Democratic legislators are complaining vigorously about the push-back they are receiving on health reform during town hall meetings. House Majority Leader Pelosi stated that reform opponents were “carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare” and dismissed them as “Astroturf” rather than a grassroots movement. An editorial cartoon in the Washington Post similarly suggests that the protests are being orchestrated.
Senator Reid views protesters as a “fringe that is trying to mess up our meetings.” The White House Deputy Chief of Staff has advised legislators if “If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard.” The Administration is asking individuals who hear things that are “fishy” to submit them by email. Paul Krugman concedes that anti-privatization activists” who opposed social security reforms during the Bush Administration were “sometimes raucous and rude, [but] I can’t find any examples of congressmen shouted down, congressmen hanged in effigy, congressmen surrounded and followed by taunting crowds." Krugman concludes this is “something new and ugly” – and reforms opponents must be motivated at least in part by racism.
Krugman’s claim that protests of this sort are unprecedented is wrong. A virtually identical scenario played out in 1989. By an overwhelming margin, Congress had enacted the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act in 1988. The Act provided more extensive hospitalization benefits and prescription drug coverage, but it imposed the costs of that benefit on the elderly.
Congress was soon flooded with angry letters and there were numerous confrontations with angry constituents when individual congressmen returned to their districts. As Andrea Mitchell observed on ABC News, “the elderly are not against the new benefits – unlimited hospital care, new at-home benefits, prescription drug coverage; they just don’t want to pay for them.”
The turning point came on August 17, 1989, when Dan Rostenkowski, House Ways and Means Chairman and one of the most powerful men in Congress, found himself fleeing a crowd of irate senior citizens protesting the Catastrophic Coverage Act.
Representative Rostenkowski had scheduled a meeting in his home district to hear constituent concerns and speak about the advantages of the Medicare catastrophic coverage act. A crowd of angry senior citizens waved signs protesting the fact they would have to pay more taxes to fund the covered benefit. People shouted “coward,” “recall,” and “impeach” after Representative Rostenkowski refused to speak with them and got in his car. One senior citizen (Leona Kozien) even jumped on the hood of Congressman Rostenkowski’s car to stop him from leaving.
The picture below was taken moments before Ms. Kozien jumped on the hood – she is the women in the rose-colored heart shaped glasses. (The picture appeared in Newsweek and the Chicago Sun Times, and was taken by Tom Cruze)

Representative Rostenkowski got out of the car and ran a block, chased by the crowd. He was then picked up by his car and whisked away. The incident resulted in front page coverage nationwide. The TV news ran footage of Rostenkowski fleeing from his constituents. Rostenkowski reportedly asked his press secretary whether the issue would go away in a few days, and was told “Let me put it this way Congressman. When you die, they will play this clip on television.” Three months later, the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act was repealed.
As with today, the media had little sympathy for the protesters. The New York Times editorialized that “there’s little reason to sympathize with the aggrieved affluent elderly,” whose complaints were “short-sighted and narrow-minded.” In the New Republic, one commentator condemned the “selfishness” of the “affluent elderly,” and asked “so long as we continue to provide enormous subsidies to the affluent elderly, why shouldn’t they help pay for the poor of their generation?” (You can read more, and find the sources for the enclosed in chapter four of my book on Medicare.
It is understandable that the Administration and Congressional Democrats are unhappy with push-back to their plans. But, August is proving to be rich in ironies. The Administration of a former teacher of constitutional law is unhappy that individuals are exercising their Constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The Administration of a former community organizer is complaining about community organizing. Congressional Democrats have long relied on community organizing (and union members), and are suddenly appalled at organized communities.
And, perhaps the richest irony of all -- the organizer of the protest against Rostenkowski was Jan Schakowsky – then Director of the Illinois State Council of Senior Citizens – and currently Democratic representative from the Ninth Congressional District of Illinois, and chief deputy whip to Majority Leader Pelosi. You can read Schakowsky's account of the incident, her role, and her views on the importance of citizen involvement in government here – at a lecture she gave at Northwestern’s Institute for Policy Research in 2002, entitled “Why Citizen Activism Matters: The View From Washington.”
Related Posts (on one page):
- The Perils of High Public Office: II
- The Perils of High Public Office
- Grassroots Activism For Me, But Not For Thee
Yes, you have a right to bring a swastika to a meeting about health care. Pointing out that the other side is bringing swastikas is also a part of the political process.
Imagine that — Krugman twisting the truth. :rolleyes:
Dissent is the highest form of patriotism... except when against Obama.
Community Organizing is noble... except when against Obama.
Protests are the voice of the people... except when against Obama.
Ace has done a great run-down of the MSM's amazing bias in presenting how the libs protest verses how the right protests.
