Unhinged in 30 days: The right-wing media's Obama era implosion
The Republican Noise Machine doesn't need the customary 100 days to size up the new president. Right-wing commentators barely needed 30 days to come to their conclusion that they hate everything Barack Obama stands for.
In terms of speed and efficiency, the right-wing collection of bloggers, AM talkers, pundits, and yes, newspaper cartoonists, may have set a new land speed record for becoming collectively unhinged, as they wail and moan about how the new Democratic president's turning America into a fascist state, or communist, or socialist, or whatever other bugaboo claim Glenn Beck and Laura Ingraham are tossing out to viewers and listeners on a daily basis.
Barack Obama is "arrogant," "dishonest," and "radical," Fox News' Sean Hannity announced during a single 10-second chunk of prime-time TV last week -- a casually hateful appraisal that didn't even raise eyebrows, simply because that kind of blanketed disdain for the new president has already become so commonplace.
Rush Limbaugh's original anti-Obama proclamation at the outset of his presidency -- "I hope he fails" -- already seems benign in retrospect. Since Inauguration Day we've learned Obama has "Marxist tendencies" and is "addicting this country to heroin -- the heroin that is government slavery" (Glenn Beck). That, "there are eerie, eerie similarities" between Obama and Nazis" (Michael Savage's guest host, Chris Stigall). And of course, Limbaugh himself famously bemoaned that "[w]e are being told that we have to hope [Obama] succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles ... because his father was black."
Meanwhile, last week widely read right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin was seen smiling while getting her picture taken with an Obama hater who proudly brandished a swastika placard at an anti-Obama rally in Denver. And the following day, Rupert Murdoch's far-right New York Post published a grotesque cartoon that seemed to associate Obama with a bullet-ridden monkey who'd been shot by two white cops on a city sidewalk.
If we just pause and take one or two steps back from the daily/hourly barrage of hate, it's obvious that faced with the new Obama presidency, the Republican Noise Machine has already lost all perspective -- has gone totally loco -- and it's only February, a mere month into Obama's first four years in office. Who dares to even imagine where the right-wing "conversation" goes from here?
It's astounding to watch the avalanche of hate ooze from conservative media quarters. And why? Because Obama passed an economic recovery bill. Good Lord, imagine if he had failed to win the popular vote and then led the country into a pre-emptive war based on faulty intelligence, a war that lost thousands of American lives, and tens of thousands of foreign lives, while milking the U.S. treasury out of a few trillion dollars in the process.
I suspect the unvarnished hate directed toward Obama, the radical rhetoric behind it, and most especially the overnight delivery used to proclaim it, is unprecedented for our modern politics. Even during the first Clinton weeks and months in 1993, I don't think the right-wing ratcheted up the demonizing language this quickly. Note that back then the Republican Noise Machine was just coming into its own, whereas today it's a well-oiled hate machine. Also, in the early 1990s, the Noise Machine (i.e., Limbaugh) hadn't been given unofficial control of Republican Party messaging the way it has today. There still seemed to be some (emphasis on some) adult supervision within conservative circles.
But today, by openly embracing Limbaugh, leader-less conservatives are purposefully mainstreaming the talkers' brand of loonyness. And by enthusiastically endorsing Limbaugh and his crowd, Republicans must accept -- must take ownership of -- the radical hate speech that defines the Noise Machine. The way Limbaugh, already under Obama, has compared Democrats to murderers, rapists, and Satan. The way Limbaugh recently tagged them as "immoral" people who are "not truly religious" and who are waging an "assault" on the Constitution, while claiming Democrats hate life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (And Beltway journalists naïvely scratch their heads wondering why Obama cannot achieve bipartisanship.)
That hate speech is now, unequivocally, the sanctioned voice of the Republican Party. It's a voice that, after just 30 days of an Obama presidency, has gone completely bonkers. And it's a voice that's revealed itself in the form of swastikas, dead monkeys, and bizarre talk of ankle-grabbing.
But liberals hated Bush! That's the but-they-did-it-too defense being paraded around by right-wingers like Malkin after she was spotted with Swastika Guy. Everybody on the left compared Bush to Hitler, Malkin claimed last week. Really? Liberal protesters waved around Bush-Hitler signs at rallies to protest new administration policy during Bush's first month in office? Bush hadn't even finished filling out his Cabinet, and prominent liberals were demonizing the new president as an anti-American fascist?
Please.
Malkin's lame stab at revisionism was simply an attempt to justify the right's radical attacks on Obama. Were there widespread, hysterical Hitler references to Bush 30 days after he took office? Not that I recall. And in the wake of Bush's tax cuts being passed by Congress in 2001, did any major newspapers publish cartoons that seemed to connect Bush with a bullet-ridden monkey? No. And if there had been such a tasteless cartoon, would a single high-profile liberal commenter have possibly defended it? I can't imagine one who would have.
Some on the right adopted the same, childish two-wrongs-make-a-right defense in reaction to that hateful New York Post cartoon. But the left hated Bush more, wrote conservative blogger (and Post apologist) John Hinderaker at Power Line. Note the time frame he uses:
Democrats will no doubt continue to use Obama's race to try to silence criticism, but they can rest assured that conservatives will never unleash the kind of mindless hate against Obama (or anyone else) that we have all witnessed from the Left over the past six years.
Six years. Meaning, there was very little outlandish Bush hate broadcast from the left for approximately the Republicans' first 24 months in office. Let alone his first 30 days. (What kind of political movement melts down 30 days into a new administration?) In fact, during the summer of 2001, The Washington Post's Sally Quinn went on TV and talked about how suddenly calm and rational Beltway partisan differences were, as opposed to those chaotic Clinton years:
I don't think [Bush has] changed the city at all, but I think what has happened is that he has allowed the city to get back to normal. It has not been normal for eight years. For eight years it's been really ugly and vicious and personal, and what's happened now is that this is -- that the adversary situation is back to normal.
See the trend? When a Democrat was in the White House, the atmosphere was "ugly and vicious and personal." When a Republican took over, everything went back to "normal." And now with the return of another Democrat, the right-wing hate returns in full bloom. And in record time.
Secondly, Malkin tried to claim that everyone on the left used the Hitler/Nazi language, and to prove her point she did lots of Googling and posted links to sites that contained that kind of language or imagery. But one was a photo of anti-Bush graffiti from Argentina, circa 2006. What that had to do with Malkin's claim about American liberals, I'm still not sure. And many of the links Malkin posted led to sites I've never heard of.
She did link to the landmark site Daily Kos, and a search there found lots of dumb, regrettable Bush/Hitler references. But most of those were from 2006 and 2007, 60 months after Bush had been in office, and most were by Daily Kos readers, or diarists, not front-page writers. You'll note that in her liberals-did-it-too defense Malkin didn't link to images of Markos at Daily Kos with his arms around a Bush-era swastika protester, or Matt Stoller or John Amato or Jeralyn Merritt -- or fill in the blank with any other A-list blogger you'd like to mention. Even after eight years of despair (i.e. botched war, trampled civil liberties, mass incompetence), most prominent liberal bloggers never went there with the Bush-Hitler nonsense.
But Malkin, among the most widely read bloggers in the conservative movement, and just four weeks into the new Democratic presidency's run? Hell yeah, she'll pose with an Obama hater waving around a swastika sign, and then refuse to apologize, claiming the Nazi/Obama analogy was not "completely out of the bounds of public civil discourse." Because honestly, who knows more about the guidelines of "public civil discourse" than Michelle Malkin?
The Republican Noise Machine, which has already turned its hate amplifiers up to 10, doesn't like to admit it, but over time a strong majority of Americans came to share the liberals' contempt for Bush, who they dubbed to be an utter failure as a president. And perhaps the worst in the nation's history. The Obama disdain, though, is being unleashed against a president with extraordinarily high job approval ratings, which highlights how the Noise Machine remains completely out of touch with mainstream America.
As that fact becomes increasingly obvious in the months to come, I fear it's only going to force feverish conservatives to ratchet up the hate.
Maybe they'll turn it up to 11.
FYI: Here were some other signs spotted at the anti-Obama Denver rally that Malkin attended, signs that perfectly captured -- and regurgitated -- the hateful talking points the Noise Machine has been churning out since Obama's inauguration just one month ago:
I say let 'em follow Limbaugh & co. The lazy, fat, drug abising college dropout will only lead them to failure and ruin. EIther they will learn that Radio Personalities really have NO IDEA how to run a country or they will continue disappear as a party. Either way, it'll be good for America.
Apparently, much of the right wing garbage is having the desired effect on it knuckle-dragging minion. Armed revolt? Jeeez, the people are nuts...
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1326121
You don't even have to go to Hannity's forums for that. Just watch CNN. Glenn Beck just did an entire hour-long version of that post.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/22/militias/index.html
Boehlert: "Liberal protesters waved around Bush-Hitler signs at rallies to protest new administration policy during Bush's first month in office? Bush hadn't even finished filling out his Cabinet, and prominent liberals were demonizing the new president as an anti-American fascist?"
Yes, they were, Eric!
CNN, Dec. 24, 2000:
Eric, I look forward to your correction.
Bush was not in office at the time. The article plainly says within 30 days of taking over as president, not before.
