Weekly Presidential Address - 10/24/2009

Really Lamar? Nixonian tactics?

So our dear, sweet, senior U.S. senator, Lamar Alexander, has been employing some far-right rhetoric in order to cuddle up with the teabaggers of his party. Today he excoriated President Obama for his "war" on Fox News, even going as far as to accuse president Obama of being close to adopting Nixonian tactics. Here's the vid:




Now, lets think about what the Obama White House has been doing. They have been taking verbal shots at the cable station that isn't even a real news outlet. It's an opinion outlet and the PR arm of the Republican Party. Repeat after me: Fox News is not a legitimate news outlet. As Media Matters has recently argued, it's a "24/7 Political Operation".

So where was Lamar Alexander when the Bush administration leaked the name of a CIA agent to get back at Joe Wilson (not the South Carolina representative) for criticizing the war in an editorial? Where was Lamar when the Bush administration was trying to prosecute the New York Times? If those aren't Nixonian tactics, then I don't know what are. This is just another example of CSM - Conservative Selective Memory.

Alexander is a disgrace. We should have elected Bob Tuke when we had the chance. Now we're stuck with this schmuck for the next five or so years. I don't care if this asshat walked across the state in a plaid shirt 30 some odd years ago. I once respected the man, but in recent weeks he's sold out to right-wing shills.

It's Not Racism, It's Paranoia (or, Why the "Racist" Label May Be Counterproductive)

The Democratic-aligned group Democracy Corps conducted a study to determine the motivations behind the anti-Obama rhetoric of the right. After engaging two different survey groups (one in the Atlanta suburbs, one in suburban Cleveland). Both groups consisted of older whites, but the Atlanta group was designed to be significantly more conservative than the Cleveland group.

So what did they find?

Instead of focusing on these intense ideological divisions, the press and elites continue to look for a racial element that drives these voters’ beliefs – but they need to get over it. Conducted on the heels of Joe Wilson’s incendiary comments at the president’s joint session address, we gave these groups of older, white Republican base voters in Georgia full opportunity to bring race into their discussion – but it did not ever become a central element, and indeed, was almost beside the point.

Very interesting. So what's their explanation?

They believe Obama is ruthlessly advancing a ‘secret agenda’ to bankrupt the United States and dramatically expand government control to an extent nothing short of socialism. They overwhelmingly view a successful Obama presidency as the destruction of this country’s founding principles and are committed to seeing the president fail.

You don't say?

I have a big issue with methodology here. Putting together a focus group isn’t the best way to go about measuring racial attitudes. Something tells me that complete strangers aren’t going to get together and just start making racist statements. Racism is most often expressed in back rooms amongst those who know each other well.

That being said, I’m getting so tired of this talk of racism. It does the left no good because it just feeds the right wing. They look at being called a racist as a badge of honor. In fact, given how often I see conservatives make comments like “I’ll probably be branded a racist for saying this, but…” or “... and I don’t care if you call me racist”, I’d venture to say that they are bringing up the racism stuff more than the left is in order to encourage solidarity among their ilk. Recently there was a sign at a rally that said “It doesn’t matter what my sign says, the media will call it racist anyway”. This is the mindset we are dealing with.

How many times am I going to have to point out the fact that the right loves to be ostracized? This racism label is just backfiring on the left. I know it’s a convenient label to throw around, but the fact is that it’s way overused and starting to become meaningless.

I readily acknowledge that I've done my fair share of accusing cons of racism, but I'm realizing that we need to be focusing more on debunking their distortions and fauxtroversies. The rumors they are spreading are FAR more damaging to to the president and the Democratic agenda than statements they make that smell faintly of racism.

I'm not trying to say that racism should be completely ignored. If something is overtly racist, then call it out. However, we need to stop fighting unnecessary battles and focus on HCR, climate change, etc.

Economists declare recession to be OVER

I wouldn't blame you if this little blip went under your media radar:

The US has been in recession for almost two years, but a new survey of 44 professional economic forecasters by the National Association for Business Economics has declared that the "great recession is over".

It says more than 80 per cent of economists believe an expansion has begun but they also expect the recovery to be slow.

Forecasters expect economic growth to reach 2.9 per cent in the second half of this year, without inflation becoming a problem.

This is great news. There is also some less encouraging news about jobs:

The association's president-elect, Lynn Reaser, says the labour market is still a concern.

