Some people say Black folks are just too darned sensitive. Sometimes I agree. We often burn energy on stuff that ain't even racist, when that energy could be put to better use. That said, I'm not 100% sure how to read this story, which coincidentally hits rather close to home.
The sign went up Sunday evening, bold black letters against the stark white background of the marquee at the Colony South Hotel & Conference Center in Clinton, MD: "Country First. McCain/Palin."I'm kinda split on this one. In the grand scheme of things, a political sign placed in front of a hotel is pretty minor. Business owners have the right to endorse whatever political candidates they want. It should be noted that Colony South regularly hosts Democratic fundraisers, including one notable Obama event for Obama just weeks ago.
By daybreak, pandemonium had broken loose all across heavily Democratic Prince George's County. Many local supporters of Democrat Barack Obama, jolted by the message as they headed down Branch Avenue on their Monday morning commutes, grabbed cellphones and BlackBerrys to notify friends. Operators of neighborhood e-mail group lists cried foul to their memberships. The NAACP logged calls. Community leaders demanded boycotts of the hotel, a common venue for Democratic events.
The outcry over the hotel marquee tapped into the passion -- and sometimes anger -- that has characterized this fall's presidential campaign. Supporters of Republican candidate John McCain have vented their rage at rallies this week, applauding thunderously as McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists."
Prince George's, though, is clearly Obama Country. As the nation's wealthiest mostly black community, where about 77 percent of registered voters are Democrats, residents have Obama placards in their yards, bumper stickers on their cars and the candidate's visage on their T-shirts.
The marquee supporting the GOP ticket in "an area that is strongly African American was like putting a stink bomb in the middle of the living room," said University of Maryland political Professor Ron Walters. "What it does show is the emotions that are around this campaign and this election."
That said, the owner of Colony South is an idiot. The story doesn't really do it justice, but the hotel is on the fringe of suburban DC in the rich Negro Paradise of Prince Georges County. PG County has the highest concentration of black wealth and educational attainment in the United States. It is also notorious for having been chronically overlooked for upscale shopping and eateries until very recently. There are lots of very rich Black people with lots of disposable income, and few places to dine. Thus, the hotel's restaurant does an insane amount of business for it's relatively so-so food, mainly by viture of being the only show in town for years. I don't know if this is because people are loyal or just lack other options, but there's no shortage of cars lining up for the $25 champagne brunch on Sunday afternoons. They do good numbers, and most of the patrons (your truly included on rare occasions) are Black.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that PG County is also Obama Country. Blacks are voting for Obama at a 90% clip. You do the math.
This is a dis' more or less on par with the Sal's Famous boycott from Do The Right Thing.
I think calling this "racist" is hyperbole, and the county's NAACP getting involved when Negroes are being shot by the police like it's Saint's Row II and black kids are dropping out of school like flies is the epitome of misplaced priorities.
Still, if for no other reason, this is just plain dumb business. Your patrons are overwhelmingly black. They are entitled to spend their money on flat mimosas and cholesterol laden omelets wherever they damn well please, even if this means driving all the way to Montgomery County. It's Colony South's prerogative to display a campaign sign. It's their customer's right to eat elsewhere.
Question: Was this a dumb business move or what?
Candidate Banners Can Leave Clients, Businesses Bruised [WaPost]
Average Email
Average FAQ
Average Bio
AB @ AOL BlackVoices
AB @ NPR
AB @ WashingtonPost
Posts
38 AverageComments™:
It's probably not a smart business decision to publicly support a republican candidate in an area so strongly Democratic. You're supposed to serve your customers, not turn them away. If supporting McCain gets such a wildly overblown response, it's probably better for your bottom line not to rile up the guys who pay your salary.
People have the right to take their business elsewhere.... though I think it's pretty dumb to financially punish a company because they have a different political philosophy. It's their money, of course.
You'd expect a Republican not to make such a boneheaded business move... ;)
FREE SPEECH FAIL! Even though it's your right, sometimes speaking your mind is just dumb.
