Limbaugh compared Bill Clinton to segregationist "Bull" Connor
On the January 28 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh repeatedly referred to former President Bill Clinton as " 'Bull' Clinton," a reference to Theophilus Eugene "Bull" Connor, the segregationist public safety commissioner of Birmingham, Alabama, who ordered that fire hoses and police attack dogs be used against protesters during the civil rights movement.
Limbaugh made the remark while discussing comments Clinton made on January 26 about Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) presidential campaign in South Carolina. Limbaugh declared: "We have gone from 'Bull' Connor to Bill or 'Bull' Clinton." Limbaugh later added: "And he looks like 'Bull' Clinton. The only thing he doesn't have is the hose." Limbaugh concluded:
LIMBAUGH: The bottom line was, he [Connor] was a member of the [Ku Klux] Klan; he was a sheriff, a police official, a staunch advocate of racial segregation -- fire hoses and police dogs on protesters. So, when we say we've gone from "Bull" Connor to "Bull" Clinton, what I mean is that "Bull" Connor lives in spirit today in Bill Clinton by virtue of his behavior in South Carolina and his dissing of Jesse Jackson when asked to explain Obama's victory.
From the January 28 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: And greetings, my friends, and welcome. It's Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchorman. Kicking off a full week of broadcast excellence here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies and the Excellence in Broadcasting network -- great to have you with us.
I called it. I told you the Clintons were going to play the race card. Not only did they play the race card, people have been asking me all weekend: So what do you think of this? I said it's very simple to explain. We have gone from "Bull" Connor to "Bull" Clinton, ladies and gentlemen. That's the way to express what has happened to the Democrat [sic] Party, now totally divided along the lines of race and gender -- but particularly race. From "Bull" Connor to "Bull" Clinton.
And if you wonder why I say -- Mike, grab audio sound bite -- I told him to stand by for Number 1 or 13. So, what do I do? Grab Number 2. Here is Bill Clinton Saturday in Columbia, South Carolina. This is outside a polling station and the president, the former president, is speaking with reporters. An unidentified reporter says: "What does it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you to beat him?"
BILL CLINTON [audio clip]: Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina twice, in '84 and '88, and he ran a good campaign, and Senator Obama's running a good campaign -- he's run a good campaign.
LIMBAUGH: Bill Clinton has compared Barack Obama to Jesse Jackson. We've gone from "Bull" Connor to Bill or "Bull" Clinton in one little nine-second sound bite. Now, you know, you remember that Clinton also took out Jesse Jackson. The Reverend Jackson was Sister Souljah'ed out there, so this is -- look it, a lot of people are saying, and they say, "Rush, you were right. This is exactly what the Clintons wanted to happen. They wanted a big racial defeat so they could go out" -- and their firewall's going to be Hispanics. Mrs. Clinton is going to go out there and try to shore up Hispanics now, playing the race card again. But I don't think they expected to be in this position. I don't think they expected Toni Morrison, who claimed that Clinton was the first black president, to endorse Barack Obama, and I don't think they expected the JFK side of the Kennedy family to endorse Barack. Now, Ted Kennedy has his endorsement speech coming up in a few minutes, in about six and a half minutes.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: Two more little clips here, or excerpts, from Senator Kennedy's endorsement letter, which I feel confident will be in his speech today. He said: "I remember another leader who inspired a nation, especially our youth, to fulfill a promise of change. Those inspired young people marched, they sat at lunch counters, they protested the war in Vietnam, and they served honorably in that war, even when they opposed it." Now that's a little veiled attack at Bill Clinton, too, and his loathe of the military letter. And then comes this from Senator Kennedy: "That leader challenged them to ask what they could do for their country, and together they changed the world. So, in the words of that leader, John Kennedy: 'The world is changing. The old ways will not do. It is time for a new generation of leadership.' " It's a full frontal on the Clintons.
And then this: "Barack will be a president who refuses to be trapped in the patterns of the past. He sees the world clearly without being cynical. He fights for the causes he believes in, but refuses to demonize those who hold a different view." He has just accused, in this fundraising letter, in this endorsement letter, the Clintons of politics of personal destruction, the politics of fear, and the fact that they demonize those who hold a different view.
