Three months after the resounding victory of Barack Obama in the Presidential Election of 2012, the extreme right wing is still attacking the President, and they are rapidly marginalizing themselves.
We are hearing hysteria that Barack Obama is destroying this country by issuing some innocuous executive orders on gun regulations, and that he is undermining the nation’s security by promoting immigration reform. And we are seeing an African American President compared to Hitler, causing the Anti Defamation League to protest.
We are seeing Rush Limbaugh flailing about in anger that Obama will be around for the next four years, while his audience declines.
We are seeing Fox News Channel decline rapidly in the key 25-54 demographic, as more people realize that they are a station that constantly lies, misleads, deceives,and distorts, and the realization that one learns less about what is going on news wise by watching that channel, than if one watches no news at all!
We are seeing Glenn Beck promoting a separate community that would operate as a haven for those who, like him, claim to be terrified by the government being controlled by a Hitler for the next four years, meanwhile confusing Nazism, Fascism, Socialism, and Communism as one and the same.
The common thread of all these characters is that they are exploiting ignorance and prejudice, and becoming extremely wealthy at the expense of gullible listeners and watchers. They are charlatans who gain by their unwarranted attacks on the President, and they have no ethics, morals, and scruples, and one has to wonder how anyone with any brains in their head could possibly believe a word they say!
But a vast majority of Americans want gun regulations, and a substantial majority want immigration reform, and Barack Obama has 60 percent support in a poll from the Washington Post and ABC News, , despite all of these vicious attacks on him as a threat to the Republic.
So there is real hope that the days of manipulation and deceit are declining rapidly, and that these extremists face a future of being seen for what they are—a menace to American values and decency!
Wow , truly what a hateful rhetoric I just read. So anyone who disagrees with the left’s agenda is extremist, ignorant and prejudice? Interesting. So a President who wins by a margin of 3% of the votes cast and somehow has a “resounding” victory? A President who get 4 million less votes than the first time around somehow has a mandate? So the country is divided and yet somehow one half , those captivated by the progressive utopian promise, believes that they are the owners of the truth. And anyone who dares think differently is marginalized and accused of bigotry. Like the naive Phil Mickelson who dared to comment that he was paying over 62% in taxes and that this made him think about moving from California. For that comment he was viciously attacked by the media, sports media even, and he had to end up issuing an apology!! Apologizing for only keeping 38% of your income!!?? The intolerance of the left will just keep growing.
But we are patience because we know that the statist policies are condemned to provoke their own demise. Unfortunately not only will the Obama’s “low information voters” as Time Magazine editor, Richard Stengel , explained that his magazine’s choice of Barack Obama as ‘Person of the Year’ stemmed from his ability to get people that “aren’t interested in politics†to like him, but everyone will.
So people who vote for soundbites and catch phrases because their attention span is so low, are somehow not gullible listeners? “Hope and Change”, “Balanced approach”, “healthcare for all” , “avoiding the fiscal cliff” and “saving children’s lives” are just examples or low information sound bites.
I remember Nancy Pelosi, operating on the low information concept of “healthcare for all”, famously uttering the phrase ” We have to pass the bill so we can find our what is in it.” In other words, why bother worrying about details when, well … healthcare for all!
So in this day and age of limited attention span and I may add unlimited ignorance, we have low information sound bites vs. well thought out boring details, who wins? Low information sound bites.
But eventually low information voters will understand the universal language of money, when their paycheck gets smaller and smaller , because of the impact direct tax hikes on the “rich” and the indirect inflationary tax , they will understand and maybe vote accordingly. Of course, it will not matter that all this was caused because we are living on a post-constitutional era, with government overreach and expansion, because they are totally incapable of understanding this. They will probably never understand the cause of the demise, but they will understand their wallet shrinking, enough for the low information voters to think about their vote. Unless of course the conservatives lower their level of intellectual arguments and come up with low information soundbites to counter the left and maybe avoid all the suffering.
Juan, you amaze me. Everything stated above is true, whether you like it or not. It is not hateful rhetoric to say that these right wing charlatans are enriching themselves, by promoting hate, prejudice, and ignorance, and they have no ethics, morals or scruples. No serious intelligent person can do other than roll his or her eyes at the propaganda issued by these right wing spokesmen who do not give a damn about anything, but lining their own pockets, and sowing discord. I know the truth hurts, but before you say I am using hateful rhetoric, you should look in the mirror at some of what you have said on here on a regular basis. It is not exactly the model of tolerance of anything other than right wing talking points!