Yeah, dumb business move. I mean, what for?
It was the owner's right to post the sign. It is his customer's right to stop doing business there (or to increase their business there) if the sign affects them that much. Nothing more. Nothing less.
As far as the NAACP is concerned, this is just one more example of picking their battles poorly as a once important organization struggles for the relevancy they have not enjoyed for some time.
It was not a smart business move, but I appreciate the owners letting the world know where they stand. My money is very hard to come by, and I want to make sure that I patronize businesses whose politics won't make it harder for me to earn more money in the future. Just as I wouldn't support this establishment because of its politics, I tend to seek out minority owned businesses when possible. I remember when a local car dealership in NC had a Jesse Helms campaign sticker displayed. My parents resolved never to buy a car from there and they warned many black people who were considering purchasing from that dealership. We must be strategic with our dollars, so that we do not inadvertently finance political campaigns that are detrimental to our own well-being. Now, it is impossible to know the political leanings of every business man, but when someone gives me a glimpse of their politics, I will believe them and spend my money wisely.
I haven't bought gas from Exxon since the Valdez spill. I don't eat at Cracker Barrel because they made public the fact they'd prefer not to hire gays. I don't shop Salvation Army because they wanted to discrminate against hiring gays (scandal involving direct ties to the White House). Boycotts are one of the most effective tools that citizens can use to let their feelings be known. I used to work and live in PG County. If you're dumb enough to post an endorsement, as a business, in a predominantly African American county then you get what you deserve. Dumb ass.
As I type this at work, next door there is a legal office with a big, honkin' Obama '08 sign in the window. While usually that's not a move I would think wise, we're in the overwhelmingly Caribbean Canarsie section of Brooklyn, so that display probably isn't going to cost that attorney much business, if any.
But this restaurant guy? Well apparently, he does indeed put "Country First," not "Profits First,"---so firm in his beliefs that he's willing to stand tall and take a financial hit for his principles.
Or he could just be a complete bucket head.
I believe the business has a right to put up the signs. But, I also believe consumers have a right to say that they will no longer frequent the place. What I don't understand is why Colony South would do it in the first place? They have to know their customers and (to my knowledge) they have very little competition in that area. Even if some people forgive and forget, others may learn to like traveling to other parts of P.G. and Montgomery to get Sunday Brunch.
More revenue for the Mo Co...I can't complain about that!
I believe the business has a right to put up the signs. But, I also believe consumers have a right to say that they will no longer frequent the place. What I don't understand is why Colony South would do it in the first place? They have to know their customers and (to my knowledge) they have very little competition in that area. Even if some people forgive and forget, others may learn to like traveling to other parts of P.G. and Montgomery to get Sunday Brunch.
More revenue for the Mo Co...I can't complain about that!
Shoot, if you're looking for a place to eat go to the Blvd at Cap Centre (Largo). I've eaten at The Sideline & Stonefish. Both were excellent. While the Sideline is a sportsbar they have a wicked good menu. Check out Houston's or Timpano's up on Rockville Pike.
Take your money elsewhere if you're bothered by the sign. I don't support businesses here in Loudoun County that post McCain signs (not that there are many).
I think they know better.
It was a dumb business move. But like someone else posted, NAACP shoulda stayed out of this one. It's not THAT serious. I'm sure NAACP would be up in arms if the situation was reversed and a black owned business posted Obama signs and lost business. They be calling for a march(Al and Jesse) and some more ish. Just don't go there anymore, plain and simple. As bad as the economy is I'm gonna spend my hard earned money somewhere else.(if I were living there)
That was dumb, in my black neighborhood even the Chinese restaurant got a Obama sign in their window, and I bet half them in there can't even vote
yeah, EPIC FAIL on the hotel's part. 'nuff said.
NEEEEEXT!
They knew who their customers were and should have anticipated some backlash. I don't know that the NAACP needs to be called out, that's just extra.
On another note, AB you've been tagged.
