After Pelosi noted that protesters had swastika signs, media claim she called them Nazis
Following House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's comment that protestors are "carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care," numerous conservatives have misrepresented her comment to claim that she referred to the protestors or opponents of health care reform as "Nazis." Some conservatives have also falsely claimed Pelosi was lying or being misleading when she noted that protestors have had signs with swastika symbols.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Media falsely assert Pelosi called or suggested that opponents of health reform are "Nazis"
Joe Scarborough claimed Pelosi called opponents "Nazis." On the August 10 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough stated, "[O]n the left, you've got a speaker calling Americans un-American for going to town hall meetings and accusing them of carrying swastikas in there." After co-host Mika Brzezinski asked, "How do you respond to this ridiculous stuff that's coming out of the right?" Scarborough replied, "[Y]ou don't do it by calling your opponents Nazis."
Gregg Jarrett claimed Pelosi "sort of suggested that any American citizen that dared voice an objection in a protest is a Nazi." On that same day's Studio B with Shepard Smith, Fox News anchor Gregg Jarrett falsely asserted, "First of all, in the beginning, Pelosi sort of suggested that any American citizen who dared voice an objection in a protest is a Nazi, apparently based on one isolated incident."
Peggy Noonan suggested Pelosi called protesters "Nazi-like." In her August 8 Wall Street Journal column, Peggy Noonan wrote that Pelosi "accused the people at the meetings of 'carrying swastikas and symbols like that.' (Apparently one protester held a hand-lettered sign with a 'no' slash over a swastika.)" Noonan further wrote, "But they are not Nazis, they're Americans," later adding, "[I]f you're president ... [y]ou cannot allow your allies to call people protesting a health-care plan 'extremists' and 'right wing,' or bought, or Nazi-like, either. They're citizens. They're concerned. They deserve respect."
WSJ columnist James Taranto claimed Pelosi "insinuated that they are Nazis." In his August 7 Wall Street Journal column, Taranto wrote: "One should never in earnest liken a political opponent to the Nazis if that opponent does not practice or advocate genocide or totalitarianism." He continued:
The easy recourse to Nazi analogies -- far more common on the left than the right -- debases the currency of moral outrage and can only diminish moral clarity.
So was Nancy Pelosi right? Not a chance.
Let's review her words again: "I think they're AstroTurf. You be the judge. They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care." Who carries swastikas? Nazis. Pelosi did not complain that the protesters were comparing ObamaCare to Nazism; she insinuated that they are Nazis.
Limbaugh claimed Pelosi "is saying the people who oppose this are Nazis." On the August 6 broadcast of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh stated of Pelosi, "She's basically saying that we are Nazis. She is saying that the people who oppose this are Nazis, and I'm going to tell you what."
Pelosi actually said protesters were "carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care"
Speaking to reporters, Pelosi was asked if she thought there was "legitimate grassroots opposition" at recent town hall events. She responded:
PELOSI: I think they're Astroturf; you be the judge. They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care.
Media also accuse Pelosi of lying for saying protesters were "carrying swastikas"
Washington Times called Pelosi's "carrying swastikas" statement "misleading." In an August 10 editorial, The Washington Times wrote that Pelosi "misleadingly decried protesters 'carrying swastikas.' " The Times added, "Closer examination revealed that in every case, the symbol was being used as a warning against the arrogance of power of which Mrs. Pelosi has become emblematic."
Andrew Breitbart: Pelosi "blatantly lied and said that the protesters were wielding 'swastikas and symbols like that.' " In an August 10 Washington Times op-ed, Andrew Breitbart wrote that Pelosi "blatantly lied and said that the protesters were wielding 'swastikas and symbols like that.' "
WSJ's Stephen Moore: Pelosi swastikas statement "suggests she is completely clueless." On the August 7 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck, Wall Street Journal editorial board member Stephen Moore stated, "People just feel like the politicians aren't paying any attention to what the voters care about." He continued, "[T]hen they have Nancy Pelosi say, 'Well, the people who go to these rallies have swastikas,' just suggests she is completely clueless."
Taranto wrote that "Pelosi's claim about 'swastikas' is the product of a fevered imagination." In his August 6 Wall Street Journal column, after defining "Astroturf[ing]" as "professionally staging protests and lending them credibility via the false impression of spontaneity," Taranto wrote, "As far as we know, Pelosi's claim about 'swastikas' is the product of a fevered imagination. If there were swastikas, they would hardly be a sign of professionalism."
