NPR: Joe Wilson, Massive Protests in DC -- It's All Racism!
Racism
| September 14, 2009
| Tim
Talk of the Nation, heard around the nation today around lunchtime:
Mr. DALLEK: ... I think there's a lot of anxiety about the possibility that this can explode in violence, this can explode in something more than just verbal attacks. And of course, we did have that terrible civil war in which 620,000 Americans perished. So there's a lot of anxiety about this kind of criticism or debate, dispute, erupting into something more violent. And in a sense, we try to put a lid on it by saying well, there should be less criticism, or there should be a kind of deference to the president....
Disagreeing about healthcare, protesting deficits, it's really all about race, and will soon erupt into a new Civil War unless people stop saying the president is wrong. No scare tactics or "playing on fears" here.
After a carefully-chosen caller (Andrea, an African American) asks if perhaps all disagreements are really about race:
NEAL CONAN: All right, Andrea, thanks very much for the call, and the same thought had occurred to us.
Gee, you'd never know from the last 25 minutes of suggesting repeatedly it was, um, all about race.
Indeed, we'd read about it in the Exploring Race column in the Chicago Tribune, which of course is conducted by Dawn Turner Trice, a regular contributor to this program who now joins us from member station WBEZ in Chicago. Dawn, always nice to have you with us.
Ms. DAWN TURNER Ms. TRICE (Columnist, Chicago Tribune): Thank you, Neal.
CONAN: And in your most recent column, you responded to Maureen Dowd's column from the New York Times on Saturday. And of course, she wrote that Congressman Wilson's shocking disrespect for the office of president convinced me some people just can't believe a black man is president, and we'll never accept it.
Joe Wilson didn't think the President had lied about whether illegal immigrants would receive healthcare. No, Joe Wilson only said "You Lie" at that exact moment because he suddenly noticed Obama had a different skin color than he. (Never mind the same "shocking" disrespect shown by Democrats who booed President Bush. It's only "shocking" when the left isn't doing it.)
CONAN: And I wonder: How are your readers responding to this?
Ms. TRICE: Well, readers - my readers, often say to me that they hope that over the next four years, we're not always going to talk about race and that race will not be a factor in the discussions, and whenever someone criticizes the president, why does it always have to come back down to race?
Because no matter what the subject or disagreement, NPR will consult with three white liberal sources (and then add a token black voice at the end) who will tell their audience that, no matter what the subject seems to be, it's really always about race.
Ms. TRICE: And I think that it's important - it's hard to tease out, as Andrea the caller just said, it's hard to quantify how much race plays a role, but it is - I mean, it is playing a role in this discussion, and we see it on so many different levels.
It's easier, more palatable, to disguise this - some of the uprisings as maybe a populist revolt, but there is something that's either maybe just a bit under the surface that speaks to - when people start to use words like - or phrases like we want to take back our America or that they're just so afraid of the direction that the country is going into. Now, I mean, you can say that it has to do with, you know, well, government/Obama has taken over the auto industry, or government/Obama is running up these ginormous deficits, but there's a part to that that may be code for: and there's a black man leading the charge.
Right. If a white man were running up multi-trillion dollar deficits, the right wing wouldn't mind it at all. The right wing, it turns out, are mostly in favor of huge deficits, but are only upset now because of the skin color of the President. (Similar disagreement with Nancy Pelosi, is, apparently, completely inexplicable.)
Who sees everything through a racial filter, again?
CONAN: And this is not - well, let me quote Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, who was asked in an interview about how much of the more-extreme anger at Obama, not just this incident...
Joe Wilson was only concerned about hating blacks, remember...
... but other ones, as well, is based upon his race - and she is no bomb thrower, by the way.
Saying everyone who opposes you politically must be a racist *isn't* "bomb throwing"?
As far as African-Americans are concerned, we think most of it is, and we think it's very unfortunate. We, as African-American people, of course, are very sensitive to it...
Keep in mind, this is a Neal Conan, a white man, talking...
... and I wonder if you're seeing a racial divide amongst your readership on this.