AB I know this is is waaaay off topic, but I just wanted to put this shit out there....What do you think would happen if one of Obama's children did this shit?
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_piper_palin_finger.htm
Dumb move! What's with this guy: he's got a "death wish"?
He certainly had to weigh the pros and cons of his decision.
Was he so enamored of McCain's positions, so true to his party's platform and ideals, that he was willing to throw the dice, and hope that they come up seven?
I have ideals that I would die for: but I wouldn't do so to affirm, or confirm, some political party's principles.
Over the years, for better or for worse, we have seen both parties run our nation.
Of late, it seems that Democrats, liberals, and progressives have been demonized with a zest that's a bit scary, as though republican, and conservative ideals and thought have the stamp of correctness, and the approval of God.
I've seen too much of this zeal to exorcise our liberal demons, and replace them with the canons of conservative purity and holiness.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I just don't see liberals sponsoring a comparable zeal to win converts, to rescue, and save the political souls of conservatives.
@ anonymous
That was a PhotoShop.
The NAACP was overkill. That said, I think that any business ought to know they're on a slippery slope when they begin to make political or religious statements. I presume they have learned both a costly and valuable lesson..
So if you don't like the sign, don't patronize the business. What's up with folk calling the NAACP? Shouldn't the NAACP be holding a voter drive or someting instead? Instead of calling the NAACP, they should be calling Magic Johnson.
Simple solution here: why don't some of those well-to-do black folk in PG county open their own hotel? I'm not being callous, but you know, there are more pressing issues in the world.
@ebw
ditto
@ebw
couldn't have said it better myself
@ black diaspora:
While liberals can certainly display "zeal", and even take leave of their senses and human decency just as well as any far rightie, I think the difference is that liberals, for the most part, are not eliminationists.
But the angry right? HELL yeah.
@Marbles.
You have this uncanny knack of misrepresenting my position: but that's okay, I'm not mad.
Are liberals angry? You betcha! I'm liberal, and I'm mad as hell.
But what I don't see liberals doing, to the same degree as conservatives, is demonizing the right.
I, for one, have no desire to win souls for liberalism. And I'm on no crusade to denounce conservatives, or conservative principles.
In the media, I find no appreciable counterparts for the Rush Limbaughs, the Hannitys, and the James T. Harrises that have built reputations, and careers on denouncing and excoriating liberals and liberal ideology.
I know that there are liberal pundits, but they're rarely seen foaming at the mouth, unless it's to counter perceived threats from the right.
To reiterate: Perhaps I'm wrong, but I just don't see liberals sponsoring a comparable zeal to win converts, to rescue, and save the political souls of conservatives.
If you know of them, please pass it on--I'd like to hear and see the other side for a change.
@diaspora:
You've got to be kidding me. You don't see liberals demonizing the right?
I give you the Democratic Underground. I give you the Hollywood conservative blacklist, and the constantly repeated "Bushitler" meme. I give you Code Pink and the series of Army Recruitment bombings over the last six years. I give you Bill Mahr, Al Franken, and Whoopie asking McCain if he wants to bring back slavery. I give you the 9/11 Truther insanity. I give you Paul Krugman, Markos Moulitsas, Noam Chomsky, Kieth Olbermann, and the editorial page of the New York Times.
I could go on...
@spool32: "You've got to be kidding me. You don't see liberals demonizing the right?"
You failed. Most of your examples list people who're opposed to Bush, and his policies, not demonizers.
Paul Krugman: not a Limbaugh--not even close.
Bill Mahr: you're reaching. He spoofs. He's not pushing a liberal agenda.
Al Franken: well, he and Rush don't like each other. He'll demonize him, but Hannity has more reach than he does.
Whoopie: you've got to be kidding me. I'll raise you one Elizabeth Hasselbeck; she bleeds conservatism. (She kinda reminds me of someone else.) Whoopie's a real stretch.
9/11 Truther insanity: they're demonizers because they question the official findings. You got to do better than that.