Pelosi was right: Swastikas have appeared at town hall meetings
As Media Matters for America senior fellow Eric Boehlert and Fox News contributor Alan Colmes have noted, multiple protesters at health care reform protests have held signs featuring swastikas. From Boehlert's post titled, "Jonah Goldberg goes in search of swastikas":
[...]
[...]
From Colmes' post titled, "Pelosi Is Correct: They ARE Carrying Swastikas At Town Hall Meetings":
Transcript
From the August 7 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
MOORE: I've never seen anything more insulting, Eric, than what's happened in the last week where the left is attacking many of the very voters that voted for Barack Obama. In fact, Ann and Eric, I actually went to a lot of these town hall meetings and a lot of these tea parties that have happened around the country. I know, Ann, you've been to a lot of them, too.
And I have talked to a lot of people -- they voted for Barack Obama. A lot of them were independent. Many of them, Eric, had never been to a political rally before in their whole life. And the only thing I'd add to what Ann is saying, of course, they don't like the health care bill. But I think it's wider than that.
I think this -- it's a kind of spontaneous combustion of frustration, not just about the health care bill, which most Americans don't like, but it also goes back to the bailouts, to the massive stimulus bill. People just feel like the politicians aren't paying any attention to what the voters care about. And then they have Nancy Pelosi say, "Well, the people who go to these rallies have swastikas," just suggests she is completely clueless.
What I find arrogant and elitist is her "astroturf" comment when asked about legitimate opposition. Not everyone was waving swastikas around. And for her to be so disrespectful to call those who legitimately protest as somehow being "fake" or akin to astroturf is ridiculous.
Here is what she said:
You are, then, in fact talkking eitehr about "nuts and idiots" or about the idiots that let themselves be misinformed by the nuts. (And the "nuts" in this case are "crazy like foxes" they KNOW their lying - they're getting PAID WELL to do it! So spare me you concern about those poor people and their health care. If you gave a $#!t about the PEOPLE, you'd be on board with this, and you'd be as p!ssed of about the attrocities allowed by the current system as we are.
So Speaker Pelosi called them "astroturf" huh? And that's somehow worse than the likes of you, defending a system that guarentees that 18,000 people a year get put UNDER the "'turf", to become LITERALLY grass-roots. She may have sladered them. YOU defend a system that kills them.
So spare me your misplaced outrage.
You can argue what you like but her words are there for us to see that she was making a distinction and she was taking into account some peoples legitimate concerns.
It is once again a problem that there is not more condemnation out there for these organized disruptions - particularly from the right. Nancy Pelosi gets in trouble for suggesting that people carrying swastika signs are not there for actual debate, but no Republican leadership is being asked why they are not condemning their base out there shutting down townhall discussions? Come on.
The organized factions have no interest in discussing the details of health care reform, only in silencing any such discussion, by muddying the waters with lies, or simply shouting down any attempt at rational discourse. So I'd say she didn't go far enough in describing these protests as astro-turf, it's far worse than that: it's an extension of the right-wing misinformation campaign that has been going on at break-neck pace since Obama secured the Democratic nomination.
In order to do that sort of thing, you have to have cause. Benefit of the doubt doesn't even come into the equation unless there's some reason to doubt in the first place. If she was asked about these people, and she answered, then that's as far as you can take the answer with any amount of fairness. Is there something odd about what she said? Something that seems out of place or extraneous?
If not, you're just assuming the worst because you have no argument to make. And since you're saying that it's based on your generalized perception of politicians, that's very clearly an emotional argument.
Brab is saying that the only reason you've given in support of your interpretation of Pelosi's remarks is your low opinion of her, and that that's not really fair.
But then you claimed that she was disrespectful to legitimate protesters, when her words show that she wasn't. You explain yourself by saying she is rarely honest about her intentions and doesn't want you to know what she really means. That's a low opinion, and one for which you've provided no basis.
Whine all you want about Brab, but he is respected by many other posters; liberals, moderates and conservatives.
I have higher standards for who I respect.
I'll use my own judgment to determine who's lying to me. It's not Brab.
So why won't you?
What is that distinction? There has to be something that makes a comment questionable. That's when you factor in past history, character, etc. If something is perfectly understandable, then there's no reason to theorize about motives, hidden meanings, or anything else.
Again, do you doubt everything that every politician says, or not? It's a serious question, and not a complicated one.
In order for it to be a "lie", I would have to be deliberately stating something false. It would be an error, if anything.
Just dodge the question some more. The whole point is that you're acting emotionally, which you're doing just as good a job proving this way.
Until you admit it, and apologize, any questions you toss out will go unanswered, do you understand?
I just love the authoritarian tone. I'm just so intimidated, really.
