Media mischaracterize Pelosi's warning against "anti-government" rhetoric as attack on health care reform opponents
Media figures including Candy Crowley, Carl Cameron, Brian Kilmeade, and Gretchen Carlson have mischaracterized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's comments that recent "anti-government rhetoric" reminded her of "the late '70s in San Francisco" when "it created a climate in which violence took place," to claim that she was criticizing opponents of health care reform. In fact, Pelosi was directly responding to a question not about health care reform, but one that explicitly noted "people talking about anti-government rhetoric and so on and the possibility of violence."
Media claim Pelosi compared health care reform opponents to violent protesters
CNN's Crowley: Pelosi "says some of the things she's hearing in the health care debate border on dangerous." During the September 17 edition of Anderson Cooper 360, host Anderson Cooper stated that there was "a new war of words in the health care debate; another firefight that has nothing to do with health care reform itself." He then showed comments from Pelosi's press conference earlier that day in which Pelosi stated, "I have concerns about some of the language that is being used, because I saw -- I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric was very frightening, and it gave -- it created a climate in which violence took place." During her ensuing report, correspondent Candy Crowley stated, "The speaker of the House says some of the things she's hearing in the health care debate border on dangerous," before again showing Pelosi's comments. [CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, 9/17/09]
Fox News' Cameron: Pelosi "compared health care reform opposition to anti-gay protests and violence that gripped her city." During the September 17 edition of Special Report, Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron stated, "Speaker Nancy Pelosi pronounced the [Sen. Max] Baucus plan and co-ops dead in the House," and that "[w]hen asked about the, quote, violent tone of the national debate, the San Francisco liberal choked up and compared health care reform opposition to anti-gay protests and violence that gripped her city, including the murder of two Democratic politicians 30 years ago." After airing a portion of Pelosi's comments, Cameron stated that "some health care reform opposition comes from the House Democrats' fiscally conservative Blue Dog coalition of about 50 Democrats, who oppose the government-run, so-called public option, along with every Republican in the House and Senate." [Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier, 9/17/09]
Fox News' Gretchen Carlson: Pelosi in "dangerous territory" by "equating what's going on now with health care reform and opposition to it to what happened to" Moscone, Milk. During the September 18 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade stated that "a public figure is very upset about the potential road that this whole health care debate could be going on," and co-host Gretchen Carlson responded, "Yeah, you are talking about the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. She gave her weekly press avail yesterday. But it was -- it made national news, international news, because she got all choked up over something that could be very, very serious. She was harkening back to the '70s, and she was asked about whether or not health care reform and the opposition could bring about violence in this country." After airing a portion of Pelosi's comments, Carlson stated, "To put it into context, she is talking about the assassinations of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and supervisor Harvey Milk. That happened, of course, back in the '70s. This is dangerous territory, to go down this path of equating what's going on now with health care reform and opposition to it to what happened to those two gentlemen in San Francisco politics 30 years ago. To me, strategically or not, to get emotional like that and try and compare the two is very dangerous territory." [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 9/18/09]
Pelosi's comment in direct response to question about "anti-government rhetoric," not health care reform
From Pelosi's September 17 press conference:
QUESTION: Madam Speaker, in terms of the political tone, the tone of the debate, Hoyer said earlier this week he thought it was the most vitriolic since '93-'94. And around that time we also saw acts of domestic violence, domestic terrorism. How concerned are you about the tone of the political debate, in terms of people talking about anti-government rhetoric and so on and the possibility of violence?
PELOSI: Well, I think we all have to take responsibility for our actions and our words. The -- we are a free country, and this balance between freedom and safety is one that we have to carefully balance.
I have concerns about some of the language that is being used, because I saw -- I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric was very frightening, and it gave -- it created a climate in which violence took place.
And so I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made, so that understanding that some of the people -- the ears that are -- it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume.
But, again, our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe. But I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.
Transcripts
From the September 17 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
[begin video clip]
CAMERON: Speaker Nancy Pelosi pronounced the Baucus plan and co-ops dead in the House.
PELOSI: I fully support a public option. A public option will be in the bill that passes the House of Representatives.
CAMERON: When asked about the, quote, violent tone of the national debate, the San Francisco liberal choked up and compared health care reform opposition to anti-gay protests and violence that gripped her city, including the murder of two Democratic politicians 30 years ago.
PELOSI: I have concerns about some of the language that is being used, because I saw -- I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric was very frightening, and it gave -- it created a climate in which violence took place.
CAMERON: But some health care reform opposition comes from the House Democrats' fiscally conservative Blue Dog coalition of about 50 Democrats, who oppose the government-run, so-called public option, along with every Republican in the House and Senate.
[end video clip]
From the September 17 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:
COOPER: We begin, though, with a new war of words in the health care debate; another firefight that has nothing to do with health care reform itself. It started with a question for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. At her weekly news conference, she was asked whether she was worried about how harsh the political atmosphere had become. Here's what she said.