I hear that Sylvan Learning Center is having a price-reduction. You might benefit. Give 'em a call.
"Bush was not in office at the time. The article plainly says within 30 days of taking over as president, not before."
Ha! You're kidding, right? C'mon. I've clearly shown "prominent liberals were demonizing the new president as an anti-American fascist" even BEFORE he took office.
Boehlert is completely erroneous to imply that President Bush was somehow given a "pass" by the media at the start of his term, and I've shown this to be so.
Instead of the cheap personal attacks that you resort to, I simply present the facts. I'm sorry that the truth hurts sometimes.
Buh-bye.
The recount riot was a clear subversion of the Democratic process. I'm not sure he said anything about Bush as much as the people who helped him get into office.
Yes you are right and it was the dems who were trying to subvert the process.
Up is down, black is white. I love how the wingnuts are retreating to a fantasyland, where they can pretend that everything happened the exact opposite of how it happened for all of us back here in the real world.
Shoes , i found it amazing that some on here tried to dismiss your point based on the date being 2000. Of course they are not serious, do not want to debate and want everyone to act like eachother.
Do you think there's a difference between someone's policies as President and someone's actions taken during an election recount?
you can offer individual cases where people said things, but the fact is that obama is under an inordinate amount of criticism to a degree that bush did not endure in his first weeks in office. especially considering the dubious circumstances under which bush took office. losing the popular vote and only becoming president because he was given the state of florida's votes when florida clearly did not vote for him. obama is suddenly responsible for all the screwups and bad decisions made during the bush administration. that's the point.
and look how right they were in what W turned out to be.
and the media did give him a pass overall. look at the softball questions he got especially by the male escort turned reporter
I hate to confuse you with the facts, little fella, but antipathy towards Bush was more a function of the way he was installed upon the throne and took office.
Besides, his critics were correct in their assessment of the incompetent schmuck.
One of the points the article is making is that W wasn't on the receiving end of a bunch of BS his first month in offce. Now, we know that he was on the receiving end of a lot of BS *before* he took office. That being said, I'm not covering up for the worthless scumbag. I'm pointing out that the republicans have been all over Obama since taking over the Presidency. Bush was given time; Obama hasn't been given that same time. Therefore, it's not equal.
That's all I'm saying. Nothing I said was not fact based. The issue I had with Shoes post was that we're talking about the first 30 days in office, not the first 30 days after winning the election. There's a huge difference.
Keep the snark to yourself. You don't know me.
Bush was not President on December 24, 2000.
Shoes is not implying he was President on 12/24/2000. He says "New President, and filling out his "cabinet".
These attacks go both ways and never stop.
"He says 'New President, and filling out his 'cabinet.'"
Uh, what's your point here?
Whats the point of not discussing his post, instead attacking him for a date?
I'm with Clams, what could possibly be your point here?
Do you think that Obama's first 30 days are on par with Bush's with regard to partisan media vitriol being fired his way?
Point is why didn't you bring that up with Shoes without dismissing it because of the "date" ?
Do you think that Obama's first 30 days are on par with Bush's with regard to partisan media vitriol being fired his way?
You are avoiding the question as usual.
Oh sweet Jesus, you are insane.
Governor , why did you not address these questions to Shoes? He was the one who posted the the 2000 article?
What freakin' planet do you live on? It's an open freakin' question. This is an open freakin' discussion.
Please try to formulate a coherent sentence and then get back to us. I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say. Shoes' post was already addressed by Brab, commonsenseliberal and Victor.
Get out from behind that mirror. It was you who has demonstrated poor behavior.
Shoes was trying to compare apples to oranges. He was called out on that false comparison, which had everything to do with the date! And then 3 people explained why it was a false comparison.
The election recount is not equivalent to a President's administration. Some partisan commentators statements are not equivalent to the media.
Comparing the tactics of people involved in preventing the Florida recount to the tactics of a secret police is hardly the same as directly comparing Barack Obama to Adolph Hitler. The Jackson comment was directed at one specific event. It was not a shorthand description for opposition to the entire Bush presidency.
And I might remind you (and everyone else) of the near-universal popularity Bush enjoyed after 9-11 -- never mind Democrats and progressives giving him the benefit of the doubt and expressing a willingness to follow his lead, there were pro-US (and by extension, pro-Bush) demonstrations in numerous foreign countries, including IRAN.
The right wing hate machine geared up quickly against Clinton, but not this quickly. They really sharpened their tactics against Gore and Kerry, and now they're simply continuing the same strategy against Obama.
Yeah, but strategy is all they have. Lord knows the facts aren't doin' 'em any favors.
Good point Shoes!!!
Shoes, I'll take you up on that.
What Jackson said about the process being run in Florida was wrong. He did not equate George W. Bush to Hitler, or Nazis, but what was happening during the recount in the State of Florida. It is not a direct criticism of Bush, but of the process that happened during that time in Florida, when republican congressional staffers were sent in to disrupt the recount.
Now, was it right that he compared that to Nazism, and or the Gestapo? No, absolutely not. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Using Nazi comparisons from anyone is weak, and just used to bring up something "controversial".
Was Jackson talking directly about Bush as republicans have been about Obama? No, he was not.
"If George Bush wins, it will be by Nazi tactics."
Of course it was. His and James Baker's operatives "stormed the Reichstag" by flooding into Florida and disruptied the recount.
That is a totally innaccurate comment, there were just as many democratic operatives here in Florida as there were republicans. Here in liberal south Florida the dems were proclaiming that every vote should count while in more northern parts of the state they were working to disallow absentee ballots from military personal. They were examining ballots with magnifing glasses and proclaiming the ballot to be too complicated, utterly ridiculous arguments. I watched it happen first hand, you should be more aware of what actually happened before you comment.
remember those people banging on the windows of the counting room in miami dade county and who were supposed to be locals? a lot of them were identified later as republican staffers from congressional offices.
The same people who insist it will take four decades to appraise Bush somehow thought it reasonable to condemn Obama after four weeks.
Jerry Elsea
Sorry, I had to stop where Boehlert used the cartoon of the monkey to try to make his point. I even overlooked his assertion about "hate" as that is the common argument from the left, in order to see what kind of argument he had to back it up. The first few were laughable in their mishcaracterizations, but adding the cartoon as one more example only made me realize I was really reading the funny papers and not a serious critique. I guess we now know Boehlert gets his marching orders from Al Shaprton!
This exhortation over this cartoon example is a classic of how unhinged some on the left gets in their constant desire to fuel the racism card when it does not exist. Think back to all the times former President Bush has been referred here and in the media as a chimp or worse. Besides, if you look at it, the cartoon doesn't even refer to Obama. In case you missed it, Obama did not write the bill!
I realized once I saw that example that Boehlert is not serious. He had me going there for a minute. Thanks Eric for the laugh!
All that to say and you only read the first 2.5 sentences!
The right wing NY Post was portraying Obama as a monkey and now some on the right are trying to spin it something else. The cartoon was offensive and no one needs Al Sharpton to tell them that.
Many on the left portrayed Bush as a Chimp, why was that not offensive?
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=bush+chimp&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=IBqjSZLqOeDZmQeYxYChDQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title
Oh, here's the part where you pretend that you've never noticed that Bush is white and Obama is black? And then you'll pretend that racists haven't been likening black people to monkeys for the past century?
No I am not pretending it at all. But why do we have one set of rules for a White President and one for a Black President? I will never pretend that there is not racism or that black people have been linked to monkeys. Which is why the use of chimps and Bush should offend everyone. Calling Bush a monkey was like calling Bush the N word. yet the haters on the left were blind to that.
Your logic is perplexing. I really don't know how to respond.
"Calling Bush a monkey was like calling Bush the N word. yet the haters on the left were blind to that."
That makes exactly zero sense. Bush isn't black, so calling him the N-word wouldn't even mean anything. Apparently you don't realize that when you're talking about a white person, there's no possible way of thinking there's something racist about calling him a "monkey". For black people it's a different matter. In that case it has racist connotations.
I guess I am color blind, because I don't see President Obama as black or white, just like Bush, I us all as Americans. Is something is offensive for one of us, it should be offensive for all of us. Of course we live in a divided country where the left and the right want us.
So then you are claiming that you've never noticed that Bush is white and Obama is black? Man, this is already one of the most hilarious threads ever.
Bush and Obama are American. Of course the President is Black , but as he has said, that is not how he wants to be judged.
And yet in your post below, you acknowledge that the "problem" with the cartoon is that it links a black person with a monkey. There's no way to reconcile your scattered thoughts on this subject. For your own part, you might want to start with investigating why being "color blind" is not considered a good thing. The confused thinking you've displayed in this thread is testament to that.
clams,
The cartoon does not link Obama to a monkey. The cartoon is note even referring to Obama. It is refering to those who wrote the stimulus bill.
The left is unhinged in trying to make the claim of racism in this case.
ps. I find it amusing that the left can use the same derogatory connection toward President Bush and think it is funny, while some here even going so far as to defend it. But, because Obama is a Democrat, he is off limits and suddenly it is beyond the pale. This is true hypocricy at it's finest.
You are wrong.
So what the hell else is a dead monkey supposed to represent?
Could they have used a dead rabbit? How about a dead mouse? Why the choice of the monkey?