Enjoy your afternoon.
I'm not "lying" about anything. If I'm mistaken, then I apologize, but I'm not going to admit doing something that I didn't do. Once you expect that, then you're just creating an excuse to dodge the question. I could just as easily say I won't answer your questions until you admit you're a cross-dresser.
So, did you abandon Tommy because you were banned or because you wanted to be free to criticize Obama even though "Tommy" claimed to have voted for him?
Anyway, it's the height of hypocrisy to see a lying sock-puppet accuse somebody else of dishonesty.
They are, in fact, astroturf.
That's not "splitting hairs". It's the crux of the issue. Fake outrage by paid operatives is anathema to a functioning democracy.
Yes, there are legitimate organizations involved, too. They're not the ones shouting down speakers and waving Nazi signs. She wasn't being asked about them.
Take a look at the quote from Pelosi that congero6189599 posted above. She was very clearly making a distinction, one which shows your assessment to be false. She probably simply underestimated how dishonest her opponents were willing to be with her words, asserting that they meant something they didn't.
As for Nancy Pelosi, she nailed nothing. Her words were misleading - yes she say swastikas, but they were slashed out. She failed to mention that. She was intentionally misleading. A crossed out swastika sends a very different message than a swastika alone. No matter what side you are on, there is still something as objective truth.
Do you acknowledge that those protesters were doing that? If so, isn't that entirely consistent with what she said? If not, do you think those people are protesting a man who died over sixty years ago?
Of course you couldn't recognize Pelosi's elitism when you are on her same page. Never mind.
I have no doubt there are people with legit concerns, but all we see, and hear from (because of their shouting) are the yahoos.
This is politics now and many people see it. From Obama wanting to rush this through to the Democrats crying foul at protests. All this does is make people wonder why? It does nothing except make people take a second and third look.
Liberals can't govern effectively because it's all emotion, and they try and use that when the iron is hot. When it finally cools they get nervous. Pelosi demonstrated it quite well.
Not saying that they're not there, I'm sure that they are, but where are these people? They're not the ones at the meetings.
I know you won't acknowledge these as legitimate but they are.
We were asking, and you were talking about, the concerns at these events, you know, the legit concerns.
I know that cost could be an issue, could be. I'll gladly take a tax hike if we have a nationalized system of health care, or if it means a lot of my fellow American citizens can get health coverage. I don't have a problem sacrificing a little more to make our country better.
And another thing, there isn't even a final bill yet or anything close. So naturally people are legitimately curious and skeptical.
If liberals would stop propping up the loonies as a shield against substantive debate, we might make progress.
There are plenty of legitimate concerns, even if you and Nancy Pelosi think they are as fake as astroturf.
President Obama at his Tuesday town hall: "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems."
Government-run health care:
"This is not about putting the government in charge of your health insurance. I don't believe anyone should be in charge of your health insurance decisions but you and your doctor. (Applause.) I don't think government bureaucrats should be meddling, but I also don't think insurance company bureaucrats should be meddling. That's the health care system I believe in."
Rationing:
"[R]ight now insurance companies are rationing care. They are basically telling you what's covered and what's not. They're telling you: 'We'll cover this drug, but we won't cover that drug; you can have this procedure, or, you can't have that procedure'. So why is it that people would prefer having insurance companies make those decisions, rather than medical experts and doctors figuring out what are good deals for care and providing that information to you as a consumer and your doctor so you can make the decisions?
"So I just want to be very clear about this. I recognize there is an underlying fear here that people somehow won't get the care they need. You will have not only the care you need, but also the care that right now is being denied to you -- only if we get health care reform. That's what we're fighting for."
Putting insurers out of business with a private option:
"People say, 'Well, how can a private company compete against the government?' And my answer is that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining -- meaning taxpayers aren't subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of doctors, just like any other private insurer would do -- then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time. I mean, if you think about -- if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the Post Office that's always having problems.
"So right now you've got private insurers who are out there competing effectively, even though a lot of people get their care through Medicare or Medicaid or VA. So there's nothing inevitable about this somehow destroying the private marketplace, as long as -- and this is a legitimate point that you're raising -- that it's not set up where the government is basically being subsidized by the taxpayers, so that even if they're not providing a good deal, we keep on having to pony out more and more money. And I've already said that can't be the way the public option is set up. It has to be self-sustaining."
"Death Panels":
"The rumor that's been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for 'death panels' that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we've decided that we don't -- it's too expensive to let her live anymore. And there are various -- there are some variations on this theme. It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, et cetera. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they're ready, on their own terms. It wasn't forcing anybody to do anything. This is I guess where the rumor came from.