What this all means is that everybody in the Democrat establishment has long known exactly who and what the Clintons are, and as long as the Clintons were turning their venom on Republicans and conservatives, it was hunky-dory. It was fine. But now that Bill Clinton has become "Bull" Clinton -- from "Bull" Connor to "Bull" Clinton -- now that Clinton is turning, and his wife, are turning their tactics on fellow Democrats, particularly, a likable, young black guy, the Democrat establishment doesn't like what they see. We have the Kennedy wing in full -- it's a head-on assault against the Clinton wing, and it's delicious.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: Now, one of the problems is the Hispanic vote -- you know, the largest minority in the country, but their record of turning out is less than blacks. So, she's going to go out once again and she's going to try to stipulate that -- you know, look at what's happening to our party. Black people are -- they're siphoning off, and all they care about is themselves. And all they care about is each other. She's not going to say this in so many words, but she's going to point out: "Look what they did in South Carolina. Here I am, the savior and the Mother Superior of this country, and look what they did! They just rallied around somebody 'cause of their skin color." And the message is going to be, "Hispanics, don't let them take me out and don't let them, those black people, marginalize you."
So, these divisions are going to continue to happen the longer this goes, and I think there will be some residual fallout for Democrats if it's Mrs. Clinton in November as a result of what's happening here with the blatant playing -- I mean, look it. When I say that we've gone from "Bull" Connor to "Bull" Clinton, believe me, there are plenty in this audience, black voters, and they will spread -- they know exactly what that means. And he looks like "Bull" Clinton. The only thing he doesn't have is the hose -- you know, "Bull" Connor spraying the fire hose on these guys.
But Bill Clinton is doing his best to marginalize them, to say they're not important. That slam that Clinton made against Obama: "Well, I mean, he's just like Jesse Jackson." Jesse Jackson's a nobody in the Democrat Party without the Clintons. Jesse Jackson never got close to anything. What they're saying is: "Hey, now you people are getting all worked up about him. He's just another loser. He's just Jesse Jackson. He's just like Jesse Jackson. Jackson ran a good campaign. Now, what the hell do you expect to happen? A guy like Jesse Jackson comes in, Obama, with a bunch of black people in a state, what the hell you people think will happen? You think they're going to vote for a bunch of white people? Hell no!"
What he's saying is these blacks in South Carolina are a bunch of racists, and they're hanging together -- don't doubt me on this. The black population in this country hears this, those that pay attention to this, and they are getting it.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: Now, I have been saying, ladies and gentlemen, that the Democratic race can be typified by the following statement: We've gone from "Bull" Connor to "Bull" Clinton. And Mr. Snerdly has suggested it might be helpful for me to tell you who "Bull" Connor was. Some of you may not know because of your age.
His real name was Eugene "Bull" Connor. He was a member of the Klan. "Bull" Connor was a member of the KKK, the Ku Klux Klan. "Bull" Connor was a staunch advocate of racial segregation, much as was Bill Clinton's mentor, Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas. As the Public Safety Commissioner of Birmingham, Alabama, in the 1960s, "Bull" Connor became a symbol of bigotry. He infamously fought against integration by using fire hoses and police attack dogs against unarmed black protest marchers and even white protest marchers who were marching with the blacks. The spectacle -- now all this was broadcast on television -- the spectacle served as one of the catalysts for major social and legal change in the South and helped in large measure to assure the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Connor's tactics backfired dramatically into helping to bring about the very change that he was opposing.
The bottom line was, he was a member of the Klan; he was a sheriff, a police official, a staunch advocate of racial segregation -- fire hoses and police dogs on protesters.
So, when we say we've gone from "Bull" Connor to "Bull" Clinton, what I mean is that "Bull" Connor lives in spirit today in Bill Clinton by virtue of his behavior in South Carolina and his dissing of Jesse Jackson when asked to explain Obama's victory. "Well, you know, Jesse Jackson that ran down here, too, he did good in two elections. He ran a good campaign, but Obama ran a good campaign, too, but I mean, what the hell are you gonna do? You got black people down here support black people; they support losers. They support -- Jesse Jackson's a loser, but I had to go in -- you know I had to Sister Souljah that guy in order to get elected myself. You can't get anywhere with these people. You can't get anywhere with these people." That's what he saying. And so: "Bull" Connor to "Bull" Clinton.