Personally, I would have felt better had they not run such a tasteless cartoon anyway...
But we all have the right to free speech.
The stimulus bill while not written by Obama is clearly his bill. All of the conservatives are blaming him for the law alot more than they are blaming congress. Therefore Obama has essentally taken credit for the law.
No one except the caroonist can tell who he was referring to and he would never admit it if he was referring to Obama. 2 points a re clear. Obama has taken ownership of this law. Black people have been derogatorily refered to as apes, monkeys, chips etc.. for years. If one can not see any connection one is not looking objectively.
Your connections to Bush are irrelevant as white people have never been referred to as primates as a whole. Any references to Bush in that regard would be an indictment of his apparent lack of intelligence.
Why would the cartoonistnot come out and say "This cartoon was not a representation of ... however I appologize if it was taken that way and can undertand how it may have been taken out of context." Instead they got defiant about it.
President Obama is not off limits. All that we asked is that he be given a chance to do his job and stop the ad hominem attacks. The funny thing is I have never heard a conservative speak out against statements theat were percieved to be racist. They always claim that the liberals and bklacks are playing the race card. remember when Imus made the jokes about the Rutgers basketball team? Conservatives were more worried about Imus' job than his comments.
I guess a black guy must be hanging from a tree with a KKK sign in order to prove racsim.
The thing about linking monkeys to black people is that it's meant to denigrate the entire race. For Bush it can't be taken that way. It's great that you have a Colbertesque inability to see color, but when you're talking about racial stereotypes and insults then a person's skin color really does have some relevance to the conversation.
I am not defending the NY Post, so don't even go there. My issue is that these types of sterotypes have been going around for awhile, race or even peoples looks.
I didn't say anything about the Post. I'm talking about what you wrote. Your last sentence doesn't even make sense.
Then you would rather play games instead of talk about the issue.
Good night
Um, OK. Cuckoo.
"Good night"? Really? What is it, 5:30? Awesome.
From this conversation so far, I would truly not be surprised if Casey claimed he lived in California and it's 8:30 p.m. there. Really, if the n-word can apply to both white and black people, then a three-hour time difference can be either ahead or behind.
Umm, Brab? California is 3 hours behind. Remember? Maybe he's in like England or Europe, which would put him 5-6 hours ahead.
I know it's three hours behind. I'm talking about Casey's grip on objective reality. Also, I'm quite sure Casey is not in Europe, unless he's on vacation.
Brab was making a joke about Casey's black-is-white-up-is-down logic.
Didn't a well known D Senator say, "There are white n_______ and there are black n_______"?
Did they? I'm not familiar with that quote, but it doesn't change the well-established and well-known meaning of the word as understood by the rest of the world.
That would, of course, be the illustrious Robert Byrd. FYI.
nancies? Who was he calling austrailian slang for woman?
Wtf, man? What point are you trying to make here? You're just piling stupid on top of stupid.
You mean Senator Chris Rock (D-Nowhere)? Because that's the only person I can think of. I think some idiot quoted him saying that, but that's all. Also, I know this may be hard for a conservative to grasp, but we don't pretend our folks are 100% infallible. So, the same goes for that Jesse Jackson quote. If they did say it, I simply disagree. Your move.
???????????????????????????????????????????????????
What? Governor can you ask a question without the smart remarks?
I'm sincerely stunned by your posts and have no more to say to you.
I am equally stunned by your dismissal of Shoes based on a date.
Victor and Shoes went on a date? It must have gone bad.
Seriously, my sides are hurting from this comment thread. I need a little breather before I go on.
Wherever casey shows up it's a laugh riot.
His posts here are akin to the old "who's on first?" gag without the smarts.
I was thinking that Casey, Shoes and ANutteramerican could just change their screen names to Larry, Moe and Curly, Then I realized that there's no Moe there. He was the (relative) brains of the operation.
Shemp?
There might be an opening for a Shemp. The 3 stooges without Moe as the voice of reason, these are the people who come here expecting to be taken seriously..
Why do you keep calling him "Governor"? Are you a 19th century chimney sweep or something?
You're post is contradictory, ignorant and completely ridiculous. I don't even know where to begin.
"Calling Bush a monkey was like calling Bush the N word."
I have a feeling that that quote is going to haunt you for a while. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read here.
"I will never pretend that there is not racism or that black people have been linked to monkeys."
So you're claiming that black people haven't been likened to monkeys, or is your inability to write a coherent sentence tripping you up again?
I have a feeling that that quote is going to haunt you for a while. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read here.
Why? The use of the N word is disgusting, just like the use of Chimps and pictures toward African Americans. If that haunts me so be it.
So you're claiming that black people haven't been likened to monkeys, or is your inability to write a coherent sentence tripping you up again?
Of course African Americans have been linked to monkeys, what the F is wrong with you? That is the entire problem with the NY Post cartoon. God your dumb.
"The use of the N word is disgusting, just like the use of Chimps and pictures toward African Americans."
Your posts might make a little bit of sense if Bush were African-American. Hint: He's not.
"God your dumb."
My second favorite quote of the day. Go back to third grade to find out why this is so funny. Don't lash out at me because of your inability to communicate your ideas. The way your sentence is written, it reads as though you're denying that black people have been likened to monkeys.
Casey,
Calling Bush the N word makes no sense. As you probably know, the N word is a racial slur towards African Americans. Calling Bush a slur that demeans something he is not is nonsensical. If you called a Catholic a slur that demeaned Jews that would be equally confusing.
You may claim to be color blind (are we sure this isn't Colbert playing a joke), but I assume you are aware others aren't. I would hope that you are aware that this country has a sordid history of racists comparing African Americans to primates. There is not a similar history with whites and primates. Demeaning one group (white people) with stereotypes and racial insults thrown around at another group (African Americans) makes no sense and is therefore not racist.
To me, that's the issue. If someone hurled a Jewish slur at Obama, that would be the same as calling Bush the N word in my view. It would just be weird.
Please provide proof for your claim the right was calling Obama a monkey. Not what you think, but proof. Do you have any??
http://www.monkeyobama.com/
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/cobb/stories/2008/05/13/mulligans_0514.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/11/politics/fromtheroad/entry4515246.shtml
I guess it was all in the heads of the Dems?
Too easy...
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/obama_monkey.jpg
http://aryanwear.com/images/obama-monkey-shirt.jpg
http://functionalambivalent.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83452032669e200e5534e24768833-800pi
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/11/politics/fromtheroad/entry4515246.shtml
And my personal favorite:
http://www.pubdef.net/2008/05/14/georgian-defends-his-obama-monkey-t-shirts/
I'm getting tired of proving it over and over again...
So your proof is all centered around what some other people "think" Once again, you have provided nothing about the cartoon or the writer of the cartoon to prove that he is or was racist.
Now this is going to be a fun conversation.
Tell me, please, what else determines what is racist, sexist, rude, whatever else besides what people think. Are there scientific measurements involved?
This is always a futile conversation. No matter how openly racist somebody is, there will always be apologists who will say that we can't really know if that person is really racist. Sean Hannity is the master of this tactic, in his effort to rehabilitate every white man who says something blatantly racist.
I don't believe I've ever heard that argument coming from the left. There's been any number of times that Republicans have been up in arms over something someone said, and I've never heard "that's just what you think". What I hear is an effort to explain how they are mistaken, how it's out of context, etc, not that the very nature of subjective determination negates the validity of any such determination. It's about what is reasonable to believe.
What exactly is your idea of proof? Do you need to see the cartoonist in KKK hood and robes before you'll recognize the inherent racism at work in the cartoon?
I think Pointy needs something along the lines of a caption below the cartoon that says;
HEY!!!! I'M A COMPLETE WINGNUT RACIST, AND I'M DEPICTING THE PRESIDENT AS A MONKEY, IN THE TRADITION OF THE CRAZY RACIST STEREOTYPES THAT ARE PART OF THE FOUNDATION OF MY POLITICAL PARTIES IDEOLOGY!!!! THANK YOU !!!!
Racism is part of the foundation of the Republican Party? Is that the same Republican Party that was formed to defeat the Kansas-Nebraska Act and slavery? I don't understand why you make stupid blanket statements, Col.
"Is that the same Republican Party that was formed to defeat the Kansas-Nebraska Act and slavery?"
Actually, no, it's not the same Republican Party. Not at all. I think you need a history lesson.
clams is right greatjob, and being a historian myself, i shall give you a brief lesson. originally racisim was part of the democratic party. the republicans vehemently opposed slavery. the KKK was founded by former confederates who were democrats. now clearly that has changed over the last century.
Is that the same Republican Party that was formed to defeat the Kansas-Nebraska Act and slavery?
Answer: No. Thanks for playing, we have a lovely gift basket for you in the green room.
"Please provide proof for your claim the right was calling Obama a monkey."
Snoop provided 5 links of monkeys with the name Obama on them. That's not what "some other people think", that is "proof". Way to move the goalposts and claim you were asking something other than what you did ask. Although, of course, as others have pointed out, the fact that Obama was frequently referenced as a monkey means that the cartoonist should have been far more explicit if he WASN'T referencing Obama.