PELOSI [video clip]: I have concerns about some of the language that is being used, because I saw -- I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric was very frightening, and it gave -- it created a climate in which violence took place.
COOPER: Speaker Pelosi appearing to tear up, talking, of course, about the murders of Harvey Milk, a gay civil rights activist, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, as well as the city's mayor, George Moscone. Her answer triggered an almost immediate backlash.
Here is House Republican John Boehner.
BOEHNER [video clip]: Now, listen, this whole issue of race people have tried to raise here over the last week or so, and this insinuation that the people who are opposing the president's policies are motivated by race, capped off by former President Carter's remarks over the last couple of days -- let me tell you what. I reject this resoundingly.
COOPER: The rhetoric increasingly heated. Candy Crowley tonight has the "Raw Politics."
[begin video clip]
CROWLEY: The speaker of the House says some of the things she's hearing in the health care debate border on dangerous.
PELOSI: I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric was very frightening, and it gave -- it created a climate in which violence took place.
CROWLEY: To review, the pro-reform side, including the president, has been called socialist, Marxist, and un-American. Those against the president's plans have been called wing nuts, fringe groups, and racists.
[end video clip]
From the September 18 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
KILMEADE: Bottom line is, somebody that we know well -- not personally but publicly -- a public figure is very upset about the potential road that this whole health care debate could be going on.
CARLSON: Yeah, you are talking about the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. She gave her weekly press avail yesterday. But it was -- it made national news, international news, because she got all choked up over something that could be very, very serious. She was harkening back to the '70s, and she was asked about whether or not health care reform and the opposition could bring about violence in this country. Watch this.
PELOSI [video clip]: I think we all have to take responsibility for our actions and our words. The -- we are a free country and this balance between freedom and safety is one that we have to carefully balance. I have concerns about some of the language that is being used, because I saw -- I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric was very frightening. [...] I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm.
KILMEADE: That's a good show on HBO, Curb Your Enthusiasm, but I think that she has to say, I take responsibility for some of it, too. Remember, the president -- the worst president we ever had. The way she has been polarizing as a speaker -- hardly a uniter. And she was out of -- so out of touch -- this is what drives a lot of people crazy, not for violence, but when you bring up something as controversial and as in the fray as ACORN. And she doesn't even know what they are talking about, yet, she has got so much power. That frustrates people.
CARLSON: To put it into context, she is talking about the assassinations of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and supervisor Harvey Milk. That happened, of course, back in the '70s. This is dangerous territory, to go down this path of equating what's going on now with health care reform and opposition to it to what happened to those two gentlemen in San Francisco politics 30 years ago. To me, strategically or not, to get emotional like that and try and compare the two is very dangerous territory.
Hey! "A Hostile Enemy of the United States, That's What I Should Call Ted"
Nevermind that it would set Ted Kennedy up for possible Harm.
"This is Fox & Friends, we're just full of Charm"
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Oh well, you must have just felt like arguing. It's all good.
Oh now that is a classic!!! In other words, please disregard your other posts for they may highlight an obvious inconsistency - and not part of the "framework". LOL!
Now tell us all about the History of them god awful colored heathens keeping good white, christian folk down throughout US History when all ya wanted to do was help by showin' them the error of their ways.
I just loves me some factually-challenged, fascist fairy tales on a rainy Friday.
Always a pleasure.
Take a look at this link and video about Pelosi, and see how she has changed her tune, and the incredible double standard she has.
Video: Pelosi used to love town hall protestors and disruptors….when Bush was president.
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/video-pelosi-used-to-love-town-hall-protestors-and-disruptors-when-bush-was-president/
Or are you talking about calls for the assassination of the president?
Or how about violent racists involved in voter intimidation at the polling places?
I know you have to be talking about these things I just listed.
-
Too bad these are all things the LEFT did.
The right is doing those things now and you are crying like little children even though the conservatives have yet to practice voter intimidation like you leftists did.
-
You forget that we have way more guns than democrats and yet it is the leftist criminals who use those guns for violent crime.
-
You need to be careful of the things you do because at some point you will have to endure those same things. Too bad you can't hack it.
Keep whining about right wing extremists while the left is more violent and the worm will turn and you people could never stand against us.
-
We have the guns.
We have the farms.
-
I don't hear you calling for investigations into the Black Panthers voter intimidation.
I don't hear you calling for people who threatened Bushy boy to be arrested.
HYPOCRITES!!
-
Like I said we have the guns and control of the food...what have you got?LOL
-
Can you guarantee no one will commit violence against Obama or based on his policies?
apples and oranges are very helpful.
Get yourself a case and a clue or get used to it.
Always a pleasure.
And we are supposedly the racists.
ROFLMAO!!!
Keep talking fool you are just proving us right.
:>
Read Atlas Shrugged you dimwit.
You are a character in that book you are just too ignorant to realize it.
That is o.k I understand the double standard you live by.
-
You can be racist because you cannot be expected to act any differently.
-
Ahhhhhh the soft racism of lowered expectations.LOL
I hope you enjoy supporting racism.
