Unfortunate choice of words by Ann Romney this morning:
(CBS News) On a mission to shatter the image of her husband as rigid and unrelatable, Ann Romney told CBS News she worries that President Obama’s entire campaign strategy is “kill Romney.”
“I feel like all he’s doing is saying, ‘Let’s kill this guy,” she said, seated next to her husband, presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, in an exclusive interview with CBS News chief political correspondent Jan Crawford. “And I feel like that’s not really a very good campaign policy.
I say that because, well, Barack Obama just happens to be the only president in history who we know has an actual “kill list” that he personally maintains. And he doesn’t mean the word “kill” figuratively. You end up on Obama’s list, and you’re dead.
So, since Mitt Romney’s still kicking, that’s a really good argument that he never made the list.
Of course, I then read on to see that Mrs. Romney didn’t come up with the word herself; some idiot in the Democratic Party did:
In August, some Democratic strategists let leak to the press that Obama’s top aides were looking at a massive character takedown of Romney in light of a deterring economy; “kill Romney” was a phrase used by one. “That was their memo that came out from their campaign,” Ann Romney said. “And it’s like, ‘not when I’m next to him you better not.”
Still, I wouldn’t bandy that word about so carelessly. Not with this president.
Related Posts
Or so they claim. Oh, WE didn’t say it, THEY did — we’re just repeating it out of context in order to create an impression.
If you recall, the Clintons also routinely murdered people while they were flying cocaine into Arkansas and bagging skanks. Painting the opponent as a potential murderer is probably easier than painting him as a Secret Kenyan Communist Nazi.
BTW, Laura Bush, as far as we know, is the only First Lady to have actually killed somebody. (Although Florence Harding might have killed Warren.)
I guess the “new civility” is over.
Obama doesn’t kill anybody, he does it the Chicago way… he has someone else do it for him. Fear the teleprompter.
Burl – Interesting backhand you have there. How many Senators besides Ted Kennedy have killed someone and walked away as if nothing happened?
I thought that was a photo of Amy Poehler. Too bad she’s not on SNL any more.
That is all.
The real moral of this story, for me, is that once again we’re witnessing the idiocy of these partisans who speak as though they actually believe that what they are engaged in is warfare, and the people they are running against are not fellow Americans with a different opinion, but the ENEMY, to be crushed, wiped out, “killed”…
These people sicken me.
@ Brad – Then vote for President Camacho in 2012. He’s got a solution that will fix everything.
Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho for President!
I’m Silence, brought to you by Carl’s Jr.
Who’s Any Poehler?
“If OBAMA killed him, he’d be dead” -Brad W.
Because Obama empowered himself to
select drone targets, no doubt.
No abuse of megalomaniacal power there, no sir.
Well Burl, at least you got part of it right. Clinton was busy “bagging skanks”.
@ Brad! What is best in life?
“To crush your enemies — See them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!”
No problem – he has magic underwear!
This is silly. Her comments and the fact that some one in the Democratic machine made the comment previously. And I guess questioning the President’s citizenship is okay? Please tell Mrs. Romney, “welcome to the bid leagues…..”
We know who wears the pants in the Romney household. How lame to be caught with a photo showing your wife driving the jetski. And now we have his wife coming to his defense. Dude needs to grow a pair.
“BTW, Laura Bush, as far as we know, is the only First Lady to have actually killed somebody.”
Yeah, leave it up to a liberal… to bring up something like this to make a useless point.
I didn’t realize the over reaching stretch Brad was making about Ann Romney’s comment that was not meant to literally mean that Obama has an actual weapon pointed at Mitt with the intent to end his life would be used to the resurrect a tragedy from the past of the former president’s wife for the sake of a snarky comment.
Never accuse just the right of being nasty and vicious, the left has its moments as well. The comment by Burl is a clear example.
FYI, Bart… I removed one word from your comment, in keeping with my civility policy. It didn’t change your meaning any…
@ bud – yes, Mitt should never let Ann drive the JetSki. Women can obviously not be trusted to handle any type of watercraft.
Is this the appropriate time to bring up Barack Obama’s “Mom Jeans”?
I had to look that up, and I’m not entirely sure I understand the phenomenon yet. Even though I found many references.
According to Wikipedia, though, when guys wear them, they’re “Dad jeans.”