"[Forecasters] actually believe that we will recover all of the lost output by the end of next year, but it will take quite a bit longer before we finally regain all the lost jobs, probably not before 2012 or beyond," she said.

Unemployment is set to rise to 10 per cent in the first quarter of next year, before edging down to 9.5 per cent by the end of the year.

As economists have been predicting for months, the recovery is going to be a slow one.

Notice also that the Dow is close to breaking 10,000 after dipping down to 6,500 in March:

A computer game only a wingnut could love

So I'll go ahead and admit it. I'm a frequent reader of Michelle Malkin's blog. I read it regularly just to get myself angry.

That having been said, I just noticed this advertisement on her site:

Now you can play a game where you can bring down the government. Wow. Just wow.

Church sign in Murfreesboro, TN calls Obama a "nut"?

From the Tennessean:

Bellwood Baptist Church pastor James Avaritt has never been one to mince words from the pulpit. The Murfreesboro minister is also turning a few heads with words on the Middle Tennessee Boulevard church sign: "ACORN, not the only nut in D.C."

WOW. So... just a one time thing right? This doesn't happen on a regular basis? Wrong. A Murfreesboro local had this to say:

"And that wasn't the first sign up there that was offensive," she said. "One had something to do with socialism and health care and another said something about a czar."

This sort of stuff doesn't surprise me. I actually think it happens quite regularly, or at least more than most people would suspect. Congregation members don't usually complain about political messages being posted on church billboards or being pronounced from the pulpit. Largely this is because most of the people in the congregation will agree with the sentiments being expressed.

However, every time a church does something like this, they are putting themselves in danger of breaking federal tax laws:

Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity by charities and churches by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one "which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

Unfortunately churches in middle Tennessee are too often engaging in political messages. Typically this sort of stuff happens in evangelical churches, where the congregation is heavily Republican. You won't be hard pressed to try to find an instance where a candidate has been invited to deliver a special sermon. Perhaps the senior pastor makes an off-hand comment during his own homily. Or maybe some volunteers are distributing "voter guides" after the service.

This past June at Cornerstone Church in Madision, TN - one of those "mega churches" - Pastor Maury Davis gave a lecture series entitled, "Our Civic Duty". In checking Twitter replies to Maury Davis' Twitter account, several seemed to indicate that he had spoken about the liberal assault on Christianity and had made politically explicit comments regarding President Obama. As of right now, Twitter won't let you search for Tweets older than ten days, but once they fix this I'll post some screen shots. In the mean time, here are a couple of screenshots from Maury Davis' own Twitter account:

Davis is no stranger to stirring political controversy, but his congregation is extremely defensive of him and any attempt to expose him is met with a great amount of hostility.

Now, are Pastor Davis and others breaking the IRS tax code? I'm in no place to say. In all likelihood, they aren't. It's hard to prove that a church has broken the law because how exactly are you supposed to define "participating" in a political campaign? Merely expressing political sentiments to your followers doesn't exactly mean that you're advocating the election of or defeat of a certain candidate. There is also evidence that the IRS just doesn't put a lot of effort into investigating alleged infractions. On top of all this you have groups like the Family Reseach Council along with Republican members of Congress putting pressure on the IRS in order to protect churches from having their tax exempt status revoked.

So don't look for any of this activity to stop at some point in the near future. In fact, you can look forward to an increase in covert political activity by churches, because many of them are feeling "persecuted" and just have to speak out. However, I'll save a rant about faux persecution for another blog entry.

Weekly Presidential Address - 10/03/2009

An imminent military coup against Obama to "restore" the Constitution? What?

So yesterday John Perry, a columnist at Newsmax, wrote a piece called, "Obama Risks a Military Intervention". Of course Newsmax scrubbed their site of any trace of this article, but luckily Talking Points Memo was able to save a copy of it:

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic . . .[V]iew the following through military eyes:

# Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."

# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.

# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.

# They can see that the economy -- ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation -- is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.

# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.

# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag.

# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.

# They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.

Yes, our military is so upset about companies voluntarily seeking help from the government (as opposed to Chavez-style nationalization), and are so concerned about liberal efforts to hold the Fourth and Fifth Amendments as sacrosanct that they feel a duty to overthrow the government. They are so dispondent about Obama's 10% increase of the defense budget and his efforts to eliminate obsolete, Cold War-era bombers that they will topple their constitutional leader. They will oust him because he wants to provide the military with better health care and decent veterans hospitals. They can't stand that he wants to ensure their educational opportunities after their service ends and that he wants to pay them more for putting their lives on the line. I mean, who can blame them.