Violentvigorous organized protest is not new to the American political scene. One might call it a natural consequence of the Founders' not having found a suitable way to bar organized parties without sacrificing liberty.Still, that one is free to protest vigorously does not imply that such protests are beyond reproach, nor that they are wise.
Krugman wrote: "I've gone through many news reports from 2005, and while anti-privatization activists were sometimes raucous and rude, I can’t find any examples of congressmen shouted down, congressmen hanged in effigy, congressmen surrounded and followed by taunting crowds."
DH Wrote: "Paul Krugman concedes that anti-privatization activists who opposed social security reforms during the Bush Administration were 'sometimes raucous and rude'...Krugman’s claim that protests of this sort are unprecedented is wrong. A virtually identical scenario played out in 1989"
DH,
You totally failed to rebut Krugman. He was talking about 2005, during the George W. Bush administration, not 1989, during the George H.W. Bush administration.
Basically Krugman said that nothing this bad happened in 2005 during George W, and then you try to rebut this with a counterexample from 1988-89 during George H.W.
It seems that Mr. Hyman and a couple commenters are muddying the difference.
What if I say that all liberals support Hamas because I saw a few at a anti-Israel protest? I'm sure they would cry bloody murder over that one!
Read "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky to know the minds of Obama, RahmBo and other flunkies.
I made the same mistake you did initially. But while part of Krugman's statement is limited to 2005, he goes on to write about the trouble as "something new and ugly". It's not new if it happened in 1989, and DH found that it happened in 1989.
Nah. We're used to that kind of criticism, PlugInMonster. And not from random commentors on blogs, but from GOP leaders, pundits, and media giants.
Oh really?
Obama: “I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking”
Will the First Amendment soon be functionally defunct?
(Much as Lenin's Freedom of Religion clauses in the old Soviet Constitution - they were still on the books until the end as I recall, but functionally ignored by the State....)
Economists have even made up their own phony Nobel Prize officially know as the Sveriges Riksbank (Sweden's central bank) Prize in memory of Alfred Nobel. You can get a economics "Nobel" even for false theories such as the thoroughly discredited Capital Asset Pricing Model.
Krugman has already been taken down on his point about 2005.
I think D.H. was just adding additional historical perspective. You know, like the old saying: an ounce of history is better than a pound of Krugman.
Nope. I don't see how that clip could be construed as him "complaining" about either individuals petitioning the government or community organizing.
It's hard to tell without the context, but I'd guess his comments are directed at the Bush administration (those would be "the folks who created the mess"). Also, given that he's smiling and laughing, I think he might be joking!
Somehow, the people protesting against socialized medicine are Nazis but the Sheehans and the Code Pink loons are true patriots!?!?!?
No one but the limousine leftists like Pelosi, Boxer, Kennedy, and their media lapdogs could utter this stuff with a straight face!
And when it does happen, the deflection and projection that's characterized so much of the Republican defense of God(win)-fearin' and occasionally racist Teabaggers, town hall rioters, and (let's be honest) completely insane Birthers will be used to say that the persons who took their anger out on a crowded meeting hall at some civic center were really the victims here (or, of course, that they were not true Scotsmen). will say that he'd have personally stopped everyone if only he'd been there, and the usual suspects will say that all could have been avoided if only more people went to civic meetings with concealed weapons.
There's already been a melee in St. Louis, and it's only the 7th of the month. I'll be truly surprised if there hasn't been a killing by Labor Day (hey, maybe that will be when SEIU gets theirs!)
I'll admit it: we're scared of your side. Can you really blame us?
The Code Pink people are left wing loons and the people comparing Obama to Hitler are right wing loons. Not sure why that's so hard.
Too funny. SEIU thugs start fights and get arrested, and you're the one who's afraid of violence?
Here's some advice: buy a gun. There, now you won't be afraid anymore, and you can sleep soundly on your Messiah pillow.
Loons. Still not sure why this is difficult.
DangerMouse: I knew I could count on you for the requisite ironic gun-fetishism (incidentally, I own two, and don't draw a false sense of security from either one--you really think a third will help?).
Google is often useful.
Or given that he's at a Virginia gubernatorial campaign event, maybe he's talking about the Democratic governors who've held the Virginia Executive Mansion for the last 8 years? Who knows what the hell he's talking about?
And why exactly are they consistently concealing the fact that the images expressly designate opposition to what the swastikas represent?
you don't remember the bush years, do you? or are you conveniently forgetting them?
the same people who now say it is our patriotic duty to protest, back then said exactly the opposite.
i guess pointing out the hypocrisy runs both ways is a little above you though.