"Although, of course, as others have pointed out, the fact that Obama was frequently referenced as a monkey means that the cartoonist should have been far more explicit if he WASN'T referencing Obama."
I really don't know how it's possible for someone to submit something like this for publication without either realizing themselves or having someone else raise the concern at some point in the process that people are going to take it as a reference to Obama. It's much harder for me to believe that anyone in any professional capacity is that stupid as opposed to believing that such a person is racist.
I agree. I made a similar point to a coworker the other day. She said she didn't think it was racist, but "mean to the monkey" (I think she meant in poor taste given that a woman was MAULED, but she's not too good about putting thoughts into words). When I asked her what in the world the joke was if it wasn't racist, she got all shocked that the chimp=Obama, because "she doesn't even think of Obama as black". It seemed like such head-in-the-sand apologist of the highest order. With hundreds of years of black people being equated with primates, and with the very recent comparisons of Obama to a monkey (ie, links above) it seems to me you have to be a racist (or racist apologist) or completely ignorant to not realize that that cartoon would be perceived as racist.
"Head-in-the-sand" is a perfect description of that. As if her perception of his racial status has any bearing on the nature of comments or actions from other people.
That stance is often the lead-in to the ever popular the-real-racists-are-the-ones-who-point-out-racism defense. The most recent incarnation of this was the but-the-swastika-is-just-a-Native-American-symbol defense of the Malkin/Nazi photo op thing.
Some people just enjoy pretending that racist depictions aren't racist because they themselves are racist.
POV,
If the stimulus plan doesn't end up working, who will you blame? I am guessing you will say both Obama and the Congress, but who, in your mind, is primarily repsonsible.
Also, take a look at the context of the cartoon. On the neighboring page, Obama is signing the stimulus bill, is that merely a coincidence?
You must not have watched the interview but duh, isn't racism about what people think? Ya think? What do you think racism is, some religious experience?
how about the t-shirt that had the face of curious george and said about Obama under the picture.
of course im sure you would probably think that is liking Obama to a curious but well meanning character who needs to be lead around by a man with a big yellow hat and always seems to somehow get himself in all kinds of trouble.
how about this for evidence?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/14/AR2008051403613.html
its about a guy in Georgia selling a T-shirt with curious george and below saying Obama in 08. that wouldnt be racist in any way......
i mean im se you would say that its just saying that Obama is a well meaning person but gets in trouble alot and needs to be helped out by a friend.
Where did the bill originate? The original bill wasn't shaped by Obama and his advisors?
Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty has to admit that the cartoon implies racism. Even if that wasn't the intent, you can't just brush it off as "marching orders from Al Shaprton [sic]". Either that cartoonist should quit because he's a racist, or he should quit because he's not smart enough to think for three seconds about what he puts on paper.
So your view is the left is offended, so he needs to lose his job. Wow. So much for free speech. So much for an open exchange. This shows opnce again the left has no tolerance like it demands of the right.
Surprise, another wingnut who doesn't understand the concept of "free speech." Free speech doesn't entitle you to a job with a newspaper.
And the whole you're-being-intolerant-of-my-intolerance shtick isn't even funny anymore. If you think an "open exchange" includes the acceptance of blatantly racist cartoons, then that tells us all we need to know about you.
who said anything about acceptance? You are free to accept or reject it. Or you can denounce it or whatever you'd like. It's called freedom.
By "acceptance," I was clearly referring to pointofview's assertion that we should tolerate this sort of hate-speech as part of the open exchange of ideas between the left and the right.
And again, your freedoms do not entitle you to a job at a newspaper.
So now it was "blatantly racist"? I forgot, Al said it was so it must be. How soon we forget Tawayna Brawley, and the damage Sharpton has done to race relations in this country.
I personally don't care if Sharpton said he saw the Loch Ness Monster. The cartoon screams racism no matter who else thinks so.
Indeed. The cartoon is racist, and Al Sharpton's opinion does not make it any more or less racist than it is.
Brab,
I disagree. You have to really dig deep into the penumbra in order to find it.
In case you missed it, there was a chimp gone wild in the news that had to be put down because it was out of control. That was the intent of the cartoon. Obama did not write the bill. It came from Congress. It is a huge stretch to imply that the cartoon represents Obama. Only left-wingers find racism where it is not.
The spineless and incoherent bigotry of this cartoon and those who try and defend it spinning desperately to limit this to so-called radicals, when in fact, everyday America is appalled by the cartoon and the NY Post and sickened by the clueless individuals who wish to mitigate the outrage.
I think more damage was done by Tawayna for lying about the whole affair, but since you want to bring up the past and race relations, let's talk about the damage Susan Smith did when she drove her car into the river with her children trapped inside and then tried to claim a black man stole her car when she was parked at an intersection. I remember the tear filled news clips still, how the poor daughter of a christian preacher had her children abducted by a mean ol black man, and then how she couldn't believe a mean ol black man would kill her children, blah blah blah blah blah.
Not only racist, but she used her christian background to justify it.
snoop,
I find it rather amusing that you use a murderer as you example for both racism and attacking Christianity. Way to take ridiculousness to new heights!
Snoop was not attacking Christianity. Snoop mentioned the loathesome woman who killed her own children, then blamed it on a black man. Snoop then mentioned that she sure was acting in a Christian manner, what with both killing her children AND blaming a black man for it.
How is that an attack on Christianity? Your failed logic never ceases to amaze me.
commonsense nailed it, I was merely pointing out an example from someone from the right doing as much damage as the claim about sharpton. You should take the time to comprehend, you'll give better responses than the knee jerk reactions you are known for.
....And the guy in Boston that killed his wife,shot himself and blamed a black man.Only his brother (who had helped him) turning him in, prevented him from getting away with it!!!!!Then the policeman in Oklahoma faking eveidence to arrest and convict hosts of people (mostly black) and recently the judges in Pa sending teenagers(mostly black) away for pay-offs....Not to mention all the reversals of convictions based on DNA evidence esp in Texas where they set records for number of executions!!!!!They recently charged the cops in Atlanta for shooting the old lady in her home and the transit police in Okland for shooting another unarmed black man.Unfortunately Tawayna Brawley lied but its no evidence to support discounting other complaints that AL Sharpton or anyone else raises . ..they all have to be looked at on an individual basis...Sean Bell, Jenna Six,Genarlo Wilson..it goes on and on..Blacks are more upset at seeing these things that are happening right now..like the carton..than the residual animosity from Slavery,Jim Crow and the Civil rights era!!!Everytime I hear sombody saying get over it ..I think .. WE keep trying and somebody does something to show how far we still have to go!!!Thanks Rupert Murdoch!!
Wouldn't it be nice to see Obama as our President who just happens to be Black.Anyonethink this level of instant attack would happen if he was white Democrat elected with a sizeable vote majority .Would a US Senator at this stage be asking if he's really a citizen!!!!?
How soon we forget Palin and McCain hyping the false story of their campaign woker being assaulted by a black guy.
So your view is that racism is a valid viewpoint. Wow right back at you.
Where were you when that journalist got fired for saying Bush was too busy hiding in a bunker on 9-11 to lead? Oh, I forgot, you were probably one of the ones calling for his head on a platter.
there is a line you should not ever cross.
Well, where the hell is my NY Post column? I didn't even know about this obviously obscure portion of the First Ammendment.
Once again, you prove that you are unable to even look at ideas that you do not like.
history,
Hahaha... Points for snarkiness!
I guess that once again you prove that you do not let facts get in the way of your opinion. ;-)
You find the oddest things to "laugh" at.
And as for the cartoon - I've heard that argument and my response is, had the caption been along the lines of "Obama will need someone else to write the next stimulous bill." no one would have mistaken the intent. For someone a cartoonist that communicates for a living, that's pretty bad.
OB,
Oh well. It is apparent that only the radical left and race hustlers are trying to make hay out of this.
Way to not address my point. Had the caption been different, it would be quite difficult if not impossible to say it was racist towards the prez. The people that are responsible for it's publication must have known on some level how something like that would be viewed.
Show me one image or reference to Bush as a shot-dead chimp. Obama may not have written the bill, but he certainly is the face of the bill and the one who made it happen.
Because it didn't offend you does not invalidate those who were offended by it.
even if it is not obama being reference it is still a call to violence for whomever wrote it and it is WRONG
Hahaha... That is funny. Show me one news item during Bush's term in office where a chimp went berserk and had to be put down.
Here is are two example of Bush directly being likened to a monkey. The first one is especially offensive. Where was the outrage over this? (birds chirping...)
http://dearkitty.blogsome.com/2006/12/21/new-mark-fiore-animation-on-bushs-iraq-war/
www.internetweekly.org/2006/04/cartoon_bush_c...
Oh yeah. I get it. These are okay because they are insulting and demeaning to a Republican. You can do a search on google and find hundreds of political cartoons derogatory toward Bush. But because Bush is white, that is also okay.
Gotta love that liberal hypocricy.
And you gotta love the baboons struggling to understand how a cartoon that compares the person behind the stimulus bill to a dead primate might offend people.
Nice try, ugly amerikan. If there was nothing wrong with the cartoon, why'd the Post issue the unapologetic apology?
When even Murdo is embarrassed by the antics of the NYPost and fixed news, you've got bupkis. You've got bupkis, ug.
jw,
I think 'unapolgetic apology' says it all.
