Its been a while, but at one time it was considered bad form to interupt with applause as well

Its another example of why our system is not working anymore. There seems to be no issue that both sides can agree on or even find a middle ground with their intent being what is good for the people of this country. Everything is a power struggle to determine which party has more power.
While I am sure that there were people who wouldn't vote for Obama because he is black, there are many who voted for him only because he is black. Many people don't like his plans for health care reform and that has nothing to do with race. People are fed up with the government after a long 8 years of being lied to. People are upset because its a struggle to put food on the table and CEOs are flying to Wachington in private planes looking for bailouts.
It seems that the healthcare reform is the straw that broke the camel's back for many people and again, people on both sides of the issue. It seems that citizens are finally starting to take for the people by the people to heart.

One of the tea partiers carried a sandwich board in Washington DC this past weekend, saying, "It doesn't matter what this sign says. You'll still call it racism."

"I tended to agree with some Obama advisers that Democratic presidents typically have provoked a frothing response from paranoids"

Gee, and Bush didn't??

"no Democrat ever shouted "liar" at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq"

Of course not, they were too busy agreeing with him. A fact they've conveniently forgotten now.

This teleprompted ass has set race relations back a good 50 years. Brava for the post-racial Pres!!

I saw this question somewhere, and I think it's a good one: The House is threatening to admonish him for interrupting, but they aren't threatening the same for all the standing Os, applause, footstomping, You go Barack!, etc, even though these interrupted the solemn occasion much more lengthily and thoroughly. So isn't the complaint really about the content of the interruption rather than the interruption itself?

Bah. The accusation of racism with no plausible basis save for disagreement with their position, is a profound illustration of the weakness OF that position, as well as the weakness of the accusing mind.

The one that debates with insults, the one that debates without facts, but denigrates immediately the character of their opponent, has lost the debate as soon as it has begun.

We may be approaching the pinnacle of political infantilism. Once these people are past this first term –after which, I am confident, this president will be well and typically disgraced, as most of them are– what will the Dowd's of the world be left with? Their accusations of fault in the hearts of others will be depleted... All that's left for her to say will be that anyone who isn't named "Maureen Dowd" is a stupid and mean person. And of course by then, the New York Times will be either (A) out of business or (B) a moderately-traffic'd website for old people.

The zombie left is devolving rearward, through kindergarten, before our very eyes.

Gee! How could you not just believe evrything Obama says. I mean Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, connections to Acorn.
He seems like a stand up guy to me.

Really! I'm so sick of people playing the race card. Couldn't it be that Joe Wilson thinks that Obama is misleading the public on this HUGE issue and wants to call him out on it???

I went to a couple of Tea Parties. Contrary to Janeane Garofolo's opinion on MSNBC, it wasn't about racism and people hating Obama.
For the most part it's about people disagreeing with politicians increasing taxes and growing the size of a very ineffecient federal government.

That comment could have been so much more... For example, I should have noted that Dowd herself is no spring chicken, and that the island of Manhattan, despite taking an early punch to arouse global sympathy, has done nothing in this decade to sustain the affection of the American taxpayer.

I shoulda had coffee

While I am sure that there were people who wouldn't vote for Obama because he is black, there are many who voted for him only because he is black.

On one level, vis a vis Jim Crow laws and all being rather recent, I think it's cool that we have a black president, but I didn't vote for him because he's a socialist.

Calling racism or feminism or any other ism you can think of is an amazingly successful way of derailing an argument. Because the knee-jerk response is to stop the discussion and spend all one's time making clear you're not an "-ist", and by the time you want to get back to what you were discussing, something shiny has distracted everyone anyway.

The ratio of actual racism in the issues compared to the number of times it's been accused is vanishingly small. In the repiblican't case, it's got far more to do with the fact that he's a Democrat than anything else. Also, he is trying to change a system which makes a lot of people a lot of money. And the fact that he's got a number of Democrats against him on it as well suggests it's not a red/blue (or black/white) issue, but a green one.

I actually think that Joe Wilson should be thanked, not for yelling at Obama, but for ripping the fig leaf off of Congressional decorum. For that's what it is: a fig leaf. Yes, they want to look good and proper when they are in front of a camera -- but that's the only place. In the privacy of their law-enforcement-proof offices, it's anything goes. We've seen plenty of evidence of that lately, and the so-called ethics committees have made it clear that they can't be bothered. When the day comes that the historians have had a chance to dig through all of the records, it'll make Teapot Dome, the Yazoo Land Fraud, Tammany Hall, Abscam, and every other corruption scandal in American history look like lunch money.