“How lame to be caught with a photo showing your wife driving the jetski.”
bud, do you really want to say this? I can’t wait to hear Kathryn’s response.
I still remember it like it was yesterday, Obama was throwing out the first pitch and came out to the mound in “mom jeans” all stonewashed-looking with extra pockets and probably even an elastic waistband. It was cringeworthy. I haven’t been so embarrased in, well, ever.
@ Brad – I am always glad to school you on pop culture topics and memes.
The worst part of getting killed by Obama would be that you’d been killed by a guy wearing mom jeans.
@Burl – Don’t forget VP Cheney shooting that guy in the face. That’s gotta count for something.
As far as which president personally killed the most people? That’s an interesting question. I’d guess either: TR, Andy Jackson, George Washington, WH Harrison, Ike or US Grant, but I’m just guessing them b/c they had military careers.
The Laura Bush killing story is completely irrelevant to anything going on now. But that is exactly the kind of nonsensical statements put out by the GOP spinmeisters on a daily basis. How many silver crosses do we have to use to kill the Birther vampire? At least the Laura Bush story is true.
@ bud – The latest thing I have heard on the “birther” stuff is that Obama’s SSN was issued in 1976 or 1977 to a Connecticut to a woman born in 1890… I think this could be legit.
1950 – “Your mom wears Army boots.”
2010 – “Your dad wears mom jeans.”
Apparently Mitt Romney is livid that that Washington Post failed to distinguish between outsourcing and offshoring. Geez this man is astoundingly out of touch. Whether the activity involved American losing their jobs directly to folks in other countries who do the job they are currently doing OR they are laid off because there employer hires another company to do the work using workers in other countries is a ridiculous distinction. Mitt Romney lack any kind of character that I want in my president. He should just move to the Cayman Islands to keep his money company. We’d all be better off if he did.
bud & Burl – Are you two really going to say that Laura Bush intentionally killed that man when she was 17 years old?
I guess to you that Clemson football player “killed” his coach a few years ago when he hit him witih a jetski. That’s the word from diehard Gamecock fans, that it wasn’t an accident but covered up murder. No difference in what you two are saying.
So both of you… go into your little voting booth in November and pull the “Democrat Party” party line switch and be done with it.
Come on people — where’s the support for Florence Harding?
Relevance — try to follow:
* Laura Bush was a First Lady.
* Ann Romney wants to be First Lady.
* Ann Romney is talking about killing somebody.
* Laura Bush actually killed somebody.
Of course, Laura Bush’s situation was a tragic accident that occurred in her youth. In Ann Romney’s case, it’s a deliberately chosen phrase designed to demonize her husband’s opponent.
This isn’t political discourse, it’s war, with the classic psychological memes of propaganda used instill emotional hatred and fear of the “enemy.”
Sorry, but it annoys me when fellow citizens are attacked with more ruthlessness than that applied to real enemies of the country.
And to claim that “liberals” are far more vicious than “conservatives” is simply a crock. Just witness the reeking load of bad craziness shat upon the open-mouthed true believers at a CPAC convention.
Pointing out that folks like Wayne LaPierre are savage, relentless propagandists, nuttier than squirrel crap, is just pointing out reality. Making non-reality an issue is something else.
But oh yeah. Bill Clinton pulled the trigger on Vince Foster and Hillary Clinton disemboweled Kathleen Willey’s cat with her bare hands. And I have yet to hear even Sen. Lindsey Graham express a public smidgeon of doubt that the elected president is really the AntiChrist.
FYI, Steven’s comment was slightly edited, but the thrust was not changed.
Burl’s almost was, for language. And could be next time. Depends on my mood, I guess.
What did Burl say that was a “language fault”? It’s not like he said “$@%&” or even “%)!*@*$&%)”.
He used two four-letter words for a bodily function. He just didn’t use them to attack another commenter, so I allowed them. But I don’t want it to become a habit, not here…
“shat” and “crap” are bad words around here? Are you letting nuns moderate the blog now?
“And to claim that “liberals” are far more vicious than “conservatives” is simply a crock. Just witness the reeking load of bad craziness shat upon the open-mouthed true believers at a CPAC convention.”…Burl
Apparently you have never been to or listened to a convention held by MoveOn or DailyKos or to some of the liberals on television, i.e., Ed Schultz, Rosie O’donnell and her claim about Bush being responsible for 9