Of course she does: Her African American readers think all disagreement with the President is based in racism (who on earth gave them such an impression?) and their non-black readers, oddly, don't all share that same conviction....
And I wonder, Robert Dallek, those kinds of phrases that we were hearing that Dawn Turner Trice was talking about, I worry about the future of my country. I want to take my country back. Are those unprecedented? Is this a code language - the kind of code language we've learned to try to parse out in the past?
MoveOn.org and much of the left spent the last eight years yelling that they needed to "take their country back", and worrying about the future of their nation. But suddenly such words are really code for RACISM! And who better to tell us that than another white male left-leaning academic?
Mr. DALLEK: Well, I think they are. And I agree that - how could it be - not be an element of race and all this, you know? ....
Of course, there's an *element* of race in this. For example this entire NPR segment is entirely about race. And I'm sure there are a few racists on the right as well. But that isn't the impression we wish to leave, is it? After a comparison with Kennedy:
I think the point is very well-taken that the expressions we're hearing are kind of sub rosa expressions of antagonism to his being an African-American and that to the feeling that these other folks - or I don't know how to categorize them - but people who resent his presence in the White House, that somehow they feel pushed aside. They feel diminished and losing control of their country.
Right: Protestors aren't actually opposed to trillion-dollar deficits. They're not really against a single-payer medical system. Instead, they base their feelings of self-worth on the amount of the attention received from political classes (projection?) and aren't feeling like politicians are validating them as persons. Based on their racial identity again.
Keep in mind, readers: This is classic well-poisoning: white liberals having a disagreement with their opponents, not wanting to answer hard questions (see all the unanswered questions about healthcare) and so, instead, telling one of the groups they think they control: "No, really, don't worry your head about the deficit or any of those other silly details. It's really just that they HATE you based on your skin color. Got that?"
And racial harmony will only be possible if The One is successful with all his programs:
Mr. DALLEK: But I hope his presidency, frankly, will be so successful that people are going to say, well, you know, this issue of race is not all that important when you elect somebody to the highest office.
But weren't we previously promised that if we only elected Obama, all racism would disappear? Now we have to make sure all of his programs succeed too? And of course, that won't be enough either. The thought-stopping charge of "RACIST!" is too potent for the left ever to give up. Without it, they'd have to debate the substance of policies and defend their actions.
So instead, here is NPR, as usual, post-Obama election, still turning every single policy dispute into an opportunity for fearmongering and race-baiting.
CONAN: Go ahead, Dawn.
Ms. TRICE: I'm sorry. Neal, I have readers who have said to me that Obama is going to look after blacks, and he will - he's going to turn the country into a welfare state. And if you look beyond the absurdity of this, it's really fear. And the talk about the - you know, as we said, we need to take back our country, there's a contingent of the population that's just afraid that a black man will sympathize more with blacks than with whites and they will be left to fend for themselves.
Because, you know, the right wingers really want a president who sympathizes with them (In bed: "Martha, do you think the President is sympathizing with us enough right now, instead of those black people?") and thinks the right wing is afraid to "fend for themselves" without lots of help from the US president and government.
Yes, Ms. Trice, that IS exactly how the right wing thinks. They constantly want to know the president is having warm feelings for them and taking care of their every need. That's exactly what motivates the small-government crowd.
Well, enough of that. NPR uses your taxes to churn out endless quantities of such toxic hate speech.
Do you image you disagree with ANY of Obama's policies? Well, you don't really. NPR is telling their national listeners that under the surface, you're just an unreconstructed bigot who's one TEA party away from starting a race-based Civil War to reinstall slavery and oppress blacks. While accusing their opponents of "race-baiting" and "fearmongering", NPR and others are using absolutely shameless tactics to scare African Americans out of their minds about anyone who has a disagreement with the President.
Why can't we get past race and on to matters of policy? Can't imagine.