Markos Moulitsas: never heard of him, but I've heard of Ann Coulter, which tells me that his demonization bona fides are severely lacking.
Noam Chomsky: my God he's a liberal scholar; how does that compare with the diatribe spewed daily by Limbaugh.
I'm not impressed with Noam as a choice.
Kieth Olbermann: Bill O'Riley's nemesis. He counters the BS on the right; not a demonizer.
Democratic Underground & Hollywood conservative blacklist: not even representative of my challenge. We could raise and counter raise on this until the chickens come home.
I'm afraid that you missed the spirit and the letter of my challenge.
You gave me a list of liberals. That's not what I asked for. If this is your best offer, I'm afraid that I'll have to hold firm to my original position:
In the media, I find no appreciable counterparts for the Rush Limbaughs, the Hannitys, and the James T. Harrises that have built reputations, and careers on denouncing and excoriating liberals and liberal ideology.
I know that there are liberal pundits, but they're rarely seen foaming at the mouth, unless it's to counter perceived threats from the right.
Try again!
Markos runs DailyKos, the premier breeding ground for leftist insanity.
I don't think this is a terribly useful exercise... we fundamentally disagree on what "foaming at the mouth" means... if you're disregarding Chomsky as "a liberal scholar" then you've either never read his political work or we're unable to have this discussion. He's one of the most unhinged leftwing voices on the planet. Likewise dismissing Mahr tells me you're either unfamiliar or unserious. His goal hasn't been merely to spoof for a long time now.
You also conveniently skipped over Code Pink, and skipped over the actual acts of destruction (rather than just words) carried out by the left. I don't think there's much point in attempting this.
@spool32: He's one of the most unhinged leftwing voices on the planet.
This does not place him in the same camp as Rush Limbaugh in terms of reach and influence. Note: you used the word: "unhinged."
Markos runs DailyKos, the premier breeding ground for leftist insanity.
Again: you used the word "insanity."
You prove my point: you're demonizing the left, as though there's nothing comparable on the right.
Selective outrage!?!
What's the point? Do I need to point out every wacky site on the right.
you...skipped over Code Pink, and skipped over the actual acts of destruction (rather than just words) carried out by the left.
Again, what's the point? I'll raise you the wingnuts that bomb abortion clinics, and Timothy McVeigh.
I don't think this is a terribly useful exercise... we fundamentally disagree on what "foaming at the mouth" means...
You have to first see it, to know it.
It's when:
Conservatism is seen as the world's panacea, as the only way to run the world, rather than just another way.
When conservatism is held up as this holy shrine, and it's followers as these honorable, just, patriotic figures, and everybody, and everything liberal as Satan's spawn.
When conservatives lambaste the left as evil, and nothing less than the Whore of Babylon, not fit to serve, not fit to be represented in our government.
When conservatives believe that their approach is superior to all others, and that somehow they have the mantle of God resting on their shoulders.
When conservatives beat liberals over the head with their conservative values in wrong-headed attempts to win converts, and wonder why their attempts fail.
When Might is Right, and Winning my Intimidation, and Survival of the Fittest become the mantra of the right.
I reiterate:
In the media, I find no appreciable counterparts for the Rush Limbaughs, the Hannitys, and the James T. Harrises that have built reputations, and careers on denouncing and excoriating liberals and liberal ideology.
I know that there are liberal pundits, but they're rarely seen foaming at the mouth, unless it's to counter perceived threats from the right.
Oh, yeah, I left one out, Divide and Conquer, to my list of mantras.
You seem to imply there is something wrong if a babykilling abortion mill is burned or bomb. Which do you prefer, a pile of bricks or a pile of dead babies? Innocent unborn babies deserve to be protected just as born children deserve to be protected. You would have no problem protecting born children if they were about to be murdered.
SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.
@ Spool:
Going down your list:
"The Bushitler meme"
Childish, yes. But frankly, the comparisons between the propaganda tactics of the Bushites and the Nazi regime are pretty hard to ignore. I personally am not putting these people on the Nazis' level, although some people whose lives have been completely destroyed by this administration's policies might not be so generous.