If you're so deathly afraid about the possibility of a free people voicing dissent to your Messiah, then maybe it'd be safer for your mental stability to seek professional help than to depend on yourself for your own protection.
I'm sure Nancy Pelosi could recommend a good psychologist.
That the Speaker of the House feels free to lob incendiary generalizations about people who disagree with her does not speak well of her.
Krugman's economic columns are engaging, but most of the rest of them show him to be a partisan hack.
the address is flag@whitehouse.gov
Google is often useful.
Have you looked at those hits? Hardly proves anything one way or the other. Of one will find an occasional "birther" at a tea party or health care protest, but how does that establish a substantial overlap?
New Mexico Independent, “Local libertarian advocates ‘retaliation…be it verbal or physical’ at health care town halls” Aug 7, 2009:
Isn't there another word in that phrase? Doesn't it say 'the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for redress of their grievances"?
The problem is that the current efforts are not peaceable, and they are not simply efforts to petition for redress. Instead, the goal is to prevent supporters of health care reform from exercising their right to speak, to prevent reasoned debate.
Whether it also happened in any particular previous year, and by whom, strikes me as irrelevant. Any effort to stifle debate is bad, and saying "but the Clintons did it first" is no justification.
Yelling at a congressman is not peacable? Are you going to arrest them now? Gosh, you libs sure do turn into statist thugs very quickly when the rabble don't listen...
This is a typical Alinsky tactic: have your union thugs cause violence, claim that things are out of control, and then shut the opposition down because things are out of control. Typical libs.
Since all of the networks, other than Fox, are actively cheerleading the Obama agenda, it's not like the Democrats can't get their views out.
Given that the Belgian model for universal coverage (which has been extensively studied during the Clinton years as a possible model for a US system) was brought there by the Nazis, I think the label of it being a Nazi system is quite appropriate.
Whether that is sufficient reason to oppose the system is another matter. We don't oppose bans on the use of asbestos as a building material just 'cause the Nazis did that first, for example.
I'm not sure what you are afraid of. Conservatives as thugs? You have to be kidding. Conservatives write letters and blog postings. Come on over to Berkeley and I will show you what the left does when you disagree.
1. My friend got his arm broken for making positive statements about Israel in the Berkeley Jewish Community Center. His attacker was not arrested-- this is a people's republic after all.
2. Conservatives who give talks on campus need bodyguards to enter the campus.
3. Professor Arthur Jensen required a personal police escort to simply leave his building and go to the library. This went on for at least a year.
4. If someone at a demonstration dares utters anything contrary to the mob, you can hear them yell "shut him up."
Now Obama is getting some deserved push back and all of a sudden we have brown shirts in the streets. You must be kidding.
I don't know if there's a substantial overlap, but there is certainly overlap. I would guess that if a person is a birther, there is a high probability that person is a Tea Party member too. But that doesn't mean every Tea Party member is a birther. Same goes for truthers.
Is it possible that there is a difference protesting a proposed domestic policy and protesting -- and possibly undermining, depending on what is said -- a war effort abroad which the majority of the country through its elected representatives has chosen to pursue?
One might say it's loud and tumultuous.
iirc, the people protesting the war, both before it started and after, were called traitors. Treason can carry the penalty of death. In this case some people are being called teabaggers.
/me does a quick search of the constitution
Yeah, calling someone a teabagger doesn't carry an implied death penalty with it.
You think of a Jewish community center, I think of a Holocaust Museum (I suppose we each look for examples closer to our geography).
I escorted Bill Ayers to a campus talk at Georgetown Law last year. We were kept in a locked room under armed guard before the talk, and immediately whisked to a waiting vehicle amidst a phalanx of armed guards afterwards. It's bad when this stuff faces Ann Coulter, and it's bad when it faces Bill Ayers, and it's completely unacceptable when it faces members of Congress.
I have no problem with dissent. This ain't that. I have no problem with opposing the reform effort. This ain't that, either. These are confrontations at best designed to provoke, at worst intended to intimidate members of Congress (wonder where I got the idea that intimidating them was a goal...). It's an attempt not to win an argument but to cow an opponent. And it won't end well for either side.
Is it also possible that, given the different scales at issue in those two events, the worst of the protesters in the domestic agenda one shouldn't be emulating the worst of the protesters in the foreign policy one?
"I don't know if there's a substantial overlap, but there is certainly overlap."
"Substantial" is Krugman's word, not mine. I'm sure there's some overlap, but calling it "substantial" is purely speculative on Krugman's part. Surely if someone writes a column in a major newspaper, he should back up what he says, if only a little bit. How is reading Krugman on this stuff any better than talking to a New York cabbie? I'm assuming at least a few must speak English these days.