Why is it that if you do not agree with big government, executive orders that amends the current immigration law, that imposes the Dream Act by Executive fiat, if you are for the free market, and not against people becoming rich, you are an extremist? Why am I prejudice if I do not hate my fellow American who happens to be a millionaire, or earn more than 450K? Why am I extreme if I do not hate corporations? Why am I racist if I believe illegal immigration undermines the rule of law ? Why am I an anti-immigrant if I am against amnesty for illegal immigrants? Why? If I am 100% for legal immigration? Why am I insulted because I believe it is important to secure our borders for security reasons? What is it that progressives do no understand when we say Progressivism, Socialism, Fascism, Nazism and Communism have the common thread of statism and utopia?
Juan, you have a right to your views, as much as I do. We are talking about talk show hosts who incite people by their hate filled demagoguery and enrich themselves in the process, rather than earn an honest living!
When you compare Progressivism and Socialism to the totalitarian ideologies of Fascism, Nazism, and Communism, all of which I have always totally deplored, you show you do not understand the vast differences between the first two and the last three. The last three have always hated the first two, because they are based on freedom and liberty and human rights and equal opportunity, rather than exploitation by a small percentage of the population. It is not a serious discussion to put all five in the same sentence!
There is were we differ. Of course there is a difference of degree, the difference between totalitarianism and authoritarianism. Progressive and socialist promote the bureaucratic authoritarian state all under the guise of social justice. In any event all 5 of those ideologies support in varying degrees statism. So of course I see the differences , the problem is you don’t see the underlying similarities, the common root of their ideology. The first 3 are antidemocratic , the other 2 democratic, although more precise a mob-like democratic with unlimited powers when it comes to social justice and doing “good”. Where the rule of the majority is all that matters, no matter how slim the majority is, even if its only 3% of the electorate. How many times have we heard President Obama say “If Congress doesn’t act I will”..? How many times have we heard the progressives, the left complain about Congress and all this separation of powers stuff? How many times have the Thomas Friedman’s, the Jeffrey Immelt’s and Richard Trumka’s of the world, all from the left praise Communist China because they get things done?! Even President Obama said his Chinese counterpart was lucky because he didn’t have to deal with Congress. Why even a few weeks ago we saw the progressive media, Congressmen and politicians urging the President to use unconstitutional Executive Orders to raise the debt limit! All because they despise the separation of powers and the limits imposed by the Constitution on political power. Limits that are in the way and do not allow the “mastermind” in the White House to carry out the utopian changes he believes are best for all of us. So you see , I understand the differences and similarities, and it is the underlying similarities which people who love freedom reject. Finally , since when have progressive and socialist been for human rights and freedom? That is definitely a new one. Unless you believe human rights are rights to someone else services and wealth, whether it be a right to a job, free housing, healthcare and other goodies.
One more thing, these so called talk show host, as far as I can tell only do the job the majority of the media does not. Now if for you criticizing Obama, not agreeing with the left agenda is promoting hate, well then you got a problem. Although your train of thought is logical since you believe that the left is good, and therefor those who oppose the left must invariably be evil. That is as far as your analysis can go.
Also, these people do not take money away forcefully from anyone, like the government does through taxation. Now let me be clear before you go on a rant, this does not mean that I believe there should be no taxes, of course not that would be ridiculous. But the intrinsic nature of a tax is still money that is taken away by the government under the threat of use of force, legal force but force none the less. None of these talk show host take money by force.
Concerning the hateful rhetoric, I suggest you listen to Mike Malloy, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vmXQpdB4xpk#!
Or how about this from the progressive Malloy: .
“these teabag bastards, who by the way, I just wish they would all go away, or like in Passover, I just wish there was an angel of the Lord that would pass over, instead of killing the first born in all the households of Egypt, just wipe out all the teabaggers. Just, you know, the terrible swift sword, just (Malloy emulates sound of sword cutting repeatedly through the air) lop their heads off.”