South Carolina has a long list of dignitaries that includes Lauren Caitlin Upton (Miss Teen USA 2007 pageant contestant), Board of Education Chair, Kristin Maguire, Governor (and avid Appalachian hiker), Mark Sanford and now Joe “the hater not a debater” Wilson or the “screamer not the dreamer” as others have dubbed him. I did enjoy him cut and running through his apology, which only goes to show that he stands for nothing. He is just another good old boy where in the morning these married men preach to you that there should be prayer in our schools and in the evening they are on their cell phones setting up a date with their other women on the side, hypocrisy has been bred in. I am not surprised that he felt compel to yell like he was at some Friday night game. So long Joey, you too will be seeing the unemployment lines.
Yes: All the people from SOUTH CAROLINA are bad! NPR's deceptions and race-baiting aren't an issue at all! You gotta understand, I can name people from SOUTH CAROLINA who I hate! Unlike my people (Al Gore on the environment, Bill Clinton on workplace harassment, John Edwards on people getting too much money) those South Carolina people are all hypocrites!
Thanks Paul! Really impressed. Quite the coherent response, there. I make a charge that the left uses charges of "Racist!" to stop from having to answer difficult questions, and point to NPRs shameless fearmongering. And to show how absolutely wrong I am you:
Ignore the uncomfortable evidence, and scream "racist!!!" some more.
Thanks for illustrating!
I also really like that closing note: Paul wants nothing more than to strike at his opponent and see him personally humiliated. Because, like so many on the left, Paul's heart is apparently overflowing with hatred and anger, just looking for some target. This week, he's been assigned to hate Joe Wilson.
Good boy! Right on cue!
Some call Joe Wilson a great statesman, and are even proud of his Shout Out, so lets see, he says, he was told by the Republican leadership to apologize (he did not realize the magnitude of his mistake), he then gives his weak not for reals apology, but then goes on to those Commentator Talk Shows and basically says he real was not wrong and plays the victim card and calls for people to send in for money to support him for re-election. Had he kept quiet after his apology, that might have been the end of it but now that people know he lied about the apology the story will continue, until he is out of a job and the funny thing is, he does not see it coming. This summer has been rough for his beleaguered political party. At least he did not end up on the Republican 2009 Summer of Love list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC). In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and thats who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, We Aint Coming Out. The bithers, the teabaggers, the screamers, and the deathers continued extreme minority presence will become tiresome to mainstream America, if it has not already done so.
Welcome back, Paul!
There are two ways you can care about politics. You can view it as a kind of soap opera with ugly people, on which all the leaders of "your team" are good and wonderful people, and all the leaders of "the other team" are consistently abject craven liars, idiots and cowards.
Sort of like National Enquirer only with politicans.
Or you can pretty much say "screw all that trivia" and try and focus on policy, because it is POLICY which either helps people or puts them in an early grave.
Let's imagine that the nicest most charming and caring person in the whole world gets some bill passes which actually HURTS and KILLS people. Does the fact he's a caring generous person make his plan a good one? No of course not. Likewise, if he's opposed by some rude, philandering, ugly and fairly muddle-mouthed guy, does that mean the second guy is wrong?
No, again, it doesn't.
So Paul, just a thought: Maybe you'd want to think about and debate POLICY rather than imagining every Democrat in the world must be just wonderful, and whatever Republican you've been trained to hate this week must be the worst person who ever walked the planet.*
(*And of course, that's not even likely to be true: Bush the much-reviled was actually fairly well liked by the enemies who got to know him up close, whereas Bill Clinton's worst critics, by the end of his administration, were those who actually worked most closely with him. The women who accused him of rape were, recall, ardent Democratic supporters of his. And George Stephanopolous, Al Gore (not to mention Hillary) all couldn't stand him by 2000.)