And at this point, the only real difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the latter have a sitting President who is, if not activly participating, at least willing to look the other way as long as his party benefits. (Which should be no surprise; his career record is one big lesson in plausible deniability.) History will look back and remark on what a remarkable, historic opportunity Obama threw away. He will be regarded as this generation's LBJ.

As far as I can tell, the President accepted his apology, and has moved on. And Pelosi has refused to take up the issue of some sort of sanctioning him (somewhat stunning, giving the woman's spectacular tone-deafness and poor judgment as Speaker). Unfortunately, the pundits have to keep this going, coming up with a faux reason - racism - and ignoring the real reason: the basic nastiness, on both Republican and Democratic sides, that has infected our politics since some time during the Clinton administration.

People forget that back in the day, even people with vastly different views of how government should be run, e.g., Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan, could speak cordially and work out deals. Now it's all zero-sum, posturing, reflexive grandstanding that serves no one well except, perhaps the electoral prospects of those involved. Certainly not the people.

> ripping the fig leaf off of
> Congressional decorum

I want question time.

""no Democrat ever shouted "liar" at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq"
Of course not, they were too busy agreeing with him. A fact they've conveniently forgotten now. "

Ba-DOOMP-ching! That nails it.

"The upshot: He was rude. He apologized. Can we move on? "

A second apology would diminish the first apololgy. Obama considers the matter closed, so any further noise on this is just theater.

Wilson reportedly belongs to Sons of the Confederacy or some such group. OK, so there probably was racism involved. Maybe not, but probably. So now what? The best way to kill it is stony silence in this particular instance.

>> Wilson reportedly belongs to Sons of the Confederacy or some such group. OK, so there probably was racism involved.

Why are you assuming this?

None of which addresses the fact that the president was either mistaken or lying.

Wilson shouldn't have interrupted. He apologized for that outburst. Smart politicians on both sides should be willing to let it stop there. It wouldn't do to let the rubes know they are being lied to.

I agree with much of this post, but the statement about the gorilla and Michelle Obama was clearly racist in a manner that calling Bush a chimp was not.

What does a gorilla escaping from a zoo have to do with politics? What had Michelle Obama done to deserve any sort of comparison that day (or any day)? And there is a clear history of referring to African Americans as "porch ..."

You can call me a racist if you want, but, I don't like being lied to whether your black, white, yellow, red or purple. Maureen Dowd is the one playing the race card, I read her article, but, alas there was no where to make a comment, how convienient.

Yes, but that's not racist. With the history of the use of "porch monkey" and other slurs "jungle bunny", and even how African Americans were portrayed in movies and cartoons (early Mickey Mouse, Jungle Book, ...), and the complete lack of context (what does a gorilla escaping have to do with Michelle Obama, and what *political* act had she taken to subject her to ridicule) I'd say calling her that was pretty clear cut racism.

Saying Bush is a chimp, may be rude, you might even find it offensive, but it's hard for me to see how it is racism. It's an ad hominem attack, but at the least, it's based on a well defined and large series of photographs specifically comparing his physical looks and demeanor to those of a chimpanzee. It may be rude and offensive, but he was much more a reasonable political target than MO ever was.

Claiming that John Kerry, Sarah Jessica Parker, Camilla Bowles look like horses may be rude, but those comparisons are not racist.

Given the history of comparisons of Blacks to animals, and specifically to gorillas, and the lack of any context explaining why MO was a good political target that day, I'd say that comparison was racist.

I think that if your race was for centuries been depicted and considered no higher than an ape, you might be a little sensitive on the subject. Because the whole race has often been stigmatized this way, it understandably raises questions about the intent of the 'name-caller'. It's like calling a jewish person a loan shark/money lender. It has more of an impact than calling a gentile the same name.

FWIW, when you look at Borat's head from the back, he does look like a chimp (it's an ear thing not a racist thing)

Yes yes, Amy, don't you remember? Whites can be insulted any time in any way. Blacks can never be insulted at any time or in any way. We know it's hard to remember, so Obama is assigning a Czar just to help keep all us chimps verbal statements in line.

"So, here's a question for you: Why is meanness based on looks or perceived lack of intelligence passable, but meanness based on race not?"

