.

    It is a dictate of conscience that forces their hand.

  18. Not to hail Representative Bart Stupak’s staunch antiabortion convictions…

    Who knew regional airports help bring babies to term?

  19. And as I’ve said before, if the Tea Party movement is at all significantly a racial phenomenon, we will find out about it, and it will deservedly fail.

    Considering that most of the top white nationalist sites get at least as much traffic, and then some, as this site does, what does that say about the future of cosmotarianism?

    1. When you adjust for the number of FbI plants and SPLC trolls how much traffic do you really have left?

  20. At the risk of indulging in selective memory:

    Weren’t the ANSWER folks major organizers of many anti-war protests? Weren’t there, in fact, a number of anti-American signs at those protests?

    Is there any evidence, at all, that racists are major organizers or participants in the anti-ObamaCare protests? Outside of a a few marginal examples, Where are the pictures of racist signs at those protests?

    This kind of “everybody’s just as bad as everybody else” mutli-culti flabbiness doesn’t do anyone any good.

    1. On Chris Matthews’ Hardball today, the ubiquitous Pat Buchanan was one of the guests. He and Matthews reminisced over Nixon’s 1968 inaugural parade and the lefty violence Nixon experienced, including thrown eggs. Buchanan, alas, hadn’t the presence of mind to ask Matthews how many eggs have been thrown at Obama or Democrat legislators, or how the truly violent demonstrations of that day are morally superior to today’s peaceful rallies.

    2. RC — That’s a good point. I wasn’t comparing the influence of the two, but rather the tendency of people to cheer on legislation because it bums out the opposition assholes (or who they think the opposition assholes are).

  21. And given that multiple eyewitnesses, including American hero John Lewis (who did more to advance freedom in this country in a single afternoon than a thousand congressmen will manage in their lifetimes), have said they heard the word “nigger” shouted on Saturday, I’m inclined to believe that it happened, even if the only corroborating sources that I’m aware of (please educate me in the comments) were professional Democrats with a big stake in the outcome of the weekend’s political events.

    It’s been all way down hill for Lewis after Selma. He is the worst sort of race-baiting hack(particularly in local elections).It would be out of character for him not to be lying.

  22. So, if multiple witnesses to, say a wrong-door no-knock raid all said they clearly announced that they were cops, and that there was no way any of them would plant the pot they found in the house, and the owners obese and elderly lab was posed an imminent threat to their lives and needed shooting, would you believe them, even if the only corroborating sources were, you know, cops?

  23. To be fair, by progressive standards, the Tea Party is racist. Let’s say a progressive says something like, “All white people are racist, and it’s impossible for African-Americans to be racist.” What we hear is something like, “All white people want to keep blacks down because of their ideology, which claims that blacks are systematically inferior, and no black person could ever believe that whites or any other race is systematically inferior.” What the progressive meant was something like, “Whites, sometimes unconsciously, benefit from The System, which is biased in their favor. African-Americans cannot benefit from The System, because it is not biased in their favor.”

    Progressives have a different definition for racism. Now, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that; I’m pretty sure that you could find at least a few terms where libertarians mean something different by a term than the general public does.

    This one, though, is particularly ugly. It redefines an absolutely loaded term. Most progressives, I think, are somewhat unaware that they are talking about a different “racism” than their more conservative & libertarian counterparts. They say, “All white people are racist,” and then are confused when we deny that, since it’s pretty obvious that whites still benefit from some of the ways society is structured. And we’re baffled, because it’s equally obvious that not all white people believe that blacks are racially inferior to whites. So we talk past each other, with both sides getting angry about the disingenuity of the other side.

    I’m absolutely positive, though, that a number of progressive writers know about this difference and take advantage of it. Maybe not, but it seems hard to believe that every progressive blogger and writer could fail to be aware of this difference (though awareness seems rare on the conservative side, to be fair). So in this case, if Lawrence Downes is aware of the difference, he can safely say that “tea baggers” are racist, knowing that progressives will think it’s obvious, and moderates who are unknowledgable about both progressive code-talking and the tea party movement will hear, “The tea party hates blacks.”

    1. Go back to your own crappy Obama-loving board where you belong.

      1. Really, dude? You think that my comment above is supportive of the progressive view?!? Take remedial reading courses.

    2. This is founded upon a poor premise. The leftist who uses the ‘all white people are racist’ as an argument is aware of the dialectical nature of the words he is using. For him not be aware of this would make him less intelligible to anyone than a man from Mars.

    3. Of course we know that the conservatives don’t know what we’re talking about. It’s funny to laugh at them when we call them racist. Also, it’s useful. Getting your enemy angry is one of Sun Tzu’s rules in the Art of War.

      But, why are you telling them about this. Our tactics are secret. Conservatives never read progressive blogs.

      1. So, lying is acceptable. Not surprising.

        The lack of honor in branding someone a racist without proof, however, is deplorable.

  24. I’m not exactly convinced the pictured sign is so racist it’s worth a hurl. The Robin Hood thing has been played out by the music and black community for a while now. Lil’ distastefull, but no more so than other stupid signs of jokers and hitler.

  25. Today, I called out a dear — albeit ignorant — liberal friend on the gay front. She was trying to tell me, as a gay male, how I should feel about the tea party movement because of the anti-barney-frank-gay-name calling.

    Years ago, I once pointed out, to this same dear — albeit ignorant — liberal friend, multiple left-wing anti-bush, anti-war protestors wearing Che t-shirts.

    Recalling that observation to said dear — albeit ignorant — liberal friend, I asked “You want me to take offense to some jerk-off tea partier who calls me mean names. But, I’m supposed to feel all warm and gay inside about lefty protestors openly embracing a violent man who sent homosexuals to forced labor camps and, in many cases, played a hand in their execution.

    Um… OK.

    [For one of the greatest Reason.tv episodes, see http://reason.tv/video/show/killer-chic.%5D

    1. Wait, you’re talking to a member of a party that forced the resignation of a troublesome member by treating his sexual orientation as a scandal? Progressivism and liberalism are two different things in the long run, and we’ll find out all too soon what precisely we’re supposed to be progressing to (hint: It starts with a T and ends with otalitarianism)

      Every day, more and more, I regret thinking Jonah Goldberg was a douche for writing Liberal Fascism.

  26. I really do despise facile comparisons of American politicians to murderous totalitarians.

    Matt, in a previous bloggingheads post, you mentioned this. IIRC, you also included people calling Obama a socialist as an example. I can understand not liking the comparisons of Obama to Mao, but given that “socialist” has been used to describe (often self-describe) people such as Clement Attlee, Francois Mitterand, all the way to Stalin and Pol Pot, I don’t think it’s too hyperbolic to describe Obama as a Socialist. He’s certainly no Stalin, but his policies would fit in well with Attlee’s or Mitterand’s.

    1. Or Pierre Trudeau’s.

  27. Tis far better to foul the air with harsh comments than to foul the economy with disastrous government programs.

  28. Tis far better to foul the air with harsh comments than to foul the economy with disastrous government programs.

  29. Racist? Aw, their momma just dresses them funny.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.