Of course they're supposed to intimidate members of Congress -- specifically, to let them know that if they vote the wrong way, they'll be out of a job.
"I escorted Bill Ayers to a campus talk at Georgetown Law last year."
Unless you were somehow obligated to do that, this does not speak well of you. Ayers wrote Prairie Fire, and I have a copy. He dedicates the book to Sirhan Sirhan. The rest of the the book is even worse. He's a very inflammatory figure. On the other hand, my friend is a relative nobody simply expressing a opinion in the Jewish Community Center. One would think it safe to say something positive about Israel in such a place. But no, not in Berkeley.
Would you have escorted David Duke (who is not as bad as Ayers)?
The article is behind a registration wall and I'm lazy, so sorry for missing that. It's an interesting question and we have the technology! If I get a chance I'll see if I can pull up some numbers. I've been meaning to look at the overlap of birthers and PUMAs anyway.
Duke is worse than Ayers--the election's over, you can stop the fire-breathing hyperbole anytime. Ayers is probably better compared to would-be assassin G. Gordon Liddy, if you want to draw a bad equivalency with anyone.
But to answer your question, if Duke had written a book about and worked tirelessly on education reform (the reason he'd been invited initially), and had agreed to take any and all questions from the audience regardless of relevance to the subject at hand (as Ayers did), then yes, I'd escort him. I'd probably punch him once or twice for good measure, but I'd escort him to an academic setting to face criticism in the open light (as Ayers did).
so it's not okay for people to undermine causes you agree with but it is not okay for people to undermine causes you don't agree with? last i checked democrats were elected in a landslide on a platform of health care reform, why are you undermining it?
so, in other words, your defense against my claim that republicans are being unprincipled, is to admit they are being unprincipled but that it's okay.
"The article is behind a registration wall and I'm lazy, so sorry for missing that."
I quoted Krugman with that word here.
BTW often a google link will take you directly to the article without the need to register.
so it's not okay for people to undermine causes you agree with but it is [] okay for people to undermine causes you don't agree with?
Raleigh NC, WTVD, ”North Carolina Congressman Brad Miller has received a death threat over the health care plan”, Aug 6, 2009:
The caller said, “it could cost him his life.”
Duke is worse than Ayers.
How is that? I don't know that much about Duke, and it's probably a bad example, but as far as I know he never tried to kill anyone. Do I have to quote from Prairie Fire? Do I have to quote from the FBI agent who infiltrated the Weather Underground? Do I have to quote from Fugitive Days.
So anyway, we know your standards. Write a book. Answer questions. That seems to rehabilitate anything.
As for calling Ayers an education reformer, I'll quote Sol Stern,
"Calling Bill Ayers a school reformer is a bit like calling Joseph Stalin an agricultural reformer."
I'm sorry to be so confrontational, but I think Ayers, and Duke and many other should be ignored-- banished form public discourse.
If they screw up healthcare it could cost everyone their lives. How's that a threat?
I submit that we will know how authentic the dissatisfaction is come next November. The Democrats and their minions could be right about these protests being manufactured. Or maybe their wrong, but their "go to move" is to decry the protesters as being "inauthentic".
If you are a Democratic Congressman, which course do you choose? Abandon Pelosi and risk her wrath? Abandon your voters and risk being un-elected?
Damn, I wish I was in the US right now - I seem to be missing all the fun!
And try reading some J.S. Mill one of these days--not just for course credit. It'll do you some good.
Well, you're welcome to go with that argument if you think it helps politically.
I enjoy the suggestion that highlighting the "relatively small number of swastikas" in a crowd of right-wing protestors is a tactic trademarked by Alinsky. When Karl Rove and the rest of the Republicans threw a screaming fit about one anonymous entrant in a Moveon.org contest submitting a "Bush = Hitler" video, did they also prove themselves to be disciples of Alinsky?
I oppose the war in Iraq, but I don't go to those anti-war rallies because I don't want to give the impression I support the anti-Israel types who inevitably assume a high profile. My advice, for those who don't want their movement associated with swastikas, is not to hang around with the guys with the swastikas.
That is why I contended in another thread that the reason for this push to get everything passed yesterday is that Pelosi, et al. know that this is their one chance at this, and are likely to lose those seats in the next election, esp. if all these new Representatives are being forced to vote for stuff that their constituents don't like.
It does, however, establish that the speaker has serious psycho-sexual fixations that warrant serious psychiatric intervention.
All those town-halls, and all those teabaggers, and still no pics of a congresscritter with nuts on his face :-).
I'm. So. Screwed. I knew I shouldn't have been an usher at my friends' Jain wedding. Maybe that's what the teabaggers are really saying? Obamacare will be a system that respects all life?