I doubt it.
I doubt it.
You're also missing the part about "legitimate concern". Ramping up the rhetoric with things like "the Republic is in danger" isn't acceptable unless there's some very solid case to be made in defense of that statement. If people want to make a legitimate case against Obama's policies, that's fine, but over-the-top rhetoric can provoke violence.
You invented that accusation.
Neither Harvey Milk nor Mayor Moscone were black. Those are the two she saw murdered in California in the late '70s.
Try being honest next time.
Please explain why this type of message is shameful.
From what I saw, she was saying that we should be careful with the rhetoric that we use in our political discussions/debates.
Now tally up the violence perpetrated by the left upon the scum vote before tallying up all the violence perpetrated by the scum vote on the left and see who comes out on top.
Gee, you're really on a roll, sport.
Always a pleasure.
Doug, you win the award for poorest reading comprehension skills of the day. Congratulations. She neither said nor implied what you are suggesting. Try reading it again.
I'll betcha she could entertain us all with some fancy pageant walkin', though.
Now, FOX news is a news program. There slogan is fair and balanced. They are compared with legit programs like that on ABC, CBS and CNN. And yet, they spew vitriol and so much in unison that they clearly cant be taken seriously. But one, They NEVER EVER mention that they are being biased or funny or making stuff up out of nowhere in their reporting. Two, they are on a basic tv channel broadcast all over the country to people who have no clue that they are not to be taken seriously. Just look at the 9/12 video - its scary how these people take beck as truth and gospel almost. Three, they never do actual reporting, they are constantly in a coalition of one sided republican conservatism and they willingly attack anyone with a left or even centrist view point. Just because we dont believe them does NOT mean they should be allowed to continue pretending they are a legit news program. If they want to be biased or funny or completely cynical and partisan - FINE. But just admit it like Stewart and Maher. So people stop thinking that this is news or even that this garbage is true. Its total misrepresentation, propaganda and lack of accountability when they spit conservative lies every minute but want to be considered fair and balanced.
This woman is a fraud it amazes me the idiots people are left to vote for
Why don't you call her a "Hostile Enemy of the United States"
Isn't that what you do Gretchen?
Keep the Hate Rolling Ms. Carlson, On you it looks "Oh So Fetching"
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Just another day in Washington ...
But follow the logic here:
1) Pelosi is Liberal
2) Pelosi is Bad
How do we know this, and draw this conclusion?
3) The media hammers this message home constantly
thus
4) The MEDIA is LIBERAL.
You know what? I might be wrong about the Right lack of capacity for cognitive dissonance. Maybe it's just REALLY SELECTIVE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ridiculous
As for Obama being some sort God? That kind of lunacy is hos coservatives think. Liberals by and large DO NOT see him, or anyone else, as a God; merely the best MAN for the job, by far. Time's piece (and any other ridiculous hypoerbole, even seemingly in his favor) doesn't help him any.
------------------------------------------------------------
With "help" like that...
Opinion, opinion, opinion. No facts here as usual.
Using nutjob logic, I like her because she get's under the skin of people like you.
Why is this relevant? Oh, that's right, IT'S NOT.
And by saying she gets under your skin, I said I was using nutjob logic, not mine.
Here it is not enough. You have to provide facts.
And you don't. Apparently you can't, even when reminded/challenged to do so.
Well SHE doesn't have ANY ties to Jack Abramoff.
Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, held a fundraiser at Jack Abramoff's Signatures restaurant in Washington on June 3, 2003, that collected at least $21,500 for his Keep Our Majority political action committee from the Abramoff's firm and tribal clients. Seven days later, Hastert wrote Interior Secretary Gale Norton, urging her to reject the Jena tribe of Choctaw Indians' request for a new casino. Hastert's three top House deputies also signed the letter, which said that approving the request would "run counter to congressional intent."
Hastert collected more than $100,000 in donations from Abramoff's firm and tribal clients.
And SHE doesn't allow adult inappropriate behaivor with minors.
In September 2006, it was revealed that Dennis Hastert's office had been aware for over a year that Representative Mark Foley (R-Florida) had sent inappropriate e-mails to a 16-year old former congressional page in 2005. Kirk Fordham, a senior congressional aide, said he told Hastert's office about Foley's conduct toward teenage pages more than three years ago, long before officials have acknowledged becoming aware of the issue.
PLUS SHE'S NOT involved in the US Attorney scandal.
On March 14, 2007 Sen. Peter Fitzgerald said he believed senior Bush advisor Karl Rove was trying to influence the selection of U.S. attorneys in reaction to pressure from Dennis Hastert and allies of then-Gov. George Ryan, who knew Fitzgerald was seeking someone from outside Illinois to attack political corruption.[53]
During the Tony Rezko trial in April, 2008, Assistant U.S. Atty. Carrie Hamilton told U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve that witnesses were ready to testify about a clique of connected Illinois Republicans working behind the scenes with Karl Rove to dump U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald and replace him with a compliant functionary. Witnesses said these Republicans included former House Speaker Dennis Hastert
as usual, your post has nothinggg to do with the topic at hand. All you ever do is bring up conservatives who have had problems in the past.