"Democratic Underground"
[retch]
Highly unpleasant bunch of characters. Pretty much FreeRepublic's mirror image. Those two crowds deserve each other.
"Hollywood conservative blacklist"
Never heard of this. Tell.
Code Pink and the series of Army Recruitment bombings over the last six years"
Code Pink, from what little I know about them, seem to be an unstable mixture of the soundly rational and the blindly overzealous. And bombing anything is insane.
Bill Maher
Got me there. He's someone who I fully admit I would loathe if my politics were different. However, unlike the Rush/Savage/Coulter crowd, he's not an ideologue, and he has no sacred cows at all. This, to me, shows a maturity that the frothing righties lack.
Al Franken
Don't know him too well. But having skimmed "Lying Liars", I fail to see how he comes anywhere near the level of backlash right nastiness.
"Whoopie asking McCain if he wants to bring back slavery"
Whoopie has a brain. And when she sometimes forgets to use it, I cringe.
"9/11 Truther insanity"
Spool, have you ever actually taken a real look at what some of them are saying? They raise some very valid questions. Frankly, urgently valid questions.
Paul Krugman
You are SO not trying to compare Krugman to the talk radio crowd...
Markos Moulitsas
Can't comment. Don't know him well enough.
Noam Chomsky
Ye cannae be serious, guv!
Chomsky's intellect is so far beyond any of the troglodytes' that even bringing him up is bizarre. Besides, he's an old-school academic. He wouldn't know how to stoop to their level even if he wanted to.
Kieth Olbermann
He goes back and forth between being a razor-sharp moralizer and an immature joik. In the latter mode, he does sometimes descend a level closer to that of his adversaries than he should.
the editorial page of the New York Times.
The only liberal on that page with even one fiftieth of the sheer nastiness of the backlash right is Maureen Dowd. And that's if it even IS one-fiftieth. (She's pretty rotten to Democrats, though. I wish she'd cut out all the queen-bee shit.)
I suppose the operative question here is "would you rather be bludgeoned to death by a guy screaming at you, or silently strangled from behind by a hitman in a 3-piece suit?
It's a different class of death, but the result is the same. In other words... you guy seem to seriously be arguing that the problem isn't gratuitous dishonesty, misrepresentation, and blind blatant partisanship... it's just how low-class the rightwing version is.
@rev. don spitz
You seem to imply there is something wrong if a babykilling abortion mill is burned or bomb.
There's something leagally wrong with burning or bombing any building. But not including that in this instance...there's no problem with bombing or burning an abortion clinic. The problem at least to me is when it's done with people in it (like it's normally done). Isn't that EXTREMELY contradictory to kill others because you want to save the unborn babies? Wouldn't it defeat the purpose if some of the people who die in the bombing or fire are the very pregnant people that you want to save their babies? Because the baby will die right along with the mother. SO now you've not only killed the innocent baby you have a 2 for 1.
I don't see a problem feeling so strongly about abortion that you would want to distroy the "abortion mill" but at least do it after or better yet way before business hours to keep from killing people and contradicting your cause.
troglodytes
I haven't seen nor heard that word from anyone else except my mom LOL
@ Spool:
"I suppose the operative question here is "would you rather be bludgeoned to death by a guy screaming at you, or silently strangled from behind by a hitman in a 3-piece suit?"
ROTFL! XD XD XD
Ye mischaracterize moi, comrade.
The problem very much IS dishonesty, misrepresentation, and blind blatant partisanship. And far be it from me to pretend this doesn't happen on both sides. (WHY are there ONLY TWO furshlugginer sides?!?!)
But the right wing spin machine is far more efficient, dogmatic, organized and persistent than its sloppy, slapdash, splintered and disorganized counterpart---to the extent that said counterpart exists at all.