Or...lulz? I say potato, you say serious psychological fixations based on a few comments made on the internets. Serious business.
"Again, the election's over. Find another boogeyman."
Ayers didn't die with the election, he's still alive and making trouble. I don't see why one should have have a poor opinion of those who choose to associate with him.
"And try reading some J.S. Mill one of these days--not just for course credit. It'll do you some good.
This is your way of saying "I give up-- I really can't defend the indefensible."
So? He was a terrorist, a leader of a terrorist organization.
He is exactly as bad as David Duke. Because you guys are on the same side, he's ok?
You brought him up as some sort of martyr to free speech.
Are you actually trying to insinuate that the "truthers" are on the right???That's insane!!!Leftists will say just about anything, won't you?
Last I heard, 35% of Democrats believed that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and another 26% weren't sure. That's 61% who at least entertained that whacko theory.
I'd say about 435.
How many have been killed? Or even assaulted? In the whole 219+/- years that there has been a congress?
Death threats are about the least serious thing imaginable. People who kill just do it, they don't threaten.
So what?
Congresspeople are intimidated. So what?
People shout and there is no "reasoned" debate. So what?
It appears that your essential complaint is with protest that works. If the protests were ineffectual and pathetic, you wouldn't oppose them. It's only because they're actually working that you oppose them.
This is fairly typical of the left. If right-wingers start a boycott and the boycott is effective, it's a "blacklist". If right-wingers hold a protest and the protest is effective, it's "intimidation". Apparently the only time you're allowed to undertake a political action according to these people is when you fail and are a pathetic joke.
Alex Jones.
Teabaggers are instead childish, cowardly, ill-informed, rife with conspiracy nutcases, and, in short, deserve all of the mockery they get and more.
Imagine, MOCKERY in POLITICS. Unheard of in history!
Only now it's gone too far, too fast. This "crisis" was caused by the left, including Obama and his beloved ACORN, forcing lenders to abandon rational standards. This has hit the middle class the hardest, in their home values and 401Ks, and employment. And now Obama is trying to yank the country the rest of the way to the Collective using this crisis.
I don't think we're going to stand for it this time.
And who elected Barack Obama this past November, on a platform explicitly promising major healthcare reform.
Oh, wait, I'm sorry. By "average," you meant "white." Well, so long as you're talking about whites with no college in the general area of Appalachia, I suppose that's fine. Enjoy your shrinking slice of the demographic pie; we'll take electoral majorities, and healthcare reform, which is still going to pass.
Officials said a phone call came into the Democrat's Washington, DC office earlier this week.
The caller said, “it could cost him his life.”
We seem to get the alleged "death threat" popping up every now and then as a final way to demonize any opposition. As in "See what monsters my opponents are". The media usually runs with it with no substantiation, so it must be true if Keith Olberman says so.
How about claiming they threatened to kill a stray puppy instead, considering the esteem in which most congress people are held, that would seem to be a far more effective threat.
Usually this kind of claim is aimed at NRA members, bloodthirsty SoBs that we all are of course.
Just once I'd like to see a little real evidence of the alleged "threat", the message, letter, tweet or e-mail. Something other than the fevered imagination of the congress critters senior staff aide, to prove it actually happened. Not that I think a congress person would lie outright to make themselves look better and more sympathetic, but it has been known to happen ... once or twice.
It seems to be the last refuge of those that have no place else to turn in an argument to make them an object of both sympathy and pseudo heroism.
I'd also like to be sure it was an opposition protestor and not the justifiably angry father of one of his interns.
I attempted to find a silver lining in Obama's election, and I thought I had found it in his various claims to stand for transparency, civil liberties, and accountability. Since he decided to piss all over those promises, I guess lots of people who thought they knew what an Obama administration would mean are just going to have to be disappointed. Since all his civil liberties and transparencies promises were lies, I see no reason for us to regard the health care portion of his platform as some kind of sacred bargain with the voters.
I demand that health care reform advocates cease all of their activities, or they will be shown to be operating in sympathy with people who make death threats.
I did not mean to imply that Obama had made any promises concerning items to be shown on overhead projectors.
Sure it's pathetic and sad to use that kind of language in a political discussion, but what the hay- one juvenile embarrassing announcement of intellectual bankruptcy deserves another. So come on all you Sacklickers- stand tall, be counted, and get your lick on.
Sir, your suggestion is unhygenic and a threat to public health. If you fail to cease promotion of such harmful activities as defined by MedGov, your insurance policy will be voided and *checks chart* your fillings and pacemaker will be reposessed.
Oh, please, please let her run in 2012 with idiocy like that behind her.