I noticed how FAST you dropped this line a few weeks ago when we started a list of the dem law breakers. You seem to think you are making some kind of point with your cut and past games, but your total lack of an original thought, and your inability to find fault with any individual who has a D after their name shows your true nature, as well as the total failure of your thoughts, ideas, and 1950's agenda.
and besides, she did answer the question.
Explain to me what there is to LIKE about her
Violated?
YOU call sex between TWO consenting adults a violation?
Really?
Ignoring, for OVER a YEAR, a publicly elected (Foley)adult male trying to set up sexual contact with minor boys is what?
No big deal?
You sure about that "low standards"
Pointy, I'm not sure what you're crying about this time. But then again, all you do is cry and whine.
Do us a favor, stick your pacifier back in your mouth, you're getting on the adults nerves!
And really, next time your crying jag hits, look in the mirror. That usually stops babies from crying.
Responding to WHAT point?
The "How concerned are you about the tone of the political debate, in terms of people talking about anti-government rhetoric" is referring to the hottest political debate topic in the country today, health care. What do you think the questioner meant, Kanye West's comments?
Pelosi was asked, she answered it the way she felt. I don't fault her one bit. It's those that try and rescue her from her own candor that are ridiculous.
Is there any way you can recognize that she was misrepresented, and that's a legitimate complaint?
Enjoy your afternoon.
Seriously, I think you are a decent person.
Gee, what are the odds? Always nice to hear from the timothy mcveigh wing of the republican party.
Feel free to cough up any and all evidence of prominent Dems finding themselves forced to call up Kanye and issue a public mea culpa because they dared to disagree with the true head of the party, little fraudulent fella.
Go on. Knock yourself out, nitwit. Save me the trouble.
Now tell me about all the radical Muslims who chose to exercise their second amendment rights by showin' up packin' heat at 2002-2003 Anti-War Demonstrations, deduce bag.
I'm sure you'll stumble upon some right after you unearth Saddam's WMD, little fella.
Always up for some gop-slime revisionist history.
Bon Appetite!
---------------------------------------------------------------
What liberal media?!
If Pelosi feels this way it is her absolute right to say so. She is a human being, not some political robot.
Kudos, kiddo. I've never heard the counterfeit con case summed up so clearly and succinctly.
Well played.
You're right. It's anti-people. It's selfish and immoral. It's conveniently forgetting that 50 people die and hundreds who lose their health insurance every day.
OK, here's your chance to answer NY Rep. Weiner's question: What do the insurance companies bring to the table in regards to health care?
(wrong answers already given: insurance companies exist to make doctors rich/insurance companies exist to provide affordable health care to many people)
Why do you have so little faith in our government?
Granny get's her social security check every month. When I mail a letter it always gets to where it's supposed to go. Etc. Etc.
Health care is NOT complicated. Universal care would NOT be a disaster. All that will happen is the replacing of the insurance profiteers with a non-profit government entity as the middle man.
Wouldn't you like to have your premiums reduced 25%? Because that's the difference between medicare's overhead and the insurance companies' overhead.
And you didn't answer Rep. Weiner's question. Can you?
That's because for the past 8 years they were underfunded.
Glad to see you answered Rep. Weiner's question. So you say they provide competition. Nice try, but then why have costs continued to skyrocket with all this blessed competition?
Superior care? NOTHING WILL CHANGE. You will have the same doctor. The same hospital. The only difference is the insurance company vampires aren't taking 30 cents out of every dollar of premiums for overhead and profits. And why would it be a bad thing if the insurance companies went out of business?
You really seem to have very little understanding of how government, or the world in general, operates.
Paranoia is a sickness. You should see a specialist.
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=15636111&ch=4226713&src=news
And there you have it. The answer to every troubled, screwed up government program. Just take a magical wand and up the dollars flowing into that agency and watch the efficiency grow by leaps and bounds. Poof.
Funny, when private companies, who don't have a public gravy train at their disposal are in trouble they look to trim fat and tighten up their budgets in order to survive. They have no choice otherwise they are history.
I wish the government would learn how to do that for one minute.
In case you missed it, it costs money to provide health care fof the elderly. It costs money to ship a letter across the country.
And it's kind of hard to keep funding these expensive programs when you're #1 priority is making the wealthy even more wealthy.
(cue class warfare rebuttal)
The Post Office? Their problems are recent, and quite frankly republicans should be happy as to the reason why. Contrary to starky's opinion the private sector decided to invest in coming up with better and cheaper ways to deliver mail. E-mail has practically made letters obsolete. They spent the resources to make themselves competitive again and are reaping the rewards for their efforts. Nothing wrong with that, unless you want to take the position of starky and complain about how the private sector can't compete against government funded enterprises because the funded enterprises don't need to make a profit.