Sounds like Rush has been hitting the OxyContin again.....
And he STILL has not told his listeners the truth about his arrest in the company of a male prostitute back in the '70s, when he was working in Pittsburgh under the pseudonym "Jeff Christie"
(I know someone in Rush's organization monitors MMFA. Once again, I'm calling on the "Great American Truth Detector" to TELL THE TRUTH about himself.)
It's the press's job to grill Rush about his... oh forget it.
This is disturbing.
After all, Rush has to be the world's leading expert on "bull".
This is disturbing.
After all, Rush has to be the world's leading expert on "bull".
He's also the world's largest distributor of bull.
The kind otherwise known in Orwellian Newspeak as "prolefeed"--deliberate lies and misinformation streamed to the Lower Classes, much of it tending to the trashy, sensational and misleading.
Up there with the so-called "bin-Laden Tapes" you hear about in the news from time to time.
Didn't this guy smear black quarterbacks in general, and Donovan McNabb in particular? What does that make him, George Wallace's illegitimate nephew?
Didn't this guy smear black quarterbacks in general, and Donovan McNabb in particular? What does that make him, George Wallace's illegitimate nephew?
Even George Wallace had a change of heart in his older years - something Limbaugh has not done, because he obviously has no heart.
In the late 1970s, Wallace became a born-again Christian, and in the same era apologized to black civil rights leaders for his earlier segregationist views, calling these views wrong. He said that while he once sought power and glory, he realized he needed to seek love and forgiveness. His final term as Governor (1983–1987) saw a record number of black Alabamians appointed to government positions. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace)
Absurd, isn't it? Rush also said blacks shouldn't be heard since they are only 12% of the population.
Using that logic, Rush Limbaugh should not be heard, because thrice-divorced, closeted homosexual, overweight OcyContin addicts make up and extremely small percentage of the population......
The Clintons are very ambitious, cut-throat politicians ...
Politicians that win usually are. If Obama wins the nomination, are his wife and his supporters going to go whining and crying to the press when the Regressive party goes for the jugular? You realize that what the Regressives will do will make the treatment Obama has recieved from the Clintons look like nothing.
I don't want to see a repeat of 2000 when Gore or 2004 when Kerry rolled over. That's why I'm supporting Senator Clinton. I know she'll fight them.
Politicians that win usually are. If Obama wins the nomination, are his wife and his supporters going to go whining and crying to the press when the Regressive party goes for the jugular? You realize that what the Regressives will do will make the treatment Obama has recieved from the Clintons look like nothing.
And that's precisely the reason why I'm not quick to jump on the Obama bandwagon because I honestly don't think he realizes how ruthless and soulless the Republican Slime Machine really is. He can't defeat them with his KumBYa mantra. The one thing I noticed in the last debate is that he's not that great defending his record when he's confronted. He mutters and yakety-yak about his record in this dear-in-the-head-lights expression as if he has no idea what hit him. (Remember, Obama is "above" such politics.) Take in that and the fact many liberal commentators -- Paul Krugman and David Sirota chief among them -- noted that out of the top three Democratic Presidential candidates, Obama has the least progressive domestic agenda. I have other issues with Obama and his use of identity politics in a covert way to win over white and black support, but I won't go into that right now.
Therefore, you're right, he may not be much of a fighter. But I don't think Hillary Clinton, despite being a fighter, has it easier against the Republicans. Going into the general election having Republicans and half of the Democratic base despising you will not be an easy feat for Hillary Clinton to overcome. So both her and Obama have their flaws if one becomes the nominee.
I totally agree with you there. If Senator Clinton wins, the Republican Slime Machine won't just lie down, they'll still give it to her. I just think she's more prepared to take it and dish it back.
Personally I like Edwards's message, I just wish it was being said by someone else. He's already been a part of a team that has show they didn't have what it takes to hand the Republican Slime Machine.