I don't know if it's meanness, but no one has ever legislated laws which legitimately crush the human spirit and ability of a certain group of people to rightfully earn a living and be self-reliant based on looks or intellegence. But they have with race (and they still do with affirmative action, welfare, etc.).

What I want to know, is why is it acceptable for Dowd to draw the comparison between what Wilson said and what DePass said? The two statements are incomprable. One was clearly racial in nature, but the other one was a "FACT". I am thinking it is a little more than manners for *her*. So what is going on here?

"So, here's a question for you: Why is meanness based on looks or perceived lack of intelligence passable, but meanness based on race not?"

Well, for better or worse, more and more society says all these things are wrong. But given the history in our country and our world, as a species we're especially uptight about meanness based on race. And as a Jew, I guess I'm okay with that.

For the most part, I guess, society considers it mean and worse and worse to make fun of attributes that people cannot change, especially when those attributes in the past have been used in the purpose of great evil (holocaust, slavery, ....) and especially when the target being attacked is relatively powerless, or the attack comes out of the blue and with no context.

It's fair to talk about how fugly someone's dress is, and less so about how their face looks like a horse....

I mean, look at momof4 up there. She's clearly an idiot, because nowhere have I or anyone said that blacks can't be insulted or that whites can be. But everyone agrees, it's basically okay for me to call her a pinheaded moron, but if I toss in sexist comments like, she probably has some uterine-pumped-out-brain-disease, most people will agree that's stupid and starting to cross a line. I dunno, I figure she's just a stupid southern cracker who looks like a hush puppy and can't help herself from breeding because she loves the cock and is too dumb to figure out she needs to unwrap the condom and then bragging about the miraculous things she thinks came out her pooper.

On the otherhand, if we all knew ahead of time that she really is a brain-damaged southern snaggle toothed crack-whore who has been trying to turn her life around, then I would now be feeling pretty ashamed and the target of some well earned barbs.

Hope that helps.

:)

...When will it end? Obama's presidency was supposed to be the end of racism in America, remember? Ha! I couldn't agree more with Amy's sentiment about America being able to elect a black president which is very admirable considering our history, but why did it have to be a black president with an extremely left leaning socialist agenda? It's his ideology, now his actions, that have me crying foul, not the pigmentation of his skin....

Bottom line, don't you dare criticize the president, or else you're a racist. Everyone's heard of DWB (Driving While Black) and racial profiling...how about CWW (Criticizing While White)?

Jerry - that post was quite schmuck-ish of you.

Pulling out the race card, as Dowd has done, is a clear indication of a weak mind and an even weaker arguing position. I do believe that history will show that Barack Obama is a serial liar. But such is the case for most politicians. Joe Wilson shouldn't have done what he did but I very much doubt that his motivations had ANYTHING to do with Obama's race.

Maureen Dowd is simply the latest incarnation of Al Sharpton redux. As is anyone who agrees with her on this point.

Stupid people

I loved Jerry's illustrations and cogent argument. I'd also throw this into the mix: I don't agree that it's ok to say someone is stupid - that's not very helpful. It's too loose- a catch-all. Identify the problem and address what you find stupid in the person's demeanor/what the person said. That is something to ponder and address. Stupid is insulting and doesn't give any anyone anything about the 'stupid' persons behavior. 'It worries me that President Bush often says things that are not in complete sentences. This makes his point difficult to follow and makes people laugh at him and say he's stupid'. Whether you agree with that statement or not, it's a much richer characterization than 'Bush is stupid'.

It's like calling people names. It's better to keep drawing attention to the person's bad behavior than draw attention to yourself with name-calling. Calling someone an asshole undermines your authority and makes your manners and thinking look sloppy. Basically it makes you sound like you're spouting off and that you don't have an argument to back up your position. You gain more respect and are more likely to have your opinion carry weight if you keep you cool and keep the attention on the 'asshole's' behavior itself - not the fact that he's an asshole.

2 days ago I read a story on Realclearpolitics where the very prominent national writer said something to the effect 'I can't tell you the anti Obama rhetoric is in fact racism but I bet it is'. Yesterday I caught a few minutes of the dopey Bill Mahr show. Him and his panel were talking about how this anti Obama agenda crowd is racism in some form. Blogs like this are sooooo damn important. Without any evidence, the accusation of racism is being repeated again and again and again and again. And in the absence of blogs like this rebutting that charge, it will be accepted by a vast majority that racism is the impetus behind the anti Obama agenda POV. It will in effect severely weaken the counter point to the Obama agenda solely through intimidation and fear. Again and again and again, for the sake of the country imho, the charge of racism has to be shot down and thrown right back at them. Further, the need for skepticism about any "racist" stories that show up in the next year is needed. Much of the MSM will look to try and solidify the charge of racism with any story that can be twisted or even largely faked. Question the stories and don't buy into the racism charge. It is the only way a strong enough check and balance will be kept on the current administration and the political leaders in agreement with them.

