Duelling Proxies
By Mitch Berg
Ray Suarez – the MPR/NPR talking head responsible for making Talk Of The Nation such an unctuous bore – says asking questions about The One is…well, racist, of course, silly:
The “pseudo controversies” about Obama’s background are symbols for a “racial calculus” hard at work in U.S. politics.
“Racial calculus” is one of those terms, like “political kabuki”, that people use to make a 25 cent theory sound like a dollar’s worth of thought.
Opinions about Obama’s inexperience, his childhood in Indonesia, and the persistent but untrue rumors of him being Muslim are stand-ins for something his detractors cannot admit, Suarez said.
Ray. Bubbie. Get a grip.
I’m hosed if I can think of a single credible conservative commentator – one that 99% of us would claim – who’s said word one about The One’s childhood or the “M” word.
And if talking about his palpable inexperience is “racist”, well, what’s the point of talking about Presidential candidates at all? I mean, the man makes John Edwards look like a solid professional.
Particularly, “religion has become a proxy for race,” he said.
And “has become a proxy for race” has become one of the many proxies for McCarthyism.
“Do you now, or have you ever found anything about Barack Obama that led you not to support him?”
Postlude: Remember all the Ashkkkroft Libertarians – the people who joked about Libertarians before January of 2001, the ones who thought Civil Liberties were the province of Rand-sodden bearded wackoes who lived in compounds in the Rockies, but suddenly became solem civil liberties junkies the moment John Ashcroft was sworn in as Attorney General, and spent the next eight years protecting this nation’s most vital liberties (flag burning, making statues of the Virgin Mary out of poop, and getting calls for people whom there is reasonable probable cause to believe are terrorists)?
Betcha they say not one thing about the liberties that an Obama administration will try to bulldoze; the First, Second and Tenth are all at immediate risk.
October 10th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
You all accuse the left of ‘anger’ and ‘naziism’, which is of course, well, silly.
As opposed to:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/10/politics/washingtonpost/main4513313.shtml?tag=topHome;topStories
And then there’s – Michelle Bachmann talking about the causes of the financial crisis saying that the culprits were:
“the poor; minorities, blacks and others”
A question or two for Ms. Bachmann –
Is she aware the average poor person is:
a. White
b. Female
c. A single mother
Is she aware the average Black is middle-class?
Is she attempting to suggest that the poor, the powerless, caused the origination of financial vehicles like derivitives and credit default swaps?
Is she attempting to blame a race (or races) for the downfall of the ‘free market’?
Is she insane?
When you phumper about NOT being racist, maybe you should consider just how profoundly racist your politicians frequently sound. Maybe, when you deny any anti-Muslim bias, or that no one meaningful makes anti-Muslim comments or uses anti-Muslim rhetoric you should consider:
a. Obama, Osama, Osama, Obama (Rush Limbaugh)
b. Barack HUSSEIN Obama – Person introducing Sarah Palin recently – police chief in a local city
c. References to blacks causing nearly everything – from Reagan’s fictional ‘welfare momma’ to Ms. Bachmann
d. The above link and the ugly nature of GOP rallies
You are correctly being labeled racits if you support those kinds of comments, and calling liberals ‘nazis’ is both hypocritical to your complaining about being called such yourself and a profession of just how decidedly ignorant you are of what Naziism really was.
Naziism was above all:
a. Hyper-nationalistic – used charicatures of evil Jews (Arabs), and squelched off freedoms like oh, freedom from jailing without charge (Gitmo).
b. Used secret imprisonment as a normal tool -(Secret US prisons overseas)
c. Hyper – Militarisitic – (The US spends half the world’s money spent on arms and ‘Let our soldiesr win’ mumbo jumbo).
d. A symbyosis with Corporations – Cooperated with Krupp, IG Farbin, Messerschmitt, Porsche (and a host of others) to provide – slave labor (Gee, we sure don’t see a paralell in KBR and cheap Pakistani labor.. nope).
e. Had some trappings of Socialism, but that was much more purely social engineering toward a military expansionist state.
Please, other than bitching about 2nd amendment violations, the similarity between the uber-angry right, and Naziism, is profound, including it’s racial purity quotient – (Damn those imigrants). Liberalism (and liberalism) have LONG been associated with tolerance, civil liberties, labor movements, and compassion. I don’t think you can reasonably claim that Naziism upheld ANY of those tenets outside of fairly general social programs which were in fact thinly disguised attempts to make the nation ready for war. Barack Obama isn’t calling for a massive military expansion, doesn’t sabre rattle at Iran/North Korea/Syria/Russia/GWBcantthinkistan. He doesn’t advocate for the ‘temporary’ suspension of habeaus corpus, or advocate for the allowance of torture. That’s on you – and only you. All of the bitching about accuastions of Naziism and anger, and your response, is pure projection, and nothing else.
October 10th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
What a load of BS. “Have you now or ever NOT supported our war on Terrorism?”
“Report Suspicious Activity”
“Terror Threat level Orange”
“Terrorist Survaillance Act”
October 10th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Yeah, all those non-terrorist U.S. citizens imprisoned for not supporting “our war on terror” should probably be set free. Oh, that’s right, there aren’t any and you are just babbling again, penigma. My mistake.
October 10th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Last one off the Straight Talk Express, turn out the lights!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama
October 10th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
You all accuse the left of ‘anger’ and ‘naziism’, which is of course, well, silly.
Ah. It’s “silly”.
That settles everything.
And where did I say anything about Naziism? You’re making stuff up as you go along. Again. As usual.