That, btw, would be a response to a generalized smear of all government run projects by you and starky.
That's a good one.
Gops aren't members of the fact-based community. If they were, they wouldn't be gops.
We did wave a bi-partisan 787B magic wand at Wall Street.
Citibank is not history.
Sure. It's not like their existence would be threatened by lack of no-bid government contracts.
Nice try. No sale.
Dismissed.
Under Medicare and Medicaid, the government works hand in glove with for profit operations--operations called hospitals, clinics and doctors. It's a classic example of government and private industry working together. There are problems--but almost all of the problems come from the private half and not the public: gaming the system, inflating claims. Nothing to do with the efficiency of the public part.
But the right has chosen not to stand with these capitalist enterprises, companies that do a great job of treating disease and helping people live longer. No, they're standing with the rapacious middlemen who not only do nothing actual, but who simply take a slice of the take. And oh yes,come between the actual productive part of the system and the public, lying, denying payment after the fact.
A single payer health care system would be private health care--just with a streamlined and equitable payment system.
I just don't get why the nutjobs like the insurance companies more than the government.
Who would you rather call when you have a problem with your health coverage - a beaurocrat who doesn't have a stake in the game or an 800 number where a desk jockey is trying to make his bonus by denying coverage?
I also don't remember the last time an insurance company CEO was voted out of a job by the policyholders.
They want us to believe a political Party who refuses to do anything to help the President help the country is in touch with the American people.
They want us to believe Republicans refusal to denounce the nut cases [Birthers, Deathers, and Tea Baggers] in their Party is not encouraging them to act more uncivilized.
They want us to believe Obama can’t do anything right. They want us to believe that a 400% increase in threats on the President life has nothing to do with the constant over the top criticism of Obama. They want us to believe Fox News is “Fair and Balance”. They want us to believe that the negative coverage of this President is not intended to bring him down. Worse of all they want US to believe THEY are that dumb. So dumb we can’t see the motives behind their lies, smears and rhetoric. .
Carter was pre noise machine. It kicked in during the Raygun years. Its response to Democratic lawmakers and presidents has been consistent since then. Obama being half black merely brings the racist element out in force. Most of the media has worked hard to legitmize them. No public republican has spoken out against any of the hate shown here and else where.
We all know what Pelosi was referring to in her "warning". It's not mischaracterizing if we know what she's referring to.
I wonder where Nancy's fears and tears were when these people were protesting. And where was MMFA when these protesters were calling for the death of George Bush.
www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?
There are dozens of pictures of protesters hanging Bush, Burning him in effigy, beheading him and calling for burning down the White house.
What are the tea party traitors protesting?
There was vitriolic opposition to Bush, no doubt about that. Fortunately, however, we made it through 8 years without serious incident. Under our last democratic president, however, we were not so lucky. Animosity and vitriol towards that administration created an atmosphere so violent that it precipitated the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in our nation's history.
If you look hard enough, you can find nutjobs everywhere; they definitely exist on the left and the right. In recent American history, however, it seems that those on the right usually happen to be better armed.
I don't really believe you can say that animosity towards Clinton precipitated 9/11?? That is some serious extrapolation of thought process, care to explain further?
As far as nutjobs are concerned, I agree wholeheartedly, left and right have been going too far this year and it is unnecessary when you look at the subjects concerned....but if they are nutjobs are some really better armed? If they can be dismissed as nutjobs then their points shouldn't be of consequence either.
And obviously nobody wants to claim McVeigh; I think we can all agree that we wish these kinds of crazies did not exist at all. The primary criticism here is that a lot of people on the right are trying to pretend that they don't have their share of crazies.
These kinds of people that carry out heinous acts of violence, they are absolutely fringe lunatics. They aren't mainstream anybodies. But the fringe lunatics can get whipped into a frenzy by the talking heads they see on TV urging them to take back their country and etc. Like Jim David Adkisson, for example, the guy who shot up a Unitarian church in an attempt to, in his own words, "kill liberals". That guy was a total looney tune, but he was influenced by the rhetoric of mainstream, if inflammatory, conservative authors and pundits.
And I'm not the kind of person that thinks that we have to police what people say because of the chance that someone crazy might hear it and be inspired to do something awful. Clearly, that's not what should be done. This is a risk that we simply have to accept; it's the price we pay for living in a place where we are allowed to say what we want. But why is it so difficult for people to acknowledge that there are those people out there taking this too far?? Why is it that these guys on Fox can't stand up and say, "hey, you guys calling the president a nazi, carrying threatening signs or saying racist garbage--that is unacceptable". Why can't they do that?
Instead they spend all their time with the moral equivalency stuff going, "Well, when people did it to Bush, Nancy wasn't saying anything then!"
Okay, well then prove that you're the bigger person then, instead of just sitting here making yourself guilty of the same thing you're accusing Nancy Pelosi of. Prove that you're capable of standing up and denouncing the racist and violent language being hurled at the president in this debate, even though the ones hurling it might technically be on your side of the fence. That would show real strength, that would be an action I could respect.