Lastly, I saw Ben Stein, many months ago, make a great point when asked about those who would not vote for a black candidate. He said, to the effect, 'about 48% of whites will vote for Obama about 52% will not. Why are we talking about who whites will and will not vote for?" (those were not his exact words but it was to that effect).

Poor Jerry, having part of his penis whacked off a few days after birth must've knocked a few screws loose. You know those money-grubbing jews and their stupid religious rituals, they just can't help themselves. I guess I shouldn't insult him, I'm sure he's trying, the poor "man".

I'm guessing the above was racist, but everything he tried to use illustrating his point against me was not. Why? Hmmm, Jerry, why? is it because you're "special"?

And yes, I do love the cock :)

Victor Davis Hanson shares his thoughts on Dowd's false charge.

Momof4, I tried to explicitly include some southern cracker racism against you in addition to the sexist insults, as I tried to give concrete examples to my response to Amy's question about the spectrum of insults. I'll try to be more explicit about that next time,

My apologies,

Please don't Jerry, you might hit some of the rest of us who have that uterine-pumped-out-brain disease. Then you would be guilty of being sloppy, on top of your self-proclaimed "stupid".

In addition, we can handle a wide range of rudeness here. However, disgusting is another matter. Please refrain in the future.

What Dowd is doing here by comparing a racial statement to a statement of fact is serving up a distraction (trying to render legitimate arguments of Obama opponents, impotent) so we can't see the man behind the curtain.

White liberal elites particularly, (that would include Dowd) seem to be the real racists in all of this. And because of my accusation of racism (and reverence for the word) I will explain what I mean by this.

White liberal elites in particular don't want you to see their screw ups when it comes to this topic. Whether they are conscious of it or in the deepest pits of denial, it does not make a bit of difference, because it's the impact of what is being done.
They've been perpetuating racism far longer in this country than any white supremacist group ever could. They meet their mistakes with more legislation, more handouts, more governmental involvement in the lives of those they say they are helping. They do this out of guilt. This creates a dependency and then exploits and extracts value during election years from the very people they swear they are helping. But in absolute truth is, the more they do this, the worse things get.

So instead of collectively saying "You know what, we fucked up. We fucked up with slavery, and Jim Crow laws, we tried to make things better by taking care of you (believing that you could not do this for yourselves) - with affirmative action, with multiculturalism, we fucked up by tearing all your families apart with welfare and perpetuating poverty among your communities...but the buck stops here. We will stop trying fixing things and continue trying to cover our own mistakes...we will stop meddling, because you *can* do this for yourselves. And here is the only thing we will offer you, if you ask us - we will *show you what we know* about how to be self-reliant and how to create wealth for yourselves. We were *wrong*, and we are sorry because we did this to make ourselves feel better but it was all at your expense".

It's white guilt that keeps people like Dowd in denial. So she has to distract you from the real truth behind this, distract you with calling everyone and everything racism or racist but what it really is. She knows Obama is not qualified, but it made her feel better to vote for him and makes her feel better about things to defend him blindly. Question is, would Dowd (or the rest of the liberal elites) be so kind had this had been a black conservative President? I think not, and I would imagine if this were the case, you would really be seeing their true colors come out.

Reminds me of that saying about when people keep pointing the finger out only to have ten more pointing back at you. Dowd needs to defend her position by blaming everyone else, because without that, she has to take a sane look at things and admit to herself, that she was wrong.

Increased rudeness (on either political side and in general) seems to be a reflection of the increased need to shock in order to attract attention in a hyper-mediatized world. To be louder than the ambient noise. Not that it is a positive development...

Robert W, thank you for the link. I liked the article though I wish there would have been more attacks of the bogus racism claims. The ultra liberals, as far as I can see, are trying to inculcate the masses with the repeated "they don't like Obama's policy because of racism". The actual truth must be repeated over and over to counter that.

Feebie, well put. It is so ironic, too, that Dowd and her ilk are the actual racists. Racism is prejudice based on race. Can any fair minded person read Dowd's writings and conclude she is treating people equally based on race?