No, it just shows that right wingers don't have a conscience.
It also shows that they will apologize for racism, while at the same time, not apologizing at all.
When will you righties learn that such an "apology" (I apologize IF I offended anyone) is not actually an apology?
And I think the point jwcoop is making is that if the cartoon's not that big of a deal, if people weren't insulted by the cartoon, why would the paper issue an apology (even if it is an unapologetic apology)?
It usually does when brain-dead, bigoted-trash shrub shills are forced by their bosses to issue apologies they don't want to issue in order to keep their jobs, ug.
Gee, ya gonna serenade us all with another chorus of Old Man River or Nobody Knows the Trouble I've seen while you moan about the white man's burden, little fella?
That's entertainment.
well AA how else could the cartoon be taken, buying your premise for a moment that it wasnt Obama, but who wrote the bill, that would mean it would still be an incitement to kill either Nancy Pelosi (which the cartoonist himself said that if he was referring to anyone, it would be her) or go a bit further and it would be Rep. Obey, since he was the one who wrote the thing himself.
either way it is an incitement to kill someone.
the,
Saying this cartoon is an incitement to kill someone is laughable.
You want to see real incitement?
'The Last Hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: `Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him'; but the tree Gharkad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.' (Sahih Muslim, Book 40, Number 6985).
http://jewjewsjewish.blogspot.com/2008/09/muslims-incited-to-kill-jews.html
Funny, I don't see any outrage over that? Do you?
Here, allow me to paraphrase: "Since there's offensive stuff being expressed elsewhere, the NY Post cartoon is perfectly fine and no one should be upset by it."
AA,
Did you know on the page opposite of the cartoon was a picture of Obama signing the stimulus bill? So, on one page you have Obama signing the stimulus bill, on the next you have a primate shot dead and the explanation of finding someone else to write the next one.
Can you at least say that the cartoon was in bad taste?
http://www.journalism.org/node/949
I don't think that that link makes the point you might think.
It just shows that Bush's first two months were not a cake walk either. I would like to see what the outcome will be for Obama. Time will tell,
Considering he was serving out Gore's presidency, there should have been a lot more negative coverage.
"Media assessments of Bush's first two months in office were mostly neutral"
Here's what's stated in your link. Obama's first 2 months will not likely be as kind, with Fox News' thumb on the scale.
perhaps not, but bush had a cloud over his head when he came in. obama has the Hoover Dam to fix
by Hoover Dam i mean the economy.
Wasn't Bush on vacation much of his first year in office?
How is being on vacation not a "cake walk"?
Oh, he was working, clearing brush on his ranch. Now *THAT* is hard work.
I apologize IF I was wrong... ;)
Are you sleeping Eric, or what? You didn't even mention Alan Keyes..
Alan Keyes: Stop that 'radical communist' Obama or America will die
or try Googling "states claiming sovereignty" - You'll find hundreds of right-wing sites all up in a tizzy over this idea (the latest count I see is 26 states) and insisting this means succession.
What the hell happened to the "America Love It or Leave It!" that we had to put up with for the past 8 years? One month and they want to overthrow the government?
In addition, I guess that whole "respect the presidency" and "respect the commander-in-chief in wartime" all flew out the window too.
These types are truly pathetic.
careful that's Glenn Beck your quoting there
It's kind of weird because one of the few countries that is economically sound is communist China.
I don't think right-wing media really cares about being economically sound, they're far more into protecting a failed ideology. They need to be right more than they need America to be vital again.
They espouse an ideology that leaves the rich with the vast majority of the country’s wealth and resources while everyone else fights for scraps. I don't know why so many working class Americans embrace it though.
VIVTOR,I do believe you are correct. Their political ideology is more important than anything else.
Not real sure about that, I've seen reports of lay-offs in China also. Not to the extent of US and Europe, but happening.
Oh, Oscar. Are you ever right? China's economy is going through a big growth period right now. Unfortunately.
The only communist thing about China is that people call it that. It is not communist in any sense of the word. The correct description is "fascist". Which is why it's so confusing when they accuse Obama of wanting to make the US into China - that's been the right-wingers' plan all along, pretty much.
What did you expect? It's a cottage industry.
When the fringes of either or both parties "hate" what's going on, I view that as a positive.
Brucie, cut the crap. Lose the phony "moderate" act and stop pretending that you're not a card-carryin' member of the gop-slop spewin', shrub-shillin' lunatic-fringe in good standing.
Maybe someday Obama's class will rub off on some of the loony lefties around here (read: you), but I seriously doubt it.
That's okay. Keep taking your shots while you're still not banned.
You must be reading the wrong scorecard, pal, but at least you could give me some credit for taking all this abuse over the years.
Try to stick around at least through the first two trillion this administration blows through...
Apparently the post I responded to disappeared. It was rather humorous too.
I think they were as quickly geared up for Clinton. Remember they were trying to impeach him before he was sworn in. I believe they already had the list of hundreds of people he had suposedly killed; Floyd Brown of Willie Horton ad fame had already met with Justice Jim Johnson to get Clinton because of his support for black Americans.
Johnson, worse than Fabus--in fact, the man who pushed Fabus to block the school door--was told by Clinton years earlier that he, Johnson, was disgusting and a disgrace because of his racist views. Who do the racists hate the most? The black man or the white man they call a race traitor? Nixon's Southern Strategy is alive and well and may be for years to come, despite Obama's victory.
Malkin is one of the nuttiest right wing nut jobs there is. I wonder if it bothers her that a white guy named Ann got rich doing her schtick?
The press is bad enough, but when republican politicians gloat about Ginsberg's pancreatic cancer and dance as they claim she'll be dead in nine months why are we surprised anymore? The right wing has flushed class and dignity down the toilet. And there are people here who wonder why they can't get respect? Now ya know...
Gimme a break. It's not exactly news that gops are scum. They pulled the same jumpin'-for-joy act when Sarah Brady was diagnosed with lung cancer and the oxy-moron was takin' cheap shots at Chelsea Clinton during her "ugly-duckling" phase back in '93 and '94 between segments accusing the Clintons of murdering Vince Foster.
Now he's openly pulling for Obama to fail. These people don't have a moral, patriotic bone in their bodies. They're no more patriotic than the nazis were patriotic Germans.
I disagree with your point that the Nazis weren't patriotic Germans...and nothing else.
How do these republicans keep getting re-elected? The republican party has always been for the rich....but there isnt enought of the rich to be able to get them re-elected. It is the ignorant that keep them getting re-elected....its the ditto's...you know the type....the ones that tune into the AXIS of EVIL every night.....Beck, Hannity and O'Riely........Limbaugh is just an ass!!!! The people that has to be spoon fed their politics. The ones that keep those outrages emails circulating....the ones that dont have an original idea of their own. DITTO......I agree with what he said last night....... the non-relenting attacks on President Obama and his stimulus package is shameful....... As always...if they cant beat you on issues....they attack your character. The whole world seems to be embracing our president, as a light of hope....a President that they once again can trust....but those, with their own agenda...runs into the ground, on a daily bases....GOD HELP AMERICA!!!!!
BOEHLERT's article is terrific. HOWEVER, WHAT CAN WE DO TO FIGHT AGAINST THIS KIND OF LUNACY? WHAT CAN I, "JOE SCHMO", DUE TO FIGHT BACK AGAINST THIS BIZARRE AND DANGEROUS MACHINE? MAYBE YOU CAN RUN AN ARTICLE STATING WHAT WE AS THE GRASSROOTS CAN CONTRIBUTE (I'VE ALREADY CONTRIBUTED MONETARILY). MOST OF THE TIME I FEEL COMPLETELY HELPLESS, AND WOULD APPRECIATE ANY KIND OF SUGGESTION.
I'll go ahead and say that I hated Bush. I hated him as much as the right hates Obama.
The difference, which Boehlert doesn't stress enough, is that Bush did a lot of stuff that reality has shown to be bad. Obama didn't.
I agree with NiceguyEddie. The Repulicans are cutting their own throat with al lthis nonsense. People (with a brain) didn't buy it during the election and they won't buy it now. The Repulicans are simply demonstrating the extent of their ignorance (socialism this, socialism that blah blah - - -they have no idea what the concept means). If this continues, we'll see the GOP senators drop to 18 (like their number did in 1937) and 80 in the House (again in 1937). Then maybe they'll get a clue.
From the perspective of an African American who has been equated with simians repeatedly, I honestly have learned to ignore comments of that type. One gets used to it over time. Just because someone thinks that way, does not make it so. I think that the attacks on President Obama are because many people in America never in their lifetime ever imagined that a person of color, anyone of color, would be acceptable/qualified enough to be POTUS. They fail to realize that African Americans have always voted for white men for POTUS. They inaccurately postulate that AAs voted for Obama BECAUSE he was AA, totally disregarding the fact that AAs vote on the issues a political party represents and which candidate's vision for the country most closely resembles theirs. This is reminiscient of the battle between Pres. Johnson and the radical republicans during Reconsruction when Johnson most clearly stated that, "white men alone must manage the South. (1865)" Transfer this attitude forward 144 years, and it's the same. They only thing to substitute in the quote re. Johnson is the word, South for the word America. Times change, people's lingering attitudes do not, but so what? Obama received a majority of the popular and electoral votes. The same race of people who wrote the Constitution, which is a wonderful document, now want to change the rules. Sorry, you own it. You insist that all Americans play by the rules, Obama did. He didn't steal anything. You just got punked at your own game because you never thought it could happen, and now that it has, all you have left is your illegal outrage, and my reference to illegal means, he did it playing by your rules. Checkmate. BTW, you don't have to like him. You can say whatever you wish b/c your 1st Amendment rights ensure that you can, but in spite of all you may say/do, President Obama will remain in the White House for at least the next 4 years. Go ahead. Have at it. Just remember: African Americans, other minorities, and quite a few whites have extensive practice in dealing with your tactics, the main one being to just keep surviving in spite of your words and actions. We're still standing.