I don't know what Wilson is like in person. I also don't know what Obama is like in person. The relevant points to me are simply that:
a. I've looked into it, and Wilson was right in saying Obama was lying. Even the AP (hardly right wing) agreed.
b. Wilson was utterly wrong for yelling during the speech.
c. Wilson was right to apologize for interrupting. If Wilson had retracted his apology, that would be wrong.
d. Obama was hypocritical for calling his opponents liars, and then feigning shock that someone called *him* out in the same way.
e. Democrats who pretend Wilson's interruption was especially awful have to explain why they weren't upset when their own people did the same (or worse, considering the number) to Bush.
f. Democrats who pretend accusations of "liar" are beyond the pale have to explain why it doesn't upset them when Obama does it, and why they weren't upset at the same charge being constantly aired against the last administration.
g. Democrats who are upset by some alleged deficiency in Wilson's apology (I haven't been following, it's less meaningful now than John and Kate's fights) should note their own people never apologized at all for similar behavior, and explain why it doesn't bother them.
See that, Paul? I have consistent set of standards which I apply *exactly the same* regardless of party. Because Wilson is a Republican doesn't mean I think he did the right thing. Not at all. But I don't suddenly give the Democrats a free pass for the same behavior either.
It's called being principled.
You should really consider it!
Tim, I am sure if we go back and check you were the first to condem "W" for starting two wars on the lies of WMD's (where by the way real people died (on both sides), and when people died in Katrina because "W" put a horse trainer in-charge of FEMA you probably condemed that to, sure because you have standards that you apply, sure....snore, snore
Paul! Welcome back again!
Okay, first, let's just say, for the sake of arguments, that I actually have no principles. Great! So now, why shouldn't you have them? I mean, after all, if you're condemning me for applying different standards to each party, then you MUST AGREE it's bad to do so, right?
On the other hand, if you agree it's okay for you not to apply the same standards to each party, then how could you possibly condemn me, or anyone else, for doing so?
But it's nice to see you've calmed down a little and asked asked a few good questions about specifics.
Katrina: First, about Katrina, when it happened, I watched carefully and timed the response, comparing it to Clinton's FEMA's response to Hurricane Floyd. About the same response time (weeks), about the same problems. Completely different media coverage, though. (I also agree with you that Bush's FEMA appointee was largely incompetent!) So, yeah, I had the same reaction: Yup, FEMA sucks. As usual.
Frankly, I don't think I've ever seen a disaster where FEMA *hasn't* been of very little help. I have always believed, under *any* administration, that the first line of defense should be local, not Federal. Question: If the river right next to you is flooding, should prime responsibility for helping your neighbors reside with (a) your Mayor, (b) your state Governor, or (c) some bureaucrat in Washington DC?
I've always thought (a) and (b), but the people who scream about Katrina strangely NEVER say anything about the failures of Nagin and Governor Blanco. They apparently think that a mayor or governor (for example) has NO responsibility at all to help rescue or their own people! Stunning.
In contrast, I've lived through two major floods in St. Louis. When it happened local people and leaders took responsibility for helping rescue and protect victims. FEMA was largely absent then, too. (And yes, one was under Clinton.) I and friends spent many days filling sandbags, so I'm not just *saying* I believe all this. You have to hold local people accountable, or people die, Paul.
Yet Democrats and the national press (but I repeat myself) seem to act as if there was *no* local responsibility for what happened with Katrina. I agree with you about FEMA, but I've never ONCE seen any meaningful criticism of Blanco and Nagin for their much greater failures. (Hell, Blanco refused to even tell people to evacuate! That's *astounding*.)
As I've said, given what I've been through and seen regarding disasters, that's incredible to me.
Afghan War: Your statement is telling, Paul. You say that Bush started the Afgan war. Funny, I thought Democrats used to say that the Taliban started it at 9/11, and that it was the "good war", and that they supported it, and all that.
Amazing how quickly they can tell you to say otherwise, isn't it? Suddenly, the Taliban didn't start the Iraq war, no, it was the US who started it. Like I said, your words reveal a lot. You evidently blame Bush far more than the people who planned and executed 9/11.
For the record, I was in favor of the Afghan war when most Democrats said they supported it. I didn't condemn it then, and I don't condemn it now. I haven't shifted, but some other group seemingly has.
Iraq War, WMD: I *lived* through the Clinton administration, Paul. It was Clinton, not Bush (a mere governor of Texas back then) who convinced me Iraq was a serious threat to the region. I regularly heard, under the Clinton administration that Iraq had WMDs, was a threat to regional stability, was harboring and funding terrorists, etc.