I'm for Edwards, too, but it's unlikely that he'll become the nominee. Losing in his home state was the final nail in the coffin for him. I'm just not sure if I can force myself to support Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I have major issues with the both of them. I've honestly had enough of DLC politics, and it's time to turn the page on Clintonism. However, voting for Obama, I believe, will not be the end of Clintonism, but a continuation. Some may say that Obama's leans more to the Right on domestic issues than Hillary Clinton herself.
In fact, MAX FRASER from the Nation wrote a revealing article about Obama's policies in addressing subprime lending. I advise those who think of Obama as the most progressive candidate in the Democratic race -- our very own liberal version of Ronald Reagan -- to give this article a read.
Don't give up on Edwards until he concedes defeat. It's a long way to the convention and even further to the election.
I can't believe how laughably lame Rush Limbaugh has become. His remarks about Bill Clinton are just ridiculous, that's all.
Rush, are you reading this? Dude, you're not even trying... Time to quit if all you can do is mail it in.
Bill Clinton is no Bull Connor. Not even close. And Rush's feigned concern about Clinton allegedly playing the race card is laughable. Rush is loving this.
But just to be fair I would hope all of you felt that Charlie Rangel was also unjustified when he said: "George Bush is our Bull Connor."
Smearing either Clinton or Bush this way is totally unfair & uncalled for.
And just to make Rush look even more ridiculous, here's what he had to say about Rangel at the time:
"LIMBAUGH: I think they [Democrats] are all losing it. I think it [Rep. Charlie Rangel's (D-NY) controversial comment comparing President Bush to Bull Connor] is an example of how they are just -- been totally discombobulated and disjointed. They are all losing it. That's why people think they are ripe to be buried, Mr. Vice President."
So by Rush's own standard, his comments about Clinton must mean that he's "losing it."
Comparing Rush to Rangel is unfair.
Oh please Clam give me a break, you know damn right well I was not comparing the two men, I was comparing their unjustified & over the top comparisons of Bull Connor to either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush.
For anyone to equate either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush to such a divisive figure and unabashed racist such as Bull Connor is not only outlandish, it's plainly bullsh#t. As is your ridiculous post.
But I'd expect nothing less from you...
Oh please. Your post wasn't worth spending more than a quick minute on as soon as you falsely tried to make my post about comparing Rush/Rangel when it was cleary comparing their statements comparing Clinton/Bush to Bull Connors.
I won't play your silly game of change the issue. Tommy might have patience for that. I don't.
Go cry to someone else.
Jeter,
Just look at his post, first he says Rangel's accusation was unfair, then he calls it justified......and then he whines about you getting personal after he completely misrepresents what you said. Perhaps if he wouldn't do that, he would get more respect, or at least treated with more civility.
He just ties himself up in his rhetoric and then cries when caught, when will he learn?
Just look at his post, first he says Rangel's accusation was unfair, then he calls it justified
Yeah Tommy I spotted that when I first read his post & was gonna zing him on it, but I figured he'd try some double-talk excuse & the last thing I wanted was to get into one of those protracted arguments with him where he just keeps moving the goalposts, making ridiculous accusations or parsing every other word.
I don't know how you do it, you must have the patience of Job.
Either you two have some serious reading comprehension problems or you're unable to debate this honestly without completely misrepresenting what I've clearly written just a few posts up. Here it is again: "The fact is that Rangel's statement--as unfair as it may have been--was actually more justified than Rush's attack on Clinton. That much is inarguable, no matter how out of line one thinks Rangel may have been in that instance."
If you can't wrap your mind around that, then that's your problem, not mine.
Also, the record of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department during the Bush administration is clear: not a single voting discrimination case was brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters from 2001-06.
A reasonable person might conclude what Bull Connor sought to accomplish with fire hoses and dogs the Bush administration is accomplishing by manipulating the levers of government.
You see? You start repeating Republican talking points, and pretty soon the Republicans are repeating them back -- it's like an echo chamber.