Bravo!
Excellent post!
Were still standing!!!! "Just like a tree planted by the water...just like a rock that can't be moved..." Right on brother!!
The sad thing about all the hate being thrown out by Malkin and her ilk is that some Timothy McVeigh type is liable to brood himself into a frenzy by reading it and listening to it and then "act to save the country." If that were to happen, Malkin, Limbo, Beck, and all the rest will be proclaiming the perpetrator as a saint & savior and will not have single twinge of conscience when they do so. The right has degenerated into something that I can no longer categorize as even human.
That's the general idea behind most of Malkin's malarkey.
The cartoon definitely did not refer to Obama since he did not write the stimulus! The liberal left wishes it had so it could play the sainted victim yet again...please don't post ridiculous accusations to mislead the topic and parrot the flaming left talking points!!!!!
As I said above, I thought Obama and his advisors were the first ones to dictate the terms of the stimulus bill. Besides that, Obama is strongly associated with the bill, to the point where it should have been obvious to anyone how it was going to be interpreted.
"Legally", Congress writes bill.
Reality is that when Congress and the President are of the same party, the President writes the bills.
The reason the bill had 35-40% tax cuts was because Obama was trying to placate the Republicans who wanted that percentage of tax cuts. He built that in there because it was his bill.
This nonsense that Pelosi wrote the bill is just that; nonsense. It's just more evidence of the Pelosi Derangement Syndrome.
Agreed.
You know how you put on clothes for an event, or maybe for work, and you look in the mirror and think to yourself, "Is this OK to wear?" If you have to question it, it's probably safer to NOT wear it, go back to the closet and choose something else.
Same with the cartoon.
The newspaper editor should have known better, even if the cartoonist was too much of a racist schmuck to know better. You would think that the thought of the cartoon being labelled as racist crossed the editor's mind.
flaming left? Are you calling the left wing a bunch of fags?
Apologies on the use of "flaming" where I should have used left-wing(nut)? I don't know which handle the lefties like, I got caught up in the moment...
as ive said on here before ill say it AGAIN!
ITS AN INCITEMENT TO VILOENCE.
get it through your head. it doesnt matter who is being referenced. the cartoon is saying that it was ok to kill the one who wrote the bill.
What proof do you have that it did not refer to Obama. Perception is reality. Of course a racist is not going to view something as racist. As I am sure you do not believe that your line of thinking is not racist.
Although Media Matters provides much info that is worth discussing with rational thinking people, that proves to be impossible for the most part. No matter what your opinion or contribution, you are beset with one or more screaming, slobbering wingnut trolls who must prove you are wrong no matter what. Civil discourse is truly nonexistent when todays's republicants (misspelling deliberate) are involved. Absolutely disgusting!
So who is the cartoon about then? David Obey? Nancy Pelosi? Come on, this bill has been consistently referred to as "Obama's stimulus bill" by everyone on both sides of the argument. But now you want to pretend that it's not? So, in your opinion, the cartoon is simply about two white cops assassinating some generic politician, and not specifically Obama? That's a lovely corner you've painted yourself into.
Above was supposed to be a reply to bluhawk7398.
The story I've heard is that the monkey represents Congress. The thing is, though, that typically when a cartoonist is using symbolism, they make that clear by labeling the symbol in question. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that way anyway. It only really makes sense if it's meant to be Obama.
The bottom line is that it was impossible to link the chimp mauling story with anything political because of the Presidents skin color and this cartoonist tried to do it. Big mistake.
And that's giving him the benefit of the doubt. At best he is insanely stupid. See my post right after yours (threaded off). Not only does that theory not match up to his own habits, but his track record suggests he's a right-wing bigot.
To follow up on that, here's a sample of some of this genius's work (link).
The apologists here can compare and contrast between cartoons. Notice that in the second one, people are labeled so that the reader understands the reference. Others follow the same pattern. So why not write "Congress" on the monkey? Because it's not supposed to represent Congress. The "joke" is that the two cops shot a wild chimp and thought they had shot Obama, and the suggestion is that it's easy to mistake one for the other.
My opinion - I hesitate to draw the conclusion that the cartoonist intended the chimp to represent Obama because racism that frontal wouldn't be accepted in a mainstream publication and the author would know that. However, the cartoon is a disaster no matter what and it never should have seen publication, regardless of the authors intent. Where are the editors?
If I'm proven wrong then I believe several people should be fired.
The depiction of violence against an elected official--no matter who it's supposed to be--should have been enough to keep it from being published.
Brucie, you were singing the same "if I'm wrong.." song since they couldn't find the wmd or link Saddam to 9/11 and ya haven't stopped shuckin' and jivin' yet. Five years down the road and ya still can't buy yourself a case or a clue.
The NYPost and fixed news are both owned by Murdo and run by partisan scum. There is nothing remotely mainstream or legitimate about either one of them.
Unfortunately, as with kiddie porn, there's a market for wingnuts who want to be told what they want to hear and don't want to be confused with the facts. They're just fillin' it.
Fortunately, based on fixed news ratings and news corpse's stock price, it's on the decline.
Hey, nobody ever said Murdo didn't know how to make a buck or worship the almighty dollar. That don't make the post or fixed news legitimate news-gathering organizations any more than it makes Hustler Better Homes and Gardens.
They're merely factually-challenged, fundamentally-dishonest gop-slop propaganda organs.
In short, it's ignorant trash by ignorant trash for ignorant trash.
Of course the cartoon was racist. So was the unapologetic apology issued by the Post. Their apology was no different than the one they issued the week before when one of those fixed news nitwits read the gop-slop talking points complete with typo and tried to pass it off as independent reporting.
What's more, the cartoon is not just racist, it's a blatant attempt to rile up the timothy mcveigh wing of the republican party and nra trash to assassinate Obama because you can't win on the merits and the facts aren't doin' ya any favors.
Again, it's merely ignorant trash by ignorant trash for ignorant trash.
The mere fact that it exists doesn't make it legitimate.
I voted for Obama, remember?
And look what I've gotten already: 17,000 troops committed for Afghanistan, a big fat tax cut as part of the stimulus, a stock market that continues to free fall, the same Sectretary of Defense that Bush had, the same Treasury Secretary that Bush had (what an inspiring guy he's been to Wall Street), More tax revenue to the IRS with each Cabinet nominee, and a free pass for Bush Administration shenanigans.
This has you doing handstands in the aisle?
We're only a month in, I'm sure the good stuff is just around the corner.
geitner wasnt treasury secretary, he was chairman of the NY Fed Reserve
Thank you for the correction. The Mad Money guy doesn't like him very much.
Sure, ya did, Brucie. Sure, ya did. And I'm sick and tired of wakin' up next to Cameron Diaz every morning, too.
Again, I hate to confuse you with the facts, but Obama didn't just decide to invade Afghanistan out of nowhere. Your boy, shrub, has had us there since 2001 before he took his eye off the ball, booted it all over the yard, made up some BS about Saddam havin' wmd and got 50K US Troops killed or maimed, blew a $trillion or two and invaded Iraq for no good reason.
Then, of course, there's the fact that Obama said he was gonna send more troops to Afghanistan a time or 500 during the campaign before he thumped clueless mcsame and all things bush, so stuff a sock in that gop-slop nonsense.
You've already been corrected about your Geithner garbage and I'm not happy about the tax cuts, either. Clearly, they were the product of a misguided, unreciprocated attempt to be bipartisan.
Gop bipartisanship is do what they say when they win and do what they say and pretend they won when they lost. That's why we're in this fix in the first place.
Like you said, Brucie, Obama's been President for just over a month and the shrub-shillin', gop-slop spewin', lunatic-fringe likes of you is already complainin' about the cost and the amount of time it's gonna take to clean up the super fund site left after eight years of brain-dead, bush-league incompetence and cluelessly-corrupt and corruptly-clueless negligence and hypocrisy.
Nothing about the SecDef? Nothing about the stock market? Nothing about ignoring Bush Administration "crimes"?
Very disappointing.
And Diaz is overrated so enjoy your breakfast.
In other words, Brucie, what you're sayin' is that ya got bupkis and you're still as caseless and clueless as ever.
Thanks for clearin' that up.
First of all, Gates ain't Rummy and let's see who's Sec Def a year from now, little fella.
Secondly, while it merely confirms the obvious, your need to put crimes in quotes when citing Bush Administration "crimes" sums up your shtick nicely, little fella.