WHAT?
Did you nod off during the time Republicans controlled EVERY BRANCH of government for 6 years?
And just how much of a majority did Democrats have for those 2 years?
110th United States Congress was sworn in on January 4, 2007
U. S. House of Representatives: 233 Democrats and 202 Republicans.
U. S. Senate: 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and 2 Independents (who plan to caucus with Democrats).
The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
And here's how Bush and the Republican Congress's "tax cuts" or "give money back to the people" worked for the last 8 years:
When Bill Clinton left office after 2000, the median income-the income line around which half of households come in above, and half fall below-stood at $52,500 (measured in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars). When Bush left office after 2008, the median income had fallen to $50,303. That's a decline of 4.2 per cent. That leaves Bush with the dubious distinction of becoming the only president in recent history to preside over an income decline through two presidential terms.
When Clinton left office nearly 11.6 million children lived in poverty, according to the Census. When Bush left office that number had swelled to just under 14.1 million, an increase of more than 21 per cent.
When Clinton left office, the number of uninsured Americans stood at 38.4 million. By the time Bush left office that number had grown to just over 46.3 million, an increase of nearly 8 million or 20.6 per cent.
Under Bush, the share of Americans who received health insurance through their employer declined every year of his presidency-from 64.2 per cent in 2000 to 58.5 per cent in 2008.
It's going to take a lot longer than 9 months to fix the mess left from the last 8 years!!!!
As for your figures on income,poverty,insurance, etc, etc, ad nauseum... these figures do not take into account all of the problems during the Bush admn. Don't forget that Clinton signed NAFTA(direct cause of my losing one job) which also caused job losses and the related losses of insurance/poverty. But I notice that you and others who would use these figures in this forum fail, for obvious reasons, to note the various uncontrolled and unforseeable calamities that came about during the Bush years. 9/11, related wars on terror, floods, hurricanes, fires, droughts, etc... I don't defend Bush as a fiscal conservative- he wasn't fiscally conservative at all, but he had plenty of help getting to those numbers you quote.
FYI, A congressional majority that CANNOT get legislation through WITHOUT the help of the other party is just a majority by numbers.
YOU also FAILED to include the ungodly cost of the Iraq war. A country that had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11.
Can YOU imagine IF we had not started a war, that not only cost the lives of MORE Americans than were killed on 9/11, but cost and STILL is costing much more, than WE, as a country can ever afford?
And by the way the current cost is $683,978,470 and counting every second. COST OF WAR - IRAQ...
NAFTA was the Brain Child of Republican Ronald Regan.
Ronald Reagan first proposed a free trade agreement between the U.S. and Mexico in his 1980 presidential campaign.
This information about Regan’s “Free Trade Agreement” vision can be found here. The North American Free Trade Agreement: Ronald Reagan's Vision Realized...
In 1993 when NAFTA was signed By Bill Clinton it was approved in Congress lead by the Republicans to out vote the Democrats to approve NAFTA. NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT...
Republican President George W. Bush had NAFTA for almost 8 Years and did NOTHING to change or fix the situation.
NOW want to cry "Bush wasn't a conservative" as an excuse. But that didn't stop you from electing him TWICE and supporting him up UNTIL 3 months BEFORE he left office!
Oh and that help Bush had? It was the Republican CONTROLLED Congress!
Nothing to say about NAFTA being Saint Ronnie's brain child?.....figures.
Nothing to say about the 132 Republican House members (Dems 102) and the 34 Republicans Senators (Dems 27) who voted yes to NAFTA?....figures
Nothing to say about the Republican CONTROLLED Congress for 6 years, with a Republican president for 8 years and NOTHING was done to fix NAFTA?.... figures.
Nothing to say except Bill Clinton?......figures.
You can blame Bill Clinton till the cows come home, but Bill Clinton left this country in a h*ll of a lot better shape than Bush and your fellow Republicans.
Oh, I forgot,.....*sigh* Bill Clinton.
Feel free to cough up any and all evidence of Muslims and Black Panthers exercising their second amendment rights by showing up at any of shrub's Potemkin town halls with guns on their hips for lyin' us into an indefensible war in Iraq over bogus wmd claims, little fraudulent fella.
By all means, knock yourself out.
Bush's critics had a case. Several dozen of them, actually.
Obama's brain-dead, teabagger-trash critics don't.
Big difference, little fella.
The only racist claims made against bush and his bigoted-trash base were made by members of the human race.
Always a pleasure.
That is not to say that all those who are opposed to health care reform are being lumped into a pile with the wackos; we are just acknowledging the fact that the wackos are out there. I think that's a distinction that conservatives sometimes have difficulty making. Saying that violent rhetoric exists within health care reform opposition is not saying that ALL health care reform opposition is violent rhetoric.
That people are showing up at town hall meetings with firearms and signs comparing Obama to Hitler is disturbing on its face. What's also disturbing is that such people weren't immediately dismissed as lunatics by the rest of the media.