But more importantly, despite their warpdrive persecution complex, it is THEY who control American political discourse. Everything discussed is discussed on their terms, using their frames, in their language. And that, more than anything else, is precisely why their "low class-ness" is so damaging. Their irresponsible simplification of complex issues and the aura of white-hot hatred that motivates so many of their distortions has mutated US politics into a dysfunctional mess.
Whereas corrupt, dishonest Democrats are usually just run of the mill douches.
I don't see that at all! Every time I turn on NPR or listen to a non-FOX news broadcast, I marvel at the fundamental mischaracterization of conservative political thought and worldview. It's like the entire broadcast spectrum, minus AM talk and some FOX, is setting up conservative strawmen and hammering away at them.
Everything that is discussed is the liberal view of why the caricatured strawman is wrong or flawed... but they miss completely the actual philosophy. I think it's because they don't understand it... newsrooms can only report from their own perspective and according to their political donations, reporters skew left at a rate of about 100-1.
Corrupt, dishonest Democrats get a free pass... witness Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, and Barney Frank, the three men in government most directly culpable for the disintegration of Fannie and Freddie. They have absolutely no pressure on them, at all. The media should be dragging these guys through the street... but their sins don't even get reported. These are more than your run-of-the-mill douches... they directly profited from actions they took, and those actions led to the disintegration of the housing market. More importantly, though, the reasons why House Republicans voted against the bailout bill aren't even touched upon.... it would require explaining a worldview completely new to broadcast news. Instead, they pigeonhole the Representatives as "believing in the free market" or "still opposing regulation" and drive on with their "unbiased" report.
Democrats who opposed the bill are hardly mentioned. Pelosi's machinations and her unwillingness or inability to get her own party to pass the bailout are ignored.
Do you remember who Mark Foley was? Had you heard that his Democratic successor is embroiled in a salacious sex scandal using public funds?
Google hits for Mark Foley: nearly a million. For Tim Mahoney, less than 400K, and 5 of the top 10 are for different Mahoneys.
I don't see how anyone, at this point, could argue the American political discourse is conservative in character.
Rev. Don Spitz said...
You seem to imply there is something wrong if a babykilling abortion mill is burned or bomb.
You identify yourself as a reverend, so I'm sure you're familiar with the Ten Commandments, especially the sixth, depending on how you count, which states:
6. Thou shalt not kill.
The Ten Commandments are not The Ten Suggestions.
Since you can't assure that bombing or burning a building will not take a life--innocent or otherwise (according to your criteria)--you should refrain from bombing or burning any building.
Your goal may have merit (to save the life of unborn children), yet I can't for the life of me see Jesus bombing and burning abortion clinics.
Now, if you can, I suggest that you read his words again.
I seem to recall him saying something like, Love your enemies...., not bomb and burn them.
Your question should always be, as you seek a response, regardless of what you're facing: "What would Love do?"
I suggest you find another way to overturn what you see as a grievous wrong--a Love-sponsored response is certainly superior to what you seem to be suggesting, not a resort to violence.
@ spool:
You're not the first conservative I've heard say that about Frank, Dodd and Schumer (my senator, incidentally). Besides Freddy and Fannie, can you give me some insight as to just what are some of their nefarious deeds that the press ignores?
"I marvel at the fundamental mischaracterization of conservative political thought and worldview. It's like the entire broadcast spectrum, minus AM talk and some FOX, is setting up conservative strawmen and hammering away at them."
Understandable feeling. But explain. What straw men are being propped up, and what is being mischaracterized? And keep in mind that this is, verbatim, the way many liberals feel about the mainstream media.
"More importantly, though, the reasons why House Republicans voted against the bailout bill aren't even touched upon.... it would require explaining a worldview completely new to broadcast news."
It certainly seemed to me that they made the reasons known. But elucidate, and I'll see if the impressions I had were correct.
"Democrats who opposed the bill are hardly mentioned."
Technically true, but not in the sense of the point below.
"Pelosi's machinations and her unwillingness or inability to get her own party to pass the bailout are ignored."