I'd happily offer ya more rope, Brucie, but you're clearly in good shape. You've always been very resourceful that way.
I'll gladly remove the quotes when the cell doors close, this being America and all.
I've been thinking about this cartoon, and I have to say, I did come up with a defense that is both logical and reasonable. The chimp isn't Congress, Obama, or any politician at all. It's that chimp they shot, and nothing else. The policemen then comment "they'll have to get somebody else to write the next stimulus bill" in the belief that THIS particular chimp wrote the bill. It would also explain the lack of a clearly defined label, as it would imply that the chimp wasn't a visual metaphor for anything. I understand the bad feelings though, and when I first saw the cartoon I didn't think there was any other way to see it other than as a racist caricature of Obama. However, I'm starting to think this may be like that time Howard Cosell called a black player a monkey, in that it was just a really dumb thing to do. The biggest difference is that Cosell realized that his comment was tone-deaf and sincerely apologized for it.
As I said, I'm sure the chimp wasn't supposed to actually symbolize anything. The thing is that there's no establishment of any connection. There's no groundwork that's been laid, where we're supposed to think that the police believe it to have been written by a chimp. That's a requisite step before we're supposed to think they have a belief about this particular chimp.
That theory is possible, but the cartoonist would have to be expecting the reader to make a mental leap to reach that conclusion. And the Cosell comparison is interesting, because the contrast here is that the paper was very defensive to begin with. If that really was the joke, then they should have realized that they screwed up royally and apologized for their stupidity.
well said. And the media just goes with it to fill the hours and spaces.
Bruce
My computer will not reply.
"My opinion - I hesitate to draw the conclusion that the cartoonist intended the chimp to represent Obama because racism that frontal wouldn't be accepted in a mainstream publication and the author would know that."
I don't think the chimp is meant to "represent" anything, though. It's just the chimp. The joke is that the cops thought it was Obama. I also have a hard time accepting "they wouldn't do that because it wouldn't be accepted" as a defense, just because that mode of thought gives a mainstream carte blanc to do whatever they want under the principle that nobody will assume the worst of them.
I wonder where the editors are as well. I find it highly distubing that nobody raised a huge red flag on this before publication. If this was something on someone's blog, I could understand how someone might have just been really stupid for a minute before putting it out there. For the Post there is an approval and editing process, though, and I can't believe nobody saw the controversy that was going to blow up. There should be some firings no matter what, based on rank incompetence.
Certainly we all agree that this should not have ben published. Your analysis may be correct.
Brab, the day after this cartoon came out, I was listening to Stephanie Miller's show driving to work. It was in the news the night before, and Miller had Bay Buchanan on the phone.
Buchanan insisted she hadn't seen the cartoon, and even went so far as to say she hadn't heard anything about it. Then she went into a ridiculous defense of the cartoon she hadn't seen or heard about, closing with the rationale used above; Nobody would be that foolish, in this day and age, to depict a black president as a monkey.
She also went on to say that the chimp represented Pelosi or congress (in the cartoon she had never heard of), but the funniest part was that she didn't even seem to realize how backwards the idea of the cartoon was, only using the defense that cartoonists would be "PC" enough not to submit overtly racist cartoons.
That's where Bluhawk got his/her angle.
As Imus wouldn't be dumb enought to say "Nappy Headed Hoes"
As someone neither on the left or right - this Obama guy is clearly showing his inexperience and ineptitude on a wide variety of issues.
What wide variety of issues are you talking about? You must have several in mind.
My buddies on the left are going to think h*** is freezing over but you are dead wrong... Obama has shown savvy by being able to tiptoe through a lot of muck that he stepped into, we'll see where he goes with it and then render judgement. He still has plenty of time to impress...and btw that is the conservative viewpoint, not the repub.. please don't lump conservatives in with the repubs, we don't like it!
to all the posters referring to the racist cartoon, I believe it was offensive and without a doubt racist in nature so I understand the outrage. What I don't understand is where was Al Sharpton and Company when Condoleeza Rice was protrayed as an ignorant bare foot Aunt Jemima, in a cartoon in the New York Times during the UN talks that led to the war? If it bothers you it should always bother you,not just when it is one of yours.
I don't recall the cartoon and can't find it, so I'll refrain from commenting on it or your description of it. Regarding your 'protest all the time or never' concept, your point falls flat with me, considering how remarkably selective you are in your protest of the protest.
Was Aunt Jemima getting gunned down by cops? That's what I thought.
Dismissed.
"I don't know why some of your posts have been banned. I enjoy reading them. :-)"
You just answered your own question.
AA
"The cartoon does not link Obama to a monkey. The cartoon is note even referring to Obama. It is refering to those who wrote the stimulus bill."
Tell me why the cartoonist doesn't label the monkey then, when he has a habit of labeling figures to show who he is depicting.
"ps. I find it amusing that the left can use the same derogatory connection toward President Bush and think it is funny, while some here even going so far as to defend it. But, because Obama is a Democrat, he is off limits and suddenly it is beyond the pale. This is true hypocricy at it's finest."
It's because referring to a white man can't be construed as racist. It certainly can be taken as racist when talking about a black man. Therefore it's not hypocrisy.
Please clarify, are you being sarcastic in saying that racism exists only white on black/minority and not vice versa? I hope so... also the guy was an idiot for running the cartoon, a moron could have seen the trouble it would cause, unless his only goal was publicity(my guess)
Clearly, the post was and is still being edited by a moron.
Secondly, I hate to keep confusin' you gops with the facts, but Reverend Al Sharpton is an ordained Christian Minister and if the scum at the post doesn't run the cartoon in the first place, they've got nothing to protest.
"I disagree. You have to really dig deep into the penumbra in order to find it."
No, you don't. Obama is very strongly associated with the bill.
"In case you missed it, there was a chimp gone wild in the news that had to be put down because it was out of control. That was the intent of the cartoon. Obama did not write the bill. It came from Congress. It is a huge stretch to imply that the cartoon represents Obama. Only left-wingers find racism where it is not."
I know about the chimp. I'm not saying the chimp represents Obama. The chimp is the chimp. The joke is that the cops thought they had shot Obama. If you think otherwise, tell me why the cartoonist didn't label the chimp as "Congress" or whatever else, when he's not adverse to labeling his depictions in other cartoons.
Bluhawk
"Please clarify, are you being sarcastic in saying that racism exists only white on black/minority and not vice versa? I hope so... also the guy was an idiot for running the cartoon, a moron could have seen the trouble it would cause, unless his only goal was publicity(my guess)"
I didn't say racism exists only one way. I said that monkey references are not racist when used towards white people. There is no history by which to make that a reference to the entire race.
Got it --agreed as well, hopefully this cartoon dies a quick death and doesn't get pulled into the courts...
AA
"Oh well. It is apparent that only the radical left and race hustlers are trying to make hay out of this."
And only racists who don't have the spine to express their bigoted views directly are defending the cartoon.
Right on, Barbantio. The spineless and incoherent bigotry of this cartoon and those who try and defend it spinning desperately to limit this to so-called radicals, when in fact, everyday America is appalled by the cartoon and the NY Post and sickened by the clueless individuals who wish to mitigate the outrage.
http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v2338/251/2/1209935547/n1209935547_339520_307.jpg
B-b-b-ut, now you're being intolerant of intolerance!!!
"How is that an attack on Christianity? Your failed logic never ceases to amaze me."
Classic, isn't it? In the same thread that AA is talking about how it's a stretch to think the chimp cartoon is racist, he claims that talking about someone abusing their status as a Christian is an attack on Christianity.
AA
"Funny, I don't see any outrage over that? Do you?"
I don't see a lot of outrage over that on either side. Weren't you the one who talked about google hits being relevant not that long ago? When I googled "Sahih Muslim, Book 40, Number 6985" I got 1,650 hits. Most of them on the first few pages refer to other passages.
google- condoleeza rice cartoon aunt jemima, you'll find it.
that's a great point frank. It certainly illustrates the hypocrisy of many on the left. It's about politics primarily before anything else. Let somebody lob a racist jab at some conservative and it's dismissed, yet towards a liberal the outrage is deafening. it's not about consistency or doing the right thing, it's the liberal double standard.
I found that Rice cartoon and thought it was racially insensitive. Having said that, do you think the cartoon depicting Obama as a chimp who's been shot dead by cops is somehow a moral to drawing of Rice sitting in a rocking chair?
I meant to ask - do you think the cartoon depicting Obama as a chimp who's been shot dead by cops is somehow a moral equivilent to a drawing of Rice sitting in a rocking chair?
for me, I find both offensive, personally. But those that go around telling others what should or should not offend them should be consistent in their scoldings, regardless of who the target is politically.
Outrage does not fit neatly into one black box, white boy.
nice way to say why it's not really about racism at all with you, but rather politics. transparent phony. and your "white boy" comment is presumptive, but I am not surprised.
It's about a white cartoonist's violent and bigoted depiction of a US lawmaker.
The first cartoon that comes up under that google search was drawn by a self-described Republican.
AA
After perusing your link further, I notice that the author links to some youtube videos of himself. Check out this one (link). I love the part about pagan Christmas and how Catholics need to repent. Seriously, you dismiss the obvious racism of the chimp cartoon because Sharpton is outraged, but you link to some obscure and supposed controversy that's being forwarded by this clown? If you really think something can be ignored based on the credibility of the person complaining, you have some nerve citing that.