Ta-Nehasi Coates (no need to guess his race), has written some smart bits on this for the Atlantic (not surprising, given the general quality of the writing there, but still):

About his not calling Wilson's comment out as racism:

. I understand skepticism of the GOP, and skepticism of Wilson in particular. But I don't really know how you demonstrate that race was a factor, and more importantly, how it played out. I think if you read the body of this blog, I've never really been dismissive of racism. I'm not starting now. But I have work in the world of facts. I just don't have many specific ones, in this case.

About what people who think it was racism should do:

Angry about what Joe Wilson said? Send some money to Robert Miller, and then get to organizing. We need to focus on policy. I am tired of shouting at white people. Shouting don't cover those pediatrician bills.

If you don't read his stuff, it's not bad:
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/

"It's white guilt that keeps people like Dowd in denial. " Well, it's also a way of demonstrating her class superiority. Don't forget, the Left is kind of like a big Kremlin: people in it have to constantly make sure they are aligned with the correct faction, and keep the people below them in their place. In Maureen's world, we are the proles.

Doesn't it create MORE racism by accusing someone of being racist when they didn't say something explicitly racist?

Regarding those 2 a.m. drunks who accused you of racism:

Too many young people, especially, grow up thinking that anything they don't enjoy learning, such as manners, is just one more tool of oppression against them. Miss Manners said that while it's true that etiquette can be used as a weapon of snobbery, language is also a weapon when it includes curse words. Yet you don't see people saying: "I don't like language because it's used to curse people out." So if we have to learn our native tongue, why not our native etiquette system?

In the same vein, little kids have complained about being expected to read and enlarge their vocabularies. Quote: "If you grown-ups would talk like normal people, we wouldn't need all those extra words."

In short, laziness. Period.

Feeble, TW: I appreciate your thoughts ... MUCH!

I'm reminded of a conversation I once had with a dear friend in Chicago. She's white, single, in her early 30's, grew up in an upper-middle class family, and is an avowed Democrat. We were once driving near some Projects (Section 8 housing) and I asked her what she thought of her party supporting such initiatives, as they had clearly turned into a disaster, both for the City of Chicago as a whole and for the poor people (mostly black) who lived in them.

Her response was odd: "Well, at least we were trying to help. Both parties don't do much, but the Democrats at least do a little more for the poor blacks."

There were so many things wrong with her statement but I chose not to say a thing because it was pointless.

"Wouldn't you say they were calling Bush a chimp because they were trying to say he was not smart enough to be human, or something along those lines? "

No, it means W does have a rather chimplike look.

http://www.bushorchimp.com/

It's not a slur on George Sr. or Barbara, nor is it a slur against the entire white race.

"No, it means W does have a rather chimplike look"

So does Obama. Can we call him one? I'm guessing not.

So does Obama. Can we call him one? I'm guessing not.

You can call him one if you like. But understand we don't live in a history-free, context-free world. If you, a white woman, compare black a black man to a simian, you'll be thought a racist. Because most white people who have historically made that comparison are racists.

I tend to not pay much attention to people's color. The pastor in the next village described a girl as morena, which means brownish complexion. I had no idea, because that subtle difference in color does not normally register on my brain. She happened to be a happy girl, with a smile which would melt a glacier, which is all I noted. Sorry if that sounds dumb, but it's how my brain works.

Also, I spend most of my time with non-Anglos since I retired.

I certainly never thought that it is possible that it might be a bad idea to have a minority president, based on his racial ancestry.

Well, sports fans, I have changed my mind. Our system works on the principles of free speech and free debate of issues. that is how it was designed to work.

Now we are being told by thugs that because the president is a minority, we are not supposed to engage in free speech and free debate, even as the idiot attempts to change the direction of the nation against the wishes of "We, The People."

So, I am telling you in plain English, it is wrong to elect a minority president. We cannot have any president whose presence attempts to overthrown our most important constitutional rights.

Yet, it is the Democrats, not the racists, who have created this harsh reality.

We cannot have any president whose presence attempts to overthrown our most important constitutional rights.

Overreact much? We're talking about a column by Maureen Dowd, not a visit from the thought police. Sheesh. And please, remember when criticizing Bush was giving comfort to terrorists?

even as the idiot attempts to change the direction of the nation against the wishes of "We, The People."

By attempting to do the things that he was elected to do? If the people really hated Obama's platform, they coulda voted for McCain. Obama won in an outright majority. How is that not "We the People"?