But never never do I ever hear any outrage from the media or the left. And I dare you to show me anything comparable in so called “right wing” media. Just one thing comparable to this that either Hannity, Prager, Levin, Limbaugh, Steyn, Golberg or O’Reilly comparable to this. All you can come up with is so called “code words”.
You seem to want the rights of the minority to control events, such as the Senate filibuster. But when an election takes place, majority rule wins out, and remember Obama won the majority twice, while many Presidents have not. There is still a system of checks and balances, and we are not in danger of a dictatorship, so relax! Bush claimed a mandate, as every President does, so Obama has a right to pursue what he thinks should be our agenda, but you can be sure there will be plenty of resistance and gridlock, and that he will not accomplish all of his goals, and then of course, will be attacked for not accomplishing his goals by the left, and attacked for doing too much by his critics on the right.
Progressives and liberals have not been perfect, as we are all flawed, but they have led the fight for human rights and justice overall, although exceptions can be found. And libertarians and conservatives have always worried more about individuals than about society and how individuals pursuit of their own desires harms the society around them.
I find it interesting that you say I rant, when I think I am very reasonable, and that you often rant ! LOL But it is a difference of interpretation, I guess!
Yes, some left wing talks shows say things they should not, but if you have watched or listened to the right wing, they are notorious for their reckless rhetoric. Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly and Mark Levin and Michael Savage et al are notorious for their rants and outrageous assertions!
You do not have to agree with them, but I never heard or have anyone accused them of wanting anyone killed. One can disagree even detest certain ideas, but that doesn’t mean you wish physical harm to anyone. To tell you the truth the only nut-job on the so called right in my opinion is Alex Jones, but then again he is a truther. Now none of the people I have mentioned has ever even allowed the possibility of promoting “birthers” either. All the criticism is towards the policy and politics. Criticism that is nonexistent in the majority of the media by the way.
But I am curious to know what you think is reckless rhetoric.
Also, we live in a Republic where a circumstantial political majority rules but respecting the rights of the circumstantial political minority. That is why power is divided. I do not believe Obama should not pursue his agenda, but so should the Republicans that control the House, even though the current Republican leadership is clueless and gutless. The issue is, in my humble opinion , that if the Executive cannot achieve his goals, he does not have the right to by-pass the Constitution to achieve them, by Executive fiat, as he and his supporters constantly threaten to. That is my objection. Otherwise why have separation of powers? Imagine if the situation was reversed? How would the Democrats react if a Republican President decided, “well I don’t like this law, I am not going to enforce it.” Or if he said, “you know what I believe in the sanctity of life so I am going to issue federal regulations regarding abortion. All women who want an abortion must register with the government, get authorization from the government , and pass a background check and by the way I am doing all this for the children. We have already had more than 50 million murders due to abortion.” What would the reaction of the “human rights” crowd on the left be?
The “Birther” argument has been advocated plenty by the right wing, and even by GOP politicians.
I agree that a President should not use what you call “executive fiat”, but there have been plenty of executive orders over many years, not all of which I agree with, but it does not mean we have a dictatorship therefore, because of executive orders.
The birther argument is ridiculous, and not a single prominent Republican or Conservative politician ever embraced it. Nor has any prominent talk radio host, to name the big 3, Limbaugh, Hannity or Levin, nor has Prager or Ingraham to name a few. Now nonetheless it is technically true that Obama held dual citizenship, American and Kenyan until he was 23. Which is ok by me, I really don’t care. But you cannot dismiss it when people call him a Kenyan, just like people we call people that have family from Mexico, “Mexicans” and from Cuba “Cubans”, and in the past “Irish” ‘Poles’ or “Italian” (remember Stallone’s “Italian Stallion”?) even though they were born here. And in some of those cases did not even hold dual nationality.
See: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obamas-kenyan-citizenship/
I agree that the “Birther” argument is ridiculous, but to say that no talk show host or Republican politician has promoted it is also ridiculous–starting with Mitt Romney himself, and Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry, and many members of the House of Representatives, including Louie Gohmert and others. And the talk show hosts allow people on their shows to say such garbage, and have done so, and have also implied it in their rants and rhetoric. We are not imagining these kinds of attacks, which are very widespread, and still are talked about at Tea Party rallies and at churches by pastors who are extremist in their statements.