Frank
Funny thing about your argument. When I googled what you suggested, the very first link is to "alas, a blog", which seems to be on the liberal side. They declared two of the cartoons about Rice to be racist.
Are you sure she was portrayed as Aunt Jemima? I see a depiction of her as a character from "Gone With the Wind", and the mention of some jackass who called her "Aunt Jemima" on his radio show. Can you find the cartoon you're referring to?
Gee, was clueless condi portrayed as Aunt Jemima or Prissy? That's the thing about gops makin' meshuggah allegations of racial stereotypes. Ya can't expect them to be specific or accurate when they all look alike to them.
If Murdo didn't think there was anything to apologize for with respect to the cartoon, then why the heck did he apologize today?
Surely, it couldn't be because he's worried about keepin' his NYC media market monopoly waiver and his motivation is solely financial.
If the Post doesn't print the cartoon, Sharpton has nothing to protest and Murdo has no need to apologize. Reality. Give us a visit. I'll get ya a rate on a room.
And the controversial Gone With the Wind cartoon was drawn by a conservative. Surprise.
Bluhawk
Murdoch apologized personally, and I think that will help. What's been really aggravating is not the cartoon itself, but the people who dismiss the criticism out of hand. Murdoch says he sees why people were offended, which is a huge leap forward from people mocking those complaining and saying "it's a stretch" or it's solely the view of race-peddlers or whatever else. That's a big deal. It's perfectly understandable to be offended by the cartoon, and so that viewpoint should be recognized as reasonable.
I don't know what the courts can possibly do. Obviously I understand Sharpton's anger, but he can only carry it so far. Trying to involve the legal system will not help in this instance nor will it lend Sharpton any credibility in the future.
Coop
It might be for financial reasons. If so it suggests that he realizes that most people aren't buying their defense. If it was only radical leftists who objected, then Murdoch doesn't need to care what they think, because they're not going to buy his paper anyway. What it suggests to me is that he knows the publicity is bad and he stands to lose moderate readers. And the apology validates the complaint, which makes the apologists who attribute ulterior motives to those who have criticized the cartoon look like total jackasses.
That's about as much as we can expect.
Brab, Murdo is all about the Benjamins. Post Editor Col Allan is the one who chose to run the cartoon. He and Ailes are true bigoted-trash believers. Murdo just worships the almighty buck and news corpse's stock price is tankin' big time.
He doesn't have moderate readers to lose. Nobody in the newspaper business has any readers to lose. He doesn't want to lose his waiver. That's what this is all about. End of frickin' story.
This ain't about red or blue, it's about green.
I try to listen (or watch) some of these 'conservative' hosts - people who, I think, Buckley would copletly disown. Anyway when I do, it amazes me the anger and outright hatred they spew. Some of the most vile things I've ever heard. I wonder how they ever get any advertisers, let alone get syndicated!
CNN is a great one, with all their hype for decades about being such a credible news source, does no one there ever hear what Beck says?
frankly, I dodn't hear or read anything close to what I do from the 'conservative' water carriers and don't know how anyone can even begin to pretend to compare them with what progressives have to say!
Usually, progressives write or talk basd on something factual - while republicans just make stuff up using tones and speech pattern (sputtering and such) that drips with sarcasm and hatred.
That these people ever reach the airwaves amazes me, yet there are entire stations devoted to them and their advertisers.
Fairliberal
I didn't see your post until it was responded to.
"Yes you are right and it was the dems who were trying to subvert the process."
No, I'm talking about the recount riot. That was most certainly not staged by Democrats. That would be insane, since the original call was for Bush, obviously Democrats would have precisely zero interest in disrupting a recount. You should also remember that the woman who ordered the scrubbing of the voter rolls and was supposed to be an objective party to the election worked for Bush. Plus Bush's brother was Governor at the time. I don't even see how you imagine that Democrats were in any sort of position to subvert anything, but feel free to explain.
I wish that folks like the Democratic Socialists of America - or heck, why not the CPUSA for that matter - would undertake a public campaugn to educate the American public on what words like "socialism," "Marxism," etc. really mean, and why Obama's actions don't qualify.
I mean, I think that conservatives should be able to put forward their case against Obama's proposals, but one would imagine that they should be able to do it without resorting to distortions and scare tactics. I'd rather have the argument be about what he is *really doing* rather than about what they *think* he's trying to do.
Unhinged is exactly right; I actually find it mildly amusing. But hold on to your hats because when Obama succeeds things are really going to become interesting.
What will folks like Beck, an absolute master of manipluation do? Will he enter talking-out of-both-sides-of-your-mouth rehab? Start a support group of fellow ranters and ravers? Cry on television...again? Write a sequel to the Christmas Sweater? Attend boot camp for the intellectually dishonest?
The truth is that he is praying (which he tells us he does all the time being the good Christian he is...ahem) that Obama is not successful because if he is everything he's told his manipulated sheep listeners is a lie...which will force them to return The Christmas Sweater for a full refund.
I think I'll start wearing a poncho.
You're right. Once Obama succeeds, things will be come interesting. Conservatives' heads across the nation will begin to explode. I don't need that all over my suit and tie.
They don't have to admit anything - just look at their record of incredibly hateful things they've said. I don't have to detail them here, we all know them. That they can't be supported because they are so wildly hateful carries no weight. People still buy into them and when proven wrong, they simply start oveer with something else more hateful - usually denying that they were wrong to begin with but many times simply ignoring what they said. That's one reason they're called "ditto heads" - no thought, they just regurgitate the hate of the day.
Just head on over to Yahoo Answers! political discussion and you will see all non-warranted hate the right has to offer. With Bush, at least we had an excuse to compare him to past dictators and what not...I mean come on, warrantless surveillance, torture, secret prisons, lying to to go to war, record use of presidential signing statements, the most secret administration in history, manipulating the public, etc....it goes on and on......we had a right to compare this man to the most vile villians of the past because of these very anti-American actions and decisions he made! Obama on the other hand does not warrant any of the vile garbage being thrown at him. He has only been in power for a month and yet it's unbelievable what kind of garbage has been said about him. Comparing him to Stalin, Hitler, and calling him a Marxist/Communist, saying that freedom doesn't exist in America anymore, saying an incredible amount of racist crap, saying that he hates America and is not even a U.S citizen! Calling him a terrorist, saying he is friends to terrorists, saying he is a Muslim....oh my god, it just goes on an on and on and it's only been ONE MONTH. Imagine if Obama actually tried to reform health care or education...or even made serious actions against climate change...just imagine what the right-wing media will cook up.
Imagine if Obama actually tried to reform health care or education...or even made serious actions against climate change...just imagine what the right-wing media will cook up. - alienof war
Well, Obama said in his speech to congress last night that the new budget will put emphasis on energy, health care and education. We'll see within a year or so what the Righties will cook up. It should be interesting.
I'm not surprised at all of the vitriol from the Right. They know their policies have failed. They know that the American public really isn't on their side. They have nothing to offer, so they have to use hatred. It's sad, really. It's childish. It's...it's...REPUBLICANISM!
Did anyone else think that Jindal was off his rocker last night?
I was naturally disinclined to like Jindal's reply and even less so after watching his regurgitate GOP distortions on Meet The Press, but even I couldn't beleive how truly awful it was. Still, the reaction from the right was priceless; I thought David Brooks was going to burn his GOP membership card on Charlie Rose last night, it was really something to see.
"The Washington Post's Sally Quinn went on TV and talked about how suddenly calm and rational Beltway partisan differences were, as opposed to those chaotic Clinton years:"
I think it's pretty telling how the defenders of Malkin here don't touch Mr. Boehlert's reference to Sally Quinn. Introducing a Straw Man has long been the rabid right's argument of choice. It's as easy as it fallacious, with the added benefit of a schoolyard tone that is irresistable to ditto heads. Even Jindal couldn't resist it last night, he even sexed up the GOP's light-rail canard with some magnetic levitation flair. Pathetic, with no end in sight.
Are you really the Ultimate Warrior?
I can see where the Republicans are coming from. After all, Bush lost the popular vote overall, won Florida only by short circuiting the legal process for counting the votes, and then proceeded to govern as divisively as possible, even driving one of his own moderate Senators out of the party in the process. Even so, the Democrats helped him pass No Child Left Behind.
Obama beat McCain like a drum, yet still reached out to the opposition after his election. In return the Republicans threatened a filibuster of any legislation it could torpedo and virtually boybotted the stimulus bill while the country teetered on the edge of disaster.
So I can really see how Bush hatred and Obama hatred occupy the same moral dimension.
WELL SAID!!!!!This is the type of logical fact-based comparison that is usually lacking when conservatives try to draw comparisons or justify based on ..he did it too....excuses for bad(racist,sexist..etc) behavior.How can people with character miss such a distinction?
Really? What prominent, mass-media liberal was referring to Bush as a chimp during his first 30 days in office? You may be able to find a couple of examples from some obscure bloggers, but the point of this article is the amount of hate-filled propaganda being spewed by the right-wing mainstream media against Obama in his first 30 days is unprecedented!