And the idea that RUSH LIMBAUGH, the guy who's made numerous racist statements himself, is now feigning concern for Bill Clinton's supposed racism ought to appall all Democrats, liberals and progressives. NO President had a better record on race relations than Bill Clinton. NO President to date championed the rights of minorities more than Bill Clinton.
Fratricide among Democrats now makes it harder to support the eventual winner after the primaries are over, and easier for the Republicans to attack our nominee later. I have NO PROBLEM agreeing to back the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is. Obama, Hillary Clinton, Edwards? Anyone of them is fine by me. You should all feel the same way, too.
We have to roll back the Bush excesses, leave Iraq, restore the rule of law and return sanity to the economy, government spending and the budget process. Turning on each other now only makes it that much more likely that we end up with President McCain or President Romney, and then nothing changes.
Let's end the circular firing squad now and minimize the chances for Republicans and their mouthpieces to turn our own words back on us.
I would suggest also that our candidates have a responsibility to take aim at the monolith of conservative failure instead of shooting one another.
Whenever I listen to The Oxymoron's show, or read transcripts, I can't help but picture him cobbling together these half-*ssed analogies that he depends on(as they're obviously written beforehand, going by the clumsy scripted feel of them).
I realize the dittoheads call up and tell him how brilliant he is,but doesn't he have a sober person look these over before he goes on the air, maybe point out how flawed all of his logic is? It's not even good propaganda, yet he reads the stuff with this air of self-congratulation that almost makes a normal human feel sorry for him.
On second thought, I guess his material is working just fine. His audience doesn't know the difference.
Right, Limbaugh may have just thrown some votes Sen. Clinton's way, should she be the nominee. And it sounds like Limbaugh may not regret that if McCain is their nominee. He is threatening the GOP electorate that he won't back McCain if he wins the nomination. Odds are that this is just a bluff to hurt McCain, but I have a hunch he might mean it.
Follow MMFA's "logic":
Since Rush Limbaugh is "Bad"
Therefore, Bill Clinton's race-baiting and thuggish attacks on Obama are "good".
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry guys. All the rightwing wackos in the world do not make the racist campaign of Hill and Bill justifiable.
Bill and Hillary Clinton are not racist!
How much of the Black vote did Hill get?
Notanother,
It is inherently racist to assume that the only reason that people would vote for or against Obama is on the basis of race. The point you tried to make doesn't work.
HBL do you have a thing for fried chicken or ?
So let's say some off-duty cop shot and killed someone for shoplifting, without any warning at all. Your take on that is:
1)What the cop did was bad, therefore shoplifting is good, or
2)Shoplifting is bad, therefore murder is good.
Is there a third option, maybe?
If Bull Connor were alive today Limbaugh would be his biggest fan. This statement shows how far right-wing hysteria has set aside all reality and become an alternative universe of its own. I think conservative wackos are subtly trying to blame past segregation practices on Democrats when it was their party that exploited it and sought to continue it through inaction and state's rights campaigns.
Rush Limbaugh has been on the radio for two decades, the GOP Congress held sway from 1994 to 2006 (and still hold the power to gridlock Congress), and George W Bush has sat in the White House for the past SEVEN YEARS.
Obama has a message of CHANGE, which is directed at the tactics of “the past”.
Limbaugh hears:
“The world is changing. The old ways will not do. It is time for a new generation of leadership.”
And,
“Barack will be a president who refuses to be trapped in the patterns of the past. He sees the world clearly without being cynical. He fights for the causes he believes in, but refuses to demonize those who hold a different view.”
And,
“With Barack Obama we will close the book on the old politics of race against race, gender against gender, ethnic group against ethnic group, and straight against gay,”
… and Limbaugh “interprets” that these comments are NOT directed at himself, or at the Bush regime, or at Republican “Swift Boaters”, but instead are directed at … Bill Clinton (?).
Such a bogus interpretation can be expected from Limbaugh, because he clings to all the divisive tactics of “the past.” It's his JOB to "carry water" for the Rightwing.
Kennedy is betting Obama can “rise above” those tactics, which, should Obama win the nomination, will be coming from the Rightwing from February (or so) until November (NINE LONG MONTHS!). Kennedy is betting “refusing to be trapped” will WORK. I’ve watched the GOP for decades now, and I’m terribly skeptical that the GOP, along with their wholly-owned subsidiary ‘the MEDIA’, will not bog Obama down in their game of attack politics.