Unless you have a pathological fixation with him, I bet you don't have any clue whether or not Ayers is "making trouble."
And the J.S. Mill reference is because you seem perfectly willing to overlook the value of yanking the fringe into the light so as to expose their ideas to ridicule and scorn if necessary (or critical analysis when warranted), instead supporting the idea that simply excluding people from the discussion entirely is a better way of preventing them from getting their way. Notice how I'm not trying to keep the crazy birthers from spouting their insanity: I want them to get called out for it, and my beef is with Republicans in Congress and in the media who give them cover and encouragement.
But if it makes you feel better to believe that you hold the key to moral and intellectual justice, and that no viewpoint espoused by any person you don't personally approve of can possibly be valid on any subject, you go right ahead.
That isn't the issue. The point is that some people engage in conduct so completely unacceptable that they have no place in civilized society. In a decent world, these people are outcasts. In our current world, they live on as the Senior Senator from Massachusetts. In Ayers case, they have their papa's money buy them "legitimacy" from people who wouldn't give them the time of day if they used the word "fag" but are cool with it if they actively try to kill innocent people. As long as they tried to kill the right people of course.
This is disappointing, and frankly, a little embarrassing to our society as a whole.
It would be one thing if either person I just referenced demonstrated an ounce of remorse for their savagery and/or attempted to "atone" for it- in Ayers case, he has done just the opposite.
Use of swastikas - NOT LEGITIMATE
Shouting down of authorized speakers - NOT LEGITIMATE
Use of unsubstantiated platitudes - NOT LEGITIMATE
And trying to lob claims of "hypocrisy" at members of this administration who don't want to put up with this is NOT LEGITIMATE either. You can bandy about that the swastika carriers and shouters are only a few of the protestors and that the administration should just shut up and "let the public be heard", but that's simply not true. These are tactics that are being employed at-large.
These tactics were BS when the far-left used them against Bush, and they are BS when the far-right is using them against Obama, Pelosi, etc.
That would be Obama you're referring to.
Anyone who believes that the people showing up at these meetings are anything like organized belongs to the Lyndon LaRouche end of conspiracy theorists. When you threaten to change things that people like and depend on, you will get a reaction. Fighting back against these people only convinces them and many others that they are right.
Thugs in union jackets beating the crap out of a guy who is not carrying a swastika and not shouting down a speaker, but only trying to hand out 'Don't-Tread-On-Me' flags - NOT LEGITIMATE and DOWNRIGHT CRIMINAL.
Why do you omit the far worse that your side is doing?
Lobbing charges of hypocrisy at members of this administration who don't want to put up with these perfectly legal actions, and demonstrate their unwillingness to put up with them by sending union thugs to beat up the people doing them, is perfectly fair. They are hypocrites.
All the things you list, though deplorable, have been done quite frequently by Democrats for years. I don't recall any of the hundreds of BushHitler banner-wavers, or any of the people who routinely shout down conservative speakers on college campuses or throw pies at them, ever getting beaten up by organized thugs urged on by President Bush. Do you?
One more thing. If your opponents accuse you of acting like Nazis, the worst possible thing you can do is send thugs to beat them up for saying it, since that makes you look like (duh!) Nazis, thus making them look prescient rather than stupid.
Which reminds me: I once had a (university) student who told a classmate he thought she would make an excellent dominatrix. She was naturally outraged and slapped him, and he said "See what I mean!". That was of course the worst thing she could do.
It's the same here. It's the same here: if you don't want to be compared to Nazis, don't act like them, and don't defend those who act like them.
I'm looking for more detail from the President on the health bill as well and his failure to give it is troubling. But if you're trying to equate him referring to "run-away costs" or "those who got us into this in the first place" with protestors shouting down speakers with claims about health care "coming out of my paycheck" when their health care is already coming out of their paycheck via their employer plan, then you are grasping for straws.
Reactionary responses are inevitable, but a whole helluva lot of this stinks of partisan smear tactics, not genuine discourse.
That's because it was safe to do so.
Now we just have to make it not safe to do the same.
And moreover, HOW IN THE WORLD DO YOU EQUATE MY COMMENTS WITH ME CONDONING PEOPLE BEING BEAT UP?
I addressed the topic of this post, which was the conservative protestors to the health care program.
I EVEN STATED IN MY COMMENT THAT I DON'T CONDONE THOSE WHO CLAIMED BUSH IS A NAZI.
Your distortion of what I said is absolutely ridiculous.
Speaking of which, you might want to see who is organizing your local Tea Party. If the name LarouchePAC comes up, things may not be what they seem.