And then there’s – Michelle Bachmann talking about the causes of the financial crisis saying that the culprits were:
“the poor; minorities, blacks and others”
Your crimes against context continue apace.
Various bits of legislation – most famously the Community Reinvestment Act, although that accounted for a small minority of the problem – obliged Fred ‘n Fan to buy toxic paper (and sweetened the deal for brokers to write it), which opened the floodgates to subprime loans.
Bachmann spoke overly broadly – but the fact was, the CRA’s main motivation was to push home loans to the inner city (the geography, not the racial stereotype).
Bachmann may have violated a few tenets of PC, but she was not inaccurate.
A question or two for Ms. Bachmann –
Is she aware the average poor person is:
a. White
b. Female
c. A single mother
Does that make them a good or bad credit risk?
Is she aware the average Black is middle-class?
Then they must be good credit risks!
Is she attempting to suggest that the poor, the powerless, caused the origination of financial vehicles like derivitives and credit default swaps?
Now you’re being obtuse.
Is she attempting to blame a race (or races) for the downfall of the ‘free market’?
No, but you (plural and singular) are quite dishonestly trying to create the impression that she is.
Is she insane?
Are you capable of logic and adult thought?
When you phumper about NOT being racist, maybe you should consider just how profoundly racist your politicians frequently sound.
Especially when people like you waterboard the context.
Maybe, when you deny any anti-Muslim bias, or that no one meaningful makes anti-Muslim comments or uses anti-Muslim rhetoric you should consider:
a. Obama, Osama, Osama, Obama (Rush Limbaugh)
HE’S MOCKING A FAMOUS TED KENNEDY FLUB.
b. Barack HUSSEIN Obama – Person introducing Sarah Palin recently – police chief in a local city
It’s his middle name. Like John “Effing” Kerry.
c. References to blacks causing nearly everything – from Reagan’s fictional ‘welfare momma’ to Ms. Bachmann
Which are pretty much entirely figments of your imagination after you’ve gotten done mutilating context. I won’t call it “lying”, but we know it’s pretty dang close.
You are correctly being labeled racits if you support those kinds of comments, and calling liberals ‘nazis’ is both hypocritical to your complaining about being called such yourself and a profession of just how decidedly ignorant you are of what Naziism really was.
Peev,
I have studied German history, especially as re Naziism, so much more intensely than you that you are really not qualified to enter into the discussion. You parrot facile talking points that betray an extremely shallow understanding of the subject, the kind of thing that would get your ranting nodded at and dismissed in polite company.
Since you’ve shown over and over that you are not polite company, hold on to your hat.
Naziism was above all:
a. Hyper-nationalistic – used charicatures of evil Jews (Arabs), and squelched off freedoms like oh, freedom from jailing without charge (Gitmo).
That is true of virtually every nationalistic movement – and differs not an iota in context with the hatred you evidence toward conservatives, talk radio in particular; you dwell purely in inflammatory stereotype.
b. Used secret imprisonment as a normal tool -(Secret US prisons overseas)
So has virtually every pseudo-imperial power in history, “good” and evil; the Brits, the French, the Germans (pre-1914), the Belgians and every other. It’s a “unique characteristic of Naziism” in the same way that rifles and helmets were (i.e., not at all).
c. Hyper – Militarisitic – (The US spends half the world’s money spent on arms and ‘Let our soldiesr win’ mumbo jumbo).
You are officially too ignorant to bother with, Peev. AS A PERCENT OF GDP, the US is 27th in the world in defense spending. We are merely richer than most of the world, and spend more on defense than the only nations that are nearly as wealthy (Europe).
d. A symbyosis with Corporations – Cooperated with Krupp, IG Farbin, Messerschmitt, Porsche (and a host of others) to provide – slave labor (Gee, we sure don’t see a paralell in KBR and cheap Pakistani labor.. nope).
If you think there is any comparison between either a) the public-private planning that verged on socialism inherent in the Nazi economic system and b) the KZL and Arbeitslager systems, you are officially too ignorant for any possible conversation to be worth having.
Seriously. Read an actual book on the subject.
e. Had some trappings of Socialism, but that was much more purely social engineering toward a military expansionist state.
Again, purely talking points established in the fifties by socialists to try to distance themselves from Hitler.
Listen up (if you’re capable – and in 20 years, I’ve seen no evidence of that, but hope springs eternal). Hitler was a committed socialist; he also learned from watching Lenin how destructive complete nationalization can be. One of his “trappings”, as you call it, was in leaving a free-enterprise face on socialism; the German economy was as surely planned as was the Soviet one; the plan was merely carried out by companies – who worked to plan just as surely as did any komissar.
Please, other than bitching about 2nd amendment violations, the similarity between the uber-angry right, and Naziism, is profound, including it’s racial purity quotient – (Damn those imigrants).
Peev, I’m losing patience with you again. Really.
This may have been the stupidest, most solipsistic, self-indulgent comment you’ve ever left.
October 10th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
This may have been the stupidest, most solipsistic, self-indulgent comment you’ve ever left.
Until tomorrow, when he breaks the record again.
October 10th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Nah. He outdid himself this time.
October 10th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
I still want to see Precious and Pernicious Peev present evidence that his targets are racist.
He’s implied it enough times, it is about time that he actually substantiated his claims or shut up and go off to play “Hide and Go Fuck Yourself”.
October 10th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Evidence?
What do you think he is – subject to the rules the rest of us follow?
Pffft. He’s a “rhetorical” bomb thrower (I call it “rhetoric” for discussion purposes only), and no more.