You kidding? She was catching plenty of flack for that. Not that I feel she was a legitimate target of anger. And I'm not a fan of hers. (Plus, the reaction to her speech was DISGRACEFUL. Those fools should be embarrassed to call themselves adults.)
"Do you remember who Mark Foley was? Had you heard that his Democratic successor is embroiled in a salacious sex scandal using public funds?"
Yes and yes. And as for the disproportionate attention to Foley, what he did is thought of as far more scandalous in this culture. Sorry.
At any rate, the media has a surface liberal bias on social issues, sure. But that's about it. In terms of the broader picture, and on the larger way things are framed and discussed, the corporate media does two things---
it sidelines and ignores many issues and goings-on that would impugn the media outlets' powerful owners and/or their interests. This, by definition, means that this silent treatment will benefit the GOP and corporate Democrats (and marginalize actual liberals), since they are the primary crowd that runs in those circles.
The second thing----It is only possible to view the media as "liberal" because conservatives have spent the last thirty years pushing the center to the right. They have been wildly successful at this, because the mushy, centrist Democratic Party is actually viewed by almost half the country as flaming, far-left liberals. And surely you've noticed that the "L-word" has become taboo among Democrats, and has an unchallenged-by-the-media status as a dirty word among the right.
The conservative media think tanks, their pundits populating all the TV programs, have influenced the paradigms and frames that the media uses, and the narratives that have emerged are of Republicans as the manly protectors and Democrats as the effete girly-men. You see that narrative played out again and again. They did it to Obama for a long time---they finally stopped when his momentum took on the dimensions it has.
As I speak, Larry King is playing footage of Obama refuting Sarah Palin's accusation that he's a socialist. Now if he believed it was safe territory to run on a socialistic platform, why would he flee from the label? Why would the supposedly far left Democratic Party cower in terror from that oh-so-horrifying concept?
Because they know they'll get creamed in the election if they don't.
What you see as an effort to move the center rightward, I see as an effort to return the center to where it was. There's a reasn the Republicans have needed two "revolutions" in the last 50 years... you want to talk transformational politicians? Barry Goldwater was transformational. :) Obama? Not so much.
This issue with Obama and the socialist tendencies of his economic policy is that he's been saying it for months. It's only when he really spelled it right out for us that the media was no longer able to ignore it. He's been saying that we should raise capital gains out of "fairness" for most of the last year, but (as is the usual case with Obama) it took an unscripted question to get him to frame his position with such clarity and a week of constant repetition before the legacy media covered it.. .and then their coverage has basically been a platform on which Obama gets to refute the claim and no further discussion is allowed.
Will some media talking head discuss why it might be a fair characterization? Of course not.
Why Republican House members opposed the bill:
Some of them believed Pelosi was unserious, given that she can in theory pass any legislation she wants. Particularly because House Finance subcommittee chairs were allowed to vote no, and because she told 12 Democrats in close elections they could also vote no.
Some of them have a firm belief that nationalizing banks is an irreversible step toward socializing the core of the economy, and they refuse to go that route because it's extremely hard to return freedom to the market after it's been taken away.
Some of them thought they were being railroaded without alternates being considered.
Why did the Dems oppose it so strongly? Who the hell knows, I never heard a single interview with one.
What things are mischaracterized? Let's see. Republican views on gun ownership (it's a right that shouldn't be infringed regardless of what you think about guns and crime), abortion (it's not about hating women or believing women don't' have a right to do things with their bodies, it's about believing the baby is a separate person), racism (I've known many a racist East Texas Democrat - many racists are Republican, but few Republicans are racist), welfare, military service, charity, tax policy, environmentalism vs. conservation...
... they rarely get anything correct, but they often set up the caricature to knock it down.
I just want to hammer home one sprcific point... Larry king was playing tapes of Obama defending himself... he wasn't having guests on explaining why socialism is bad and why Obama's tax policy fits the definition. Just the refutation.
Post a Comment