"The irony is that actually one of the chief sponsors of this bill originally was a Republican -- then House member, now senator, named Johnny Isakson from Georgia -- who very sensibly thought this is something that would expand people's options. And somehow it's gotten spun into this idea of 'death panels.' I am not in favor of that. So just I want to clear the air here."
"Enemies List":
"Before you ask this question, just because you referred to it, can I just say this is another example of how the media ends up just completing distorting what's taken place. What we've said is that if somebody has -- if you get an e-mail from somebody that says, for example, 'Obamacare is creating a death panel,' forward us the e-mail and we will answer the question that's raised in the e-mail. Suddenly, on some of these news outlets, this is being portrayed as 'Obama collecting an enemies list.' Now, come on, guys. You know, here I am trying to be responsive to questions that are being raised out there and I just want to be clear that all we're trying to do is answer questions."
WashingtonMonthly website.
http://www.alternet.org/politics/141860/inside_story_on_town_hall_riots%3A_right-wing_shock_troops_do_corporate_america%27s_dirty_work/
Again, the legit folks, the ones with actual concerns, are the ones we're not hearing from, at all.
Much of this alleged grassroots "concern" is fake, as evidenced by people not even near the Congressional districts where these events are taking place, showing up, and disrupting them.
And it's not protesting that we're crying foul over, it's the disruptions, and un-civil activity taking place in these meetings. Nothing gets done if people are shouted down, and not allowed to either ask, or answer questions. Want to have a loud protest, wait outside.
Liberals are all emotion? Have you seen the clips from these meetings? If the crazies aren't emotional, I'm not sure who is. Of course, they're repeating their fake un-true talking points talking about the country collapsing, being stolen from them, God is going to smite them, and so on.
And if we're not seeing them, and Tommy isn't seeing them, then Pelosi isn't seeing them either. She answered the question honestly and accurately.
Tommy usually throws out this bit of wingnut projection when he's cornered himself and is at his most emotional.
I'm sick and tired of this abuse of a word. It's truly idiotic to simultaneously complain that Democrats are taking away money from "working people" to give it to the "undeserving" and to say that they are "elitists". The two concepts are antithetical to each other!
Actual elitists want to keep their money to themselves. You know, like rich Republicans who can't get enough tax cuts.
This is classic stuff.
Well, it does stand to reason why she didn't...
What for-profit industry was behind the anti-war protests? Were movers and shakers of that industry sending out e-mails full of lies and paranoia? Were they informing protesters of townhall times and locations?
You just distorted everything about this debate and you managed to derail the topic. You have been shown exactly what Pelosi said and yet you still carry on as if you're right in spite of the evidence to the contrary.
If we are not hearing an honest debate on Healthcare, it is because of these insurance company-backed lunatics who are disrupting any possible debate. Blame them, not Pelosi.
There are legitimate concerns, but I have not heard them from the screaming nuts at the townhall meetings.
And while we're at it, oh great arbiter of the English language, how in the world does that first sentence even qualify as a sentence? And you have the nerve to accuse others of garbled posts? "[M]ostly by attendance only"? What is that even supposed to mean?
We'd be ferever gratful to be able to hear them.
Righton, if you don't mind a little constructive criticism,you could have given that a little more "Oomph" as;
Only an elitist liberal elite wallowing in their own elite elitism
She calls someone's tactics as unamerican and we should not connect that she calls them unamerican? She says that people are carrying swastikas and she's not calling them nazi's? Or that their invididual differences with her make them part of an astroturf movement? OK, I'll buy that.
But when the conservatives say that the democratic party is acting like socialists, then don't accuse us of calling you socialists. :)
Or that their invididual differences with her make them part of an astroturf movement?
Is ridiculous BS. You're being sincere, so that explains that.
Using her words. "Judge for yourself".
How is this difficult, proudconartist? One can carry a swastika without being a Nazi, and the point of those protesters was that Obama was a Nazi whom they were opposing; one can argue whether carrying swastikas (I think I'll call them Hakenkreuz just to give Right GUARD a migraine) makes one an Astroturfer, but to claim she's calling them Nazis is a bare-faced lie...
Was that too much?
Another note, has anyone noticed how criminally uneducated these Teabaggers are? They can't even get the Swastika's symbol right. If you look closely, all the signs have the "svastika" (a Sanskrit word) in 90 degrees rotational symmetry. Au contraire, the Nazi's must have the sign rotated "45 degrees" hook cross. They are basically insulting religious ensigns in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Mithraism, all together.