When I saw Obama attack Hillary for being an attorney for Wal Mart, I knew that Obama was not strong enough to keep to his “message of HOPE”. It’s a shame, but he’s only human. And a wonderful candidate who cannot stick to his high-minded message will be devoured by the GOP smear machine. It’s just that simple.
Hillary KNOWS the enemy, and can BEAT them at their own game. She’s been dealing with their tactics since 1990, and consistently comes out on top. She’s been “vetted” by their worst attacks ALREADY, and is “immunized” by the fact the GOP hasn’t laid a glove on her. In my estimation, she can prevail to victory in November, and I fear very much Obama will be stunned, surprised, and thrown off message when the GOP attacks start coming his way in earnest.
Further, I believe this is what the Republicans and Rush and the Media are hoping and praying for … they DO NOT want Hillary as the candidate. They WANT Obama as their opponent. And the prospect of having Kennedy to attack, too, has them salivating and gleeful.
It is my policy to want the OPPOSITE of what the Rightwing want. Their manipulations will not work with me. Hillary will get the job done.
How come when republicans were in total power, meaning controlling the White House and Congress, it was, shut up, sit down, the adults are driving and we won, so you don't really get to do anything. And anytime the democrats did try to do something, they were painted as un-American, un-Patriotic, and blockers of all things republican. Not to mention, when the republicans took Congress in 1994, they essentially declared an all out WAR on the democrats, including the sitting President at the time, and it was all lead by, and basically started by, Newt Gingrich, and his group of cronies.
Now, that the democrats are on the precipice of taking the White House, and possibly retaining control of Congress, the republicans are talking about this whole spirit of bi-partisanship, and working together, and stopping the divisiveness (that they started). Funny how when they lose their edge, they start whimpering about bi-partisanship when the other party is in control. Even though they keep consistently blocking legislation in the Senate to the tune of the most fillibustered session of Congress ever.
So much for them "wanting to work together" and all.
If a democrat takes the White House, and IF Congress is still under democratic control in January of 2009, I expect them to move their agenda along swiftly, and to use their control to get the things they want passed through Congress, just like George W. Bush did until 2006 when his rubber stamp ran out.
As the wise bill O'reilly says, you can't excuse bad behavior by pointing to someone else's bad behavior. Because the GOP failed to act in a bi-partisan matter doesn't make it right that the dem's do the same. If the dems take power in 2008, then of course its their prerogative to push their agenda. Do you not think Obama would push that agenda? Nonetheless, if its the same old bitterness, then there will be continued stalemates, and at some point the repubs will take back power and it will be more of the same.
With that said, it certainly would be nice to have the hatred of the hacks on both sides of the aisle marginalized. Hillary panders to people's vitriol, Obama doesnt. Obama seeks to be president of all of America, not just 50%. I think people like Obama, and McCain, would be much more effective in moving America along because of their willingness to work with the other side of the aisle and end "stalemates." They realize that, contrary to the views of the radical left and right, most Americans have many more common views than they do differences. Most Americans share many common goals, but differ on the means . . .
"Because the GOP failed to act in a bi-partisan matter doesn't make it right that the dem's do the same."
I'm not sure how far you can take that, honestly. Dems have been a lot more tempered in their behavior since regaining Congress, for starters. They could have filed motions of impeachment immediately against both Bush and Cheney. There's certainly more grounds for it than there is for lying about a personal affair, and more public support as well.
The fact is that Clinton was fairly moderate. But Conservatives acted like he was Fidel Castro, as if the ends justified the means in removing him. So what have Dems done that was excessively partisan, unreasonably spiteful?
The bottom line is that there's no motivation for Dems to play nice if Republicans don't. It doesn't help a damn bit in public perception. If it's going to be unmitigated arrogance while leading and record-breaking obstructionism when in the minority, then at what point do you change your tune from "two wrongs don't make a right" to "turnabout is fair play!"?