How could I think you condoned people being beat up? The fact that you strongly criticized what some (very few) Tea Partiers are doing, which is legal, if tasteless, and had not one word to say about the (over)reaction on the part of the SEIU members, who committed assault and battery. Have you not heard what happened in St. Louis yesterday? Much of it was caught on film. See GatewayPundit for several posts.
If Obama's "death panel" has anything to say about it you will be.
I didn't say you defended those who beat up a Tea Partier yesterday, but it sure looks like you condone them. I haven't read one word of criticism from you, even when I reminded you of them. If you haven't heard about what happened in St. Louis yesterday, you need to find out what's actually going on before you write another word. If you know what's going on, how can you criticize the legal things the Tea Partiers have done without so much as mentioning the violent reaction on the part of the Democratic party's union allies?
I hereby condemn what happened in St. Louis. There was quite a bit in my original post that implied as much.
Your claim that it appears that I support them is completely disingenuous and baseless so I'd kindly request that you don't distort my views on legitimate forms of protest as support for violence.
You have sympathy for Mr. Ayers, who never received any real justice for the crimes he committed because of a corrupt local political establishment? Count me out, I certainly won't join you in that sympathy. Ayers having to be a bit nervous now and then is a pathetic, minuscule fragment of what he deserves.
Try not to pretend that the violence in St. Louis is somehow irrelevant to the topic of this post. The second paragraph of the post includes this: "The White House Deputy Chief of Staff has advised legislators if 'If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard.'" The man in St. Louis didn't hit a legislator, or anyone else, but still got punched hard. Is that really irrelevant?
Dr. Weevil, while I'm generally one of those who also supports the political position you seem to be taking, I'm at a loss to understand how not mentioning the impropriety of an action can be automatically equated with condoning the action. That's not likely a principle you'd want applied to you, as I imagine every day there are quite a few acts of violence you don't explicitly denounce, and suspect that would be true even if restricted to ones you'd heard about. If I were mbilinsky, I'm be frustrated by the illogic of your position.
Kirk: I really don't think you, or any of us, actually understands what it's like to be the most virulently and actively hated person in America. I think you may want to spend some time thinking about that before condemning anyone to suffer it.
My problem is that mbilinsky seemed to implicitly condone the violence in his first post by calling the Tea Partiers' various actions "NOT LEGITIMATE", which seems awfully strong for things that aren't illegal, and insisting that no one should call those "who don't want to put up with this" hypocrites, without any reference to their legal duty to 'put up with this', or at least to refrain from committing crimes of violence in trying not to put up with it.
I was willing to assume that that was just poor choice of words, and would have gladly accepted a restatement of his point if he had come out and said that he didn't mean to imply that violence was a "LEGITIMATE" reaction to his list of "NOT LEGITIMATE" actions. But he was oddly reluctant to give such a statement, which looks an awful lot like condoning to me. Even his "I hereby condemn" looks forced, as if he really hates to condemn the SEIU. Perhaps he just responds poorly to snarky objections, or can't stand to admit he's even partly wrong.
Are you calling William Ayers "the most virulently and actively hated person in America"? He's not half as virulently and actively hated as Sarah Palin, for one. And of course Ayers -- like David Duke -- has done a good deal to earn the hatred directed at him.
Adios. Don't distort my words again.
You don't deserve any courtesies the way you demonize anyone who is opposed to Obama.
I clearly did not "demonize anyone who is opposed to Obama". I demonized the form of protest. And moreover, I extended the demonization of that form of protest against our former president as well.
Sorry, even taking your hyperbole at face value, No. Since I think Ayers deserves, and should have gotten, the death penalty for his terrorist activities, the fact that he seems to be living out a fairly full allotment of life while working an interesting job in academia (instead of breaking rocks in the hot sun, in case what he really deserved was only life in prison) means, again, that he's getting off much easier than he deserved.
And does he appreciate the generosity of the country he tried to destroy? Based on his interview that ran on 9/11, wherein he said he wished they'd tried harder and done more, I'd say no he does not.
Toss a controversial issue out there, and it doesn't work so well, does it?
Claims of use of swastikas, when they were swastikas with lines drawn through them - VERY MISLEADING.
No, it ends beyond property that belongs to you or the government (or beyond "public spaces", arguably commercial land without an expectation of privacy). Your definition allows for the absurd result that one person blocking a poster at ten paces is violating the freedom of speech of the poster's publisher, when in reality even the perverted doctrine of incorporation of the rights doesn't go that far.
Awrighty, zarkov. You lost all credibility when you played Godwin.
Let the cops hit 'em with flash-bangs, pepper spray, and OC.
You people know about the Miami model? It's been around awhile—got refined in places like NYC and Twin Cities.