You'd hope that, for example, Glenn Beck wouldn't fantasize on-air about poisoning Nancy Peolsi for fear that he would be revealed as a mean-spirited extremist.
In Fox, we have a network that provides a platform for the idea that the President hates America, or is a racist who hates whites, or that he's trying to kill senior citizens through health care reform. That is, they allow their hosts/guests to make (often completely baseless) claims about the President that they must know are likely to inflame the passions of the relatively small fraction of their viewers who are of the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" persuasion.
As a tea partier and a person opposed to the current health reform bill out there, I must say that I am actually a firm believer that our health care system does need reform. But I believe we should take the time to do it right, with input from all - a multi-partisan effort so to speak. I have been to four tea parties and have never run across any wackos personally, but I do agree that there are a few wackos amongst the throng. There are also some tea party opponents showing up acting like wackos to make the group look bad - this I witnessed first hand.
In the time spent so far bipartisenship has done nothing but water down the various versions of the medical reform bill. Still no support for any of them in the ranks of the republicans despite this. Can you say what any republican has brought to these bills so far, or what they might bring to them within your unspecified time range.
To your below. Carter was spacific, you are not. Who in the conservative ranks has spoken out about the irrantional hatred from the some truly racist voices that have alinged themselves with the repulicans. Enabling these folks, which is what they are doing, will have violent consequenses. Will any of the enablers accept responsibility when this occurs? My guess would be that this will be a big negatory. They'll be to busy trashing what ever ACORN substitute is currently fashsionable.
As for the healthcare bill? No republican support? What a shock- they are actually listening to their constituency! Let Obama and the Dems own the bill, lock,stock, and barrel.... then if it leads us all to utopia, you all can say "I told you so!"
P.S. still waiting for you to fully explain your "struassian" label and how it pertains to me...
Beck claimed Obama was a racist on his own network, nitwit. Just how much evidence do ya need, little fella?
Incompetent gop scum had eight years to reform health care while they were busy wrecking the economy and lying us into unjustified and unjustifiable wars and did exactly what they wanted to do. Nothing.
Given those facts, gop scum owns the problem.
Get yourself a case and a clue, little fella.
Always a pleasure.
Don't worry though, in your dizzy little brain I'm sure you believe you made some great points, just cover your ears and chant the mantra, "yes we can, yes we can" you'll be back to Oz in no time where everyone is always happy to agree to your every lame attempt at rebuttal. Do you address everyone you disagree with as "little fella"? Can't you think of anything else? Might have been amusing the first twenty times but sheesh, at least make your derision something special...
Gee, thanks for clearin' that up, little factose-intolerant fella.
Beck is ignorant racist trash. So are the pitiful 60-70K al cracka cretins who showed up at his little made-for-tv, astroturf scumstock in DC last weekend.
So is flush. He's the one who claimed Colin Powell's support for Obama "was totally about race", little fraudulent fella.
Feel free to cough up any and all evidence of Obama calling up Kanye for callin' him a "jackass", little fella.
Any time some gop-slop congressman has the nerve to say flush is out of line, flush trashes him on the radio and the gop in question has to call and apologize to to his sorry, drug-addled, chicken-hawk, lard butt the next day.
The only double-standard you teabaggers and shrub-shills are sufferin' under is the one that values fact over fiction, little fraudulent fella.
All things considered, clueless, Obama has done a pretty fair job or stoppin' the bush bleedin' he inherited after eight years of cluelessly-corrupt, gop-slop incompetence in a little under eight months, little fella.
Get yourself a case and a clue or get used to it, little fella.
Always a pleasure.
Contempt for dissenters, #9. "Classic distortion, you and yours envision a racist bogyman under every tree spouting racist hate against the current admin." #1, the noble lie is included here also, as this in no way presents a sizable opinion amoung the population I identify with.
You continue with another noble lie about enablers. I'm waiting for any public conservative to call out the racism. I can't identify any of this population as failing to do so, because none of them have done so. Nor has anyone of this poplation called for his, Becks, firing.
Back to number 9 on Carter. He is deeply a part of the country of which he speaks. He has not shown himself to be a man of many fantasies historically. There were a small number he was guilty of as president. What fantasy's has he been guilty of since then? Sucessful diplomat, building homes for other people, international elections monitoring. Yet your contempt for him flows easy and untroubled.
Next nobile lie. Somehow I expect sucessful healthcare reform to lead to a utopia? Utopia as defined by who? What are its identifying charactoristics? We've plenty of other problems to be delt with before we even consider a path towards utopia,however you might care to define it. I've had no great urg to say, "I told you so!" Its not something I'm looking to do, why would I want to shove someones nose into it just makes the reciever mad and unlikely to agree with me on anything in the future. By the time effective medical reform will come to have observable mediating effects, I'll be concerned about something else.
So you've kept to two Straussian principles, Mostly noble lies. Your manipulation of images is also noteworthy.