Al Gore said Iraq had WMDs. John Kerry has said Iraq had WMDs. Tony Blair said Iraq had WMDs, as did MI-5, as did French intelligence. Syrian intelligence said Iraq had developed WMDs. UNSCOM said Iraq didn't account for their VX. This belief existed *before* Bush took office. In 1998, Democrats even voted to make "Regime Change in Iraq" our national policy and an invasion was seriously discussed on primetime shows, including PBS.
PHIL PONCE, PBS: Gen. Kelly, Amb. Butler of the United Nations who is in charge of weapons inspections in Iraq made the statement that in his opinion Iraq may have had--may have enough biological, chemical weapons to wipe out Tel Aviv. Is that a reasonable fear, in your opinion?
LT. GENERAL THOMAS KELLY: It certainly is. And that's why I think we've got to do something, and we've got to do it quickly. There's always a million reasons not to go, but we can't take the chance that he's going to release something that will kill many millions of people... [PBS NewsHour, 1998, 3 years before 9/11]
Yet that's not at all the picture I hear, where everyone implies Iraq was sweetness and lollipops (or at least no major threat to anyone) until that evil moron genius Bush somehow brainwashed almost every one of those super-smart leading Democrats into thinking otherwise.
Yet when the Iraq war restarted (which I personally supported for other reasons than WMDs) suddenly, everyone claimed that *Bush* had "lied" about Iraq having WMD. Never mind that everybody and their brother said the exact same thing before Bush took office. As you just demonstrated regarding Afghanistan, many of your allies seem to have a very "convenient" kind of amnesia!
So no, my view on Iraq hasn't shifted either. I wasn't against it then (back when many leading Democrats were in favor of it) and I'm not against it now either. It's saved many Iraqi lives, net.
(BTW, about WMDs: Contrary to what is said to today, before the war, there were many arguments as to why we should invade, not just WMD. The argument to focus mainly on WMD came from George Tenet (who Clinton had appointed to head the CIA), who said that argument was, intelligence-wise, a "slam dunk." I'm not saying Bush wasn't also responsible for following that advice — he was. But Democrats can't seem to remember that Tenet was Bill Clinton's CIA appointee, not some person Bush had installed.)
I'm not a hypocrite for not condemning the US for attacking the Taliban, or for failing to scream "Bush Lied", Paul. I don't think any of that is true, and I've never seen a rational defense of that argument from the left. I doubt you'll provide one either. I just have important information you, and much of the left, seem to lack. Or seem not to care about.
That's why I want you to debate policy, Paul. Because if you're open-minded, and really want what is good, you'll either change your mind, or do your opponent a favor by pointing out any mistakes, giving me (or whoever) a chance to improve instead. Either way the world is a better place, no?
And if you're closed-minded or irrational, then you'll be another exhibit showing most die-hard leftists would rather hurt or even kill significant numbers of innocent people (by supporting bad policies or opposing helpful ones) than suffer a bit of a emotional discomfort or conscience twinge by facing the possibility they might be wrong.
The choice is entirely yours.
Best to you regardless...
- Tim
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Nationalized Healthcare + Open Borders = Increased Demand |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Democrats to Cut Medicare »
|
South Carolina has a long list of dignitaries that includes Lauren Caitlin Upton (Miss Teen USA 2007 pageant contestant), Board of Education Chair, Kristin Maguire, Governor (and avid Appalachian hiker), Mark Sanford and now Joe “the hater not a debater” Wilson or the “screamer not the dreamer” as others have dubbed him. I did enjoy him cut and running through his apology, which only goes to show that he stands for nothing. He is just another good old boy where in the morning these married men preach to you that there should be prayer in our schools and in the evening they are on their cell phones setting up a date with their other women on the side, hypocrisy has been bred in. I am not surprised that he felt compel to yell like he was at some Friday night game. So long Joey, you too will be seeing the unemployment lines.
Posted by: Paul on September 14, 2009 11:19 PM