The truth is that people like you, who make a public display of their obsessive-compulsive fixation on putting their scrotum in other people's mouths (or having them placed in your mouth) need to air that stuff in a psychiatrist's office, not here.
I'm trying very hard to think of somebody who deserves more to the the "most virulently and actively hated person in America." Advocating the execution of 25 million fellow citizens is going to be hard to beat, so Ayers (and his helpmate Bernardine Dohrn) may win by acclamation. Still, I need to check out Dr. Ezekiel Ehmanuel and John Holdren more fully to decide whether there are possible competitors. Peter Singer is clearly not in the same class.
How many members of Congress ... have been killed? Or even assaulted? In the whole 219+/- years that there has been a congress?
More than zero. Senator David Broderick (D-CA) was killed in a duel (in 1859). So were Senator Armistead Mason (D-VA; 1819) and Representative Jonathan Cilley (D-ME; 1838). Senator Robert Kennedy (D-NY) was assassinated (in 1968); so were Senator Huey Long (D-LA; 1935), Representative James M. Hinds (R-AR; 1868), and Representative Leo Ryan (D-CA; 1978).
As for assaults: in 1856, Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) was beaten senseless in the Senate chamber by Representative Preston Brooks (D-SC).
Death threats are about the least serious thing imaginable. People who kill just do it, they don't threaten.
A while back a Holocaust survivor in Israel was asked what he had learned from it. He said "When someone says he will kill you, believe him."
There have been many women whose ex-spouses or ex-boyfriends threatened to kill them - and did.
James M. Hinds was killed by "a member of the Ku Klux Klan, namely George A. Clark, Secretary of the Democratic Committee of Monroe County, who was drunk at the time" (Wikipedia), so that's one.
Sirhan Sirhan probably counts, though he was not technically a constituent of RFK. I'm not even sure he was a citizen -- he'd only been in the U.S. for 12 years.
Leo Ryan was killed by a former constituent, Jim Jones, but had to fly to Guyana to make that possible.
I was surprised to see from Wikipedia that there's some doubt as to whether Huey Long was assassinated at all, rather than punched in the mouth by a politician he'd (supposedly) wronged and then hit by one or two stray bullets as his bodyguards were busy putting 61 bullets in his assailant.
All in all, a given congressman's chances of being murdered by a constituent who disagrees with his views seem fairly slim. Politics is probably safer than military, police, or fire work, and possibly safer than driving a cab or working the night shift at the 7-11.
Does that sound insensitive? I've found from personal experience that two good ways to get death threats are (a) blogging on politics and (b) teaching high school. I've gotten at least one threat that was explicit and detailed but gave no hint as to whether it was my blog or my teaching or something else that inspired the hate. Disquieting, but not enough to make me buy a gun, much less quit blogging or teaching.
One of my students did have a chat with the police once, but he brazenly lied his way out of any legal repercussions for his sick fantasies and my then principal couldn't be bothered to provide the evidence to refute him. (The threat came from an on-campus computer, so it would have been possible to search the voluminous log files and see who was logged on to that particular terminal at that particular time, but it would have taken a few hours.)
And so is pointing out that the other side, in order to distract attention from legitimate concerns of the protestors, is making false accusations about bringing swastikas, funding of prostestors and the character of opposition to the health insurance bill.
What good does carrying do? You are not allowed to use or brandish unless you are in reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm, and have retreated to the maximum extent possible. Absent a reasonable fear that the SEIU thugs will kill you or inflict serious harm, deadly force is not warranted.
If speakers are being shouted down or silenced, debate is being stifled. If people are asking questions that the speakers and supporters find inconvenient, pssing out Gadsen flags, or laughing and hooting in response to false or misleading statements by the speaker, that IS debate. The problem is not that debate is being prevented, the problem is that supporters of the bill want to prevent debate and to substitute cheerleading instead, no matter how dishonest or misinformed the cheerleading is.
I don’t have much use for either of them, but how many bombs did Liddy set? How many people did Liddy kill compared to how many Ayers killed?
Come on, Zarkov, Duke is a klansman. Can we agree that Klan leaders are examples of peaceable dissent? I find the Weathermen disgusting, but compared to the Klan the Weather Underground is an amateur.
Too bad nobody is bringing swastika's though, huh?
Laugh out loud funny.
Some 2005 now constitutes the entire Bush Presidency?
Huh?
You and Krugman of course have no point.
Really?
Um, could you then explain this?
THE TRUTH: Tea baggers look like idiots
I think you should engage in more projection.
Ignorant liberals like you are childish, political cowards, laughably stupid, and believe Bush actually blew up the WTC.
In sum, you and your silly ilk deserve to be ridiculed and mocked endlessly.
Isn't this fun?
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.