Back in reality, what Mr. Perry willfully ignores is, well, you know - THE CONSTITUTION. That whole part about the president being Commander-in-Chief of the military. He also ignores the blatant hypocrisy and irony of using an unconstitutional action to "save" the Constitution. Is this sort of like how Bush "sacrificed free market principles in order to save the free market"?

Here's a better idea. How about you and your ilk get off your asses and vote? There is a mid-term election coming up soon. Obama's up for reelection in 2012. Hell, if the GOP takes the Congress in 2010, you could even get the House to impeach him and have the Senate remove him from office for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" (sorry - an affair with an intern won't count this time). Those are your options under the Constitution.

Mr. Perry also seems to be willing to disregard the strong and vitally important American tradition of a non-politicized military force. Department of Defense guidelines regarding political participation have been written to ensure that the military does not encroach on the U.S. political system:

Military Members cannot appear at political rallies in uniform. Military members are allowed to vote and support for whichever political party they choose, but they must not do so in uniform. Appearing in uniform would suggest a branch of service or the military endorses that particular candidate.

Military members may not use government facilities as a political hub. For example, if you are a uniformed member of the military who supports the Republican Party you cannot use your office or any other government facility to gather votes and support. For some bases and posts, that includes posting political party signs, bumper stickers and other obvious paraphernalia in your work center. Uniformed members are allowed to have bumper stickers on their private vehicles.

There's also this important guideline:

Active Duty military members cannot hold political office positions in Federal or State government, even if appointed by the President. Retirees can do so without restriction; reservists can do so with certain limitations. Active Duty members can hold positions in local civil governments provided that they do not interfere with military duty. If elected to a civil position, the member still may not wear a uniform while serving that position. For example, a military member may not wear a uniform during a press conference as the mayor of your local town.

Defence policy, schamense policy. So what does John Perry envision for a post-Obama government?

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Mmm... military dictatorship. Sounds appealing.

So they criticize Obama for allegedly creating an "civilian army", but don't have a problem with "skilled, military-trained, nation-builders" running the country. I guess this is just one more example of IOKIYAR. Also, they want to talk about "accountability-challenged"? How about they take accountability for LOSING the election last year. Apparently not only do some on the right think it is okay steal votes, but they would be okay with stealing an entire government. Do they think Americans are too stupid for a republic? Are we not capable of electing our leaders and holding them accountable?

Treasonous bastards.

Poll: Approval of Obama's economic efforts on the rise! (updated)

Good news you may have missed:

WASHINGTON (CNN) – As President Barack Obama gives a speech on the economy Monday in New York City, a new national poll indicates that a slight majority of Americans approve of the way the president is handling the issue.

Fifty-four percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey (pdf) say they approve of how Obama's dealing with the recession, with 45 percent saying they disapprove. The 54 percent figure is up 5 points from late last month but down from the 59 percent
who approved of how the president was handing the economy in March.

In general, Obama has been either rebounding or staying steady in the polls. This is just further evidence that the public is beginning to realize that the economy is improving.

UPDATE: Gallup came out some new figures:

Obama approval numbers are still healthy

Hmm... this might actually come as a surprise to some:

Fifty-five percent of Americans approve of how Obama's handling his duties in the White House, according to the CNN Poll of Polls, which averaged the six national surveys taken since the president addressed a joint session of Congress on September 9. Thirty-nine percent, on average, disapprove.

The 55 percent approval rating is almost identical to the 54 percent mark that Obama had in August, according to an average of national surveys conducted last month. "The early part of the summer was a bad time for Obama, whose average approval dropped 7 points during that period. But since then, his average approval rating has stabilized in the mid 50s," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

This is all pretty surprising. I mean, conservatives have been telling us for weeks that Obama is "tanking" and half of the country is in ruins. We're subjected on a daily basis to the assertion that the American people are "fed up" with the "corrupt" Obama administration. Just like with the death panel lie, they think if they repeat it enough, it will actually come true.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Thoughts on the Nashville rally at the Legislative Plaza

They sure have been holding a lot of tea party rallys here in Nashville. They've made it a monthly event. Unfortunately I've never been able to go to one of them because they are often at inconvenient times. Of course, I wouldn't go to protest. I would go to document what's going on and take lots of pictures.

Luckily the Tennessean provided me with synopsis of what happened:

Organizers called their event at Legislative Plaza on Saturday a patriotic celebration. It wasn't a tea party, they said.

"Our goal was to get the patriotic spirit back to where it was in the days that followed September 11, 2001," said Jeff Senters, treasurer of the Descendents of Liberty. "We can get back to where we were if we can put our differences aside and work together."

About 700 people showed up for the celebration, coming and going during the four-hour event.

Many held signs that proclaimed disgust with politicians and the president's health-care proposals. Some waved American flags. Others brought lawn chairs and kicked back, enjoying the music and the speeches by retired soldiers . . .

For Sharon George, a West End resident who's lived in Nashville for 37 years, the event was a way to show lawmakers that citizens are fed up with being ignored."I think people are frustrated," George said. "Surely our elected officials can see that. Not since the Vietnam era have crowds gathered like this." . . .

"I'm afraid of President Barack Obama's promise to change this nation," she said. "He spends money that we don't have to pursue this change when there's nothing wrong with our nation."He's never said anything good about this country. It's always, 'We got to change this and we got to change that.'"

So for a rally that "wasn't a tea party", it sounds an awful lot like every protest effort that they've been doing since, what, February? The same slogans, the same whining, the same signs saying the same things.

Also, their goal is to bring back the "patriotic spirit" of the post 9/11 days? That's wonderful! You know, when everyone rallied around the president and we all came together with a firm conviction to kick Osama Bin Laden's behind.

Unfortunately, that's not what protesters on the right are alluding to. What they really mean is that they want to create fear in order to scare people (just like they did for three years after 9/11), except this time they want to direct that fear towards getting people to oppose the current president. They know damn well that they exploited the fragile bipartisanship that existed after 9/11, and THAT'S why they want to bring those days back. These are the same people who once proudly proclaimed, "My country, right or wrong". Apparently that slogan no longer applies.

As for Ms. George, who thinks Obama has nothing good to say about the US, I seriously doubt that she's even bothered to listen to any of Obama's speeches. You know, like the one he gave at the 2004 DNC, where he praised America as a land of opportunity. He stated that "only in America" would his story be possible. She also doesn't seem to have heard the part of Obama's recent health care speech, where he praised the "rugged individualism" of the American people and our ability to put ourselves in one anothers' shoes. Those are just two examples.

What's even more telling about Ms. George's statement was her belief that "there's nothing wrong with our nation". Really, Ms. George? Is that true? Maybe the country's working just fine when it comes to you, but when I see insurance companies denying people coverage because they have a pre-existing condition, I think that's horrendous, and it needs to *gasp* change. When I see insurance companies intentionally denying people cancer treatment so that they can make a profit, I think that's wrong, and I want that to change. The system may be working fine for this woman, but for a growing number of people it just isn't.

I can't really blame her or those like her. They've been persuaded to believe that Obama wants to take the country in a direction that he, in reality, does not. Heck, if half of the lies about Obama were true, I would be out protesting as well.

Gibbs says Obama doesn't think tea baggers are racist

I thought that Obama had a "victim mentality" and a grudge against white people? Press Secretary Robert Gibbs sets the record straight:

WASHINGTON (CNN) – A day after tens of thousands of conservatives gathered in Washington to protest the policies of the Obama administration, a top White House aide said that President Obama doesn’t think the protests and the growing conservative movement against Obama are motivated by racism.

“I don’t think the president believes that people are upset because of the color of his skin,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.

I doubt that any at that rally believes this. Their zeal for being persecuted won't allow this. They have to believe that Obama holds a grudge against them because they are white. In the eyes of many of those in attendance, all black people walk around with chips on their shoulders, waiting for a chance to stick it to whitey. In short, Obama is racist because the right needs him to be racist. It fits the martyr storyline.

I think tea baggers need to look up the psychological term, "projection".

Freeper reaction to text of Obama's decidedly NON-POLITICAL speech to schoolchildren

Well, it turns out that the text of Obama's speech is hardly controversial. There are no attempts at indoctrination and Obama isn't trying to get them to join his "youth army." So those on the right must feel pretty foolish? Well, not exactly. Here are some of the reactions of the wingers from Free Republic.

I think they are setting us up. He is going to give a non-political speech that is inspiring. We are going to then be portrayed by his stenographers in the media as paranoid. They are going to then use the occasion to bury the Van Jones story (not that they ever really covered it)and promote socialized medicine because this and the birther movement prove we are all nuts and not to be trusted. I’m going to spend days wretching while the media play up this speech as one for the ages and thousands of schools change their name in his honor.

. . . .

No, Obama, you won't influence anyone in this household. we aren't dazzled by a pathoclicigaic, naricsiistic LIAR that is good for nothing.
You will NOT take over the role of a parent, no matter how hard you try to butter up kids. YOU, Obama are everything I would NOT want ANY kid to be. You are confused and EVIL.

. . . .

Word leaked out about HOW kids were supposed to HELP Obama and those lesson plans to be inserted into the classroom. He did clean up his act but the problem is his life is a LIE. He's been a FAILURE in everything has has done as President. He's a loser from a dysfunctional family and it shows badly. Look at what he dwells on - his dysfunctional childhood.

. . . .

I honestly doubt this is the original “message” he intended to give. He more-than-likely sanitized the speech to make the conservatives appear wrong in their objection to his attempt to influence school children. He is a con artist to max.

These responses just make me want to slap someone. I predicted that these would be the sort of responses the right would come up with.

If anyone else has come across some really wingnut responses, feel free to post them in the comments section. Should be good fun for all.

OH NOEZ!!! OBAMA WANTS TO INDOCTRINATE OUR CHILDREN!!!

Usually I'm able to laugh off the antics of the right. I laughed at the town hall protesters. I laughed at the "death panels." I laughed at the "secret muslim" e-mails. However, I just can't laugh about this.

HOUSTON — President Obama's plan to deliver a speech to public school students on Tuesday has set off a revolt among conservative parents, who have accused the president of trying to indoctrinate their children with socialist ideas and are asking school officials to excuse the children from listening.

The uproar over the speech, in which Mr. Obama intends to urge students to work hard and stay in school, has been particularly acute in Texas, where several major school districts, under pressure from parents, have laid plans to let children opt out of lending the president an ear.

Some parents said they were concerned because the speech had not been screened for political content. Nor, they said, had it been reviewed by the State Board of Education and local school boards, which, under state law, must approve the curriculum.

“The thing that concerned me most about it was it seemed like a direct channel from the president of the United States into the classroom, to my child,” said Brett Curtiss, an engineer from Pearland, Tex., who said he would keep his three children home.

“I don’t want our schools turned over to some socialist movement.”

Not only can I not laugh about this, but it makes me downright angry. It just proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no way you can reason with people like this. These NUTJOBS actually thinks that Obama wants to INDOCTRINATE our children. What. the. hell. Why do conservatives have to read evil intentions into everything our president does? I bet that they would even object if Obama tried to cut taxes for the rich ("Oh he's just so calculating, he's trying to get on our good side so that we all fall in line with his march towards socialism later on.")

During the Bush administration, Democrats gave Bush the benefit of the doubt A LOT. We stood with him on immigration reform, No Child Left Behind (well, mostly), going after the Taliban in Afghanistan, blah blah blah. When we opposed him, we opposed him on LEGITIMATE grounds. We opposed the Iraq war - not because we could, but because we had real concerns about a lack of evidence. We opposed his attempt to reform Social Security - not just because we could, but because we didn't want American seniors to be left without a stable income during their most vulnerable years. So here's my question to wingers: On what grounds do you justify your belief that Obama is trying to indoctrinate your children?

This situation is dripping with irony. The only reason that conservatives are worried about Obama's supposed efforts to indoctrinate kids is because conservatives themselves have been indoctrinated to believe whatever a few blabbering idiots says on talk radio.

One more thing. George H.W. Bush held a nationwide, televised address to students in 1991, so stop pretending like Obama's speech has no precedent. Was Bush trying to indoctrinate children? No. Did Democrats even try to suggest that? No.

Hey, conservatives. Your double-standard is showing.

Of course, I'm sure that Obama could bring conservatives on board if he would be willing to incorporate "My Pet Goat" into his address.

UPDATE: So the hysteria comes to middle Tennessee. Sumner County, no less.