I agree that Bill Clinton governed moderately. I'm talking here and now. I'm taken with this Obama guy, and similar to many democrats, think he really can "change" the tune in Washington. If the bitterness continues as is, the cycle will never stop. Implicit in every speach that Hillary gives is her notion of "us' v. "them" . . . and "enemy" talk like Tex. That sh*t backfires. (Same thing happens when GW declares people "axis of evil" and with us or against us). When you call half of America your enemy, then they will act like your enemy. Then another 8 or so years from now the "enemy" will be back in power, and on and on . . . . Time to get out of that mud, and that "payback" mentality. That thought process is the reason why the overwhelming majority of Americans hate washington
Obama's no fairy tale. Look at the record turnouts in these primaries. It's him who's bringing more people into the game, who are tired of the fabricated bogey-men. It's refreshing that he can criticize his GOP opponents while not considering them the "enemy." As I said before, people like him will much more effectively push an agenda. Especially now, when the far-right is more marginalized everyday, he most definitely could be a "uniter." . . .
THOMP:
HALF of America is not "THE ENEMY". Bush's supporters are only 30%, and that's the same number reflected in the GOP vs. Dem turnout in the primaries so far.
Democrats/progressives/liberals outnumber rightwing Republicans 2-1. Yet, by divisive tactics, fearmongering, smearmongering, and the politics of personal destruction, the Rightwing managed to claim ALL POWER in our government for the past decade. PROVING they were the "enemies of America", the have promoted disasterous and destructive policies that have brought America down economically, in world opinion, and socially. NeoCons have killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of innocents, maimed and dismembered many more, exacerbated Class Warfare to benefit only the most wealthy, and have been corrupt and immoral. They are the ENEMIES of America.
So, YES, Rightwingers ARE "the enemy" in my estimation, and if I doubt they feel the same way about me and Liberals, I have my choice of a hundred radio and TV stations to confirm their hatred for "the left", any hour of the night or day. Their hatred is vicious.
Limbaugh and Hannity and Coulter and a thousand other rightwing bloviators HATE me, because I am a Liberal. Bush and Cheney HATE me, because I didn't support their terrible policies, they called me "unAmerican", a traitor, a collaborator with Bin Laden, a waver of white flags. Republicans and the Rightwing Media HATE me, and I hate them back. So sue me.
[Show me they've laid down their arms, and I might reconsider. But if you want unilateral disarmament, FERGIT IT!!! I know you rightwingers, you wish us to "turn the other cheek" the easier to cut our throats. NO THANKS.]
Tex, I gotta reply to your comment later, but as for your last paragraph, rest assured that my voting record does not reflect a rightwinger. That's part of the problem with your outlook. Someone disagrees with you on something, and you jump to the conclusion that they're the enemy. Contrary to your outlook, most dems and repubs share the same goals, but different means. You appear a bit too cynical
You're right about the republican party's poor turnout so far. At the moment they're not motivated, and the blame lies at the foot of this administration for many reasons. However, much of the disillusionment comes from repubs being not rightwing enough, and not too much. I'm not so sure that they're being converted into progressives
And again, your pointing to the smearing and hatred done by the far right does not make your own deamonizing of everyone who disagrees with you any less savory
"I'm talking here and now."
But so am I, really. I haven't seen any signs that the nature of the party has significantly changed since 1994, and if they behave the same then there's nobody that can unify the parties. When I was looking at Clinton's policies in 1992 I thought that Republicans could deal with him reasonably. What makes it different with Obama today?
I agree about the us v. them mentality. I'd love to see more bipartisanship and compromise, more moderation. My concern is just that the rules should be the same for everyone. Republicans impeach a popular Democrat for reasons not supported by the general public, and they not only keep Congress but "win" the Presidency. But if Democrats fight back, then they'll alienate people and the people will go right back to Republicans.
Hstybuf:
Just out of curiosity, do you think that Bush has actually done a good job?Can anyone give some evidence of Obama being able to bring differing points of view together based on his record?
I'm hearing the rhetoric but I'm just not seeing the facts.
I agree with him Americans have more in common than what sets them apart but find the world of politics has a reality all its own.