Mind you Perpetual War, Stability/unity via fear og an external threat, Exploiting moral issues/religeous hold on thre people, National survival superseeding the well being of others, Power as justice, Combining religion and nationalism, would be hard to include on this issue.
Fear of the masses and democracy, Government by the elites, Instilling a sense of superiority as a nation, and Fear. These are possible principles that you could use, in a future missive.
Those constitutes represent arround 20% of the population. What about the other 80%?
I got plenty ways of refute I'm sure you could complain about each of them, and ignore any content therein. I chose to focus on the Straussian identification. Which, the body of it you choose to ignore, and complain about spelling. Thats brave of you. Not.
You do not get to define how I go about my posting. Your contempt is a given (Straussian again). I'd be very foolish to try and please your desires in this arena. Given the fuzzyness of your complaints, I think I'll continue as I've done.
My line of thinking has never defined this group of enablers by their stance on Becks firing, or worse. Lie again.
Gee, who coulda seen that coming from a clueless al cracka cretin.
You've got nothing worthy of rebuttal, little fraudulent fella. None of you coalition of the clueless cretins do.
Get something or get used to it, little fella.
Always a pleasure.
They did nothing but poor jet fuel on the fire they started in the first place.
Get yourself a case and a clue or keep gettin' your clueless, cavernous cabeza handed to ya, little dimmer in dixie chyc.
Always a pleasure.
Always a pleasure.
Excuse me, we've been trying to do this since Truman with the exact same language being used every single time. There was no Republican attempt to craft healthcare from when they slammed Hilary and Clinton to now. And they were in power. Sometimes taking ones time is a good thing and sometimes it is just an excuse.
Seventy years from Truman, I think we can safely say this is just an excuse.
And to the others (not claiming you say this Dixiechyc) who keep saying this will lead to the dissolution of a free society. Let's look to the facts. Norway, Sweden, England, Germany, France, Canada, ALL capitalist. Their social safety nets vary but still capitalist, still democracies.Decades after healthcare. Clearly, healthcare is not a slippery slope. No doubt even some tyrannical regimes have healthcare (because it is a good idea) but it is not a cause of tyranny.
And as for equating the bailout with the government owning everything, the government does not own Google, Oracle, Microsoft, Adobe, Apple, Intuit etc. Nor does it own ADM, the AG industry or the major meatpackers, or Wal-Mart. The pharmaceutical companies are capitalist—even when we subsidize their work. Clearly, the government does not own the means of production.
I just watched the clip of Lou Dobb's and I’m trembling. This is terrifying. Each day I grow more frightened by the unhinged behavior and ranting of the right wing "Christian" extremists. We've got to speak up, all of us. We have to calm these people. Immediately, we must remove the mouthpiece for this incendiary, racist, hateful deceit from the most prominent news station in America. What does this say about us to other countries? What does it say to us about ourselves--if we facilitate baseless conspiracy-theory promoting, fear mongering, hate speech? Lou Dobbs has lost it and his bizarre imaginings should not be promoted by any reputable source. His radio-show and other integrity lacking mediums should be his only forum.
I am a physician and I am ecstatic that finally, after nearly 100 years, we might actually achieve the most important thing facing this country--morally and fiscally—transformation of our sickness care system into a healthcare system. But all this is threatened by militarized Archie Bunkers, egged on by Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, et al … and CNN based, Lou Dobbs. Do the right thing guys --and fast! The fear and loathing in America is getting out of hand. And we are getting sicker. Fire Lou Dobbs.
Peace, love and understanding,
Take action,
Lisha Barré, M.D.
Ya got the brain-dead, bigoted, gun-show trash, timothy mcveigh wing of the gop showing up for made-for-tv, astroturf "events" with guns while flying confederate flags in one hand and signs of Obama dressed up like a witch doctor with a bone trough his nose in the other spewin' factually-challenged, fundamentally-dishonest gop-slop talking points fed to them by the lunatic-fringe likes of glen beck and you're tellin' me this ignorant trash isn't racist, crazy lady?
MMFA didn't attempt to drum Colin Powell out of the gop-slime squad for questioning psycho sarah's qualifications for the VP gig, the lunatic-fringe likes of flush and cheney did that all by themselves.
People can disagree with Obama all they want for any number of reasons. That don't stop ignorant, racist, gun-show trash from being ignorant, racist, gun-show trash.
Christ, ya gonna tell me there were 2 trillion teabaggers in DC last week now, too, crazy lady?
Gee, no wonder these keep the government outta my medicare swine were bitchin' about the metro.
Always a pleasure.
Translation: don't take anything I post seriously. I'm just a troll.
Those ignorant-trash teabaggers sure are a clever lot.
So, if you don't want criticism for racist and violent rhetoric in your demonstrations, stop doing it. Put your foot down about it, Dick Armey. You're used to getting your way, aren't you? The responsibility could be on your head, couldn't it?
but the stepford foxettes, have great legs and tits. no brains, and high heel.....
BTW, I'm glad to see that Gretchen Carlson bounced back after it was discovered that she was sleeping with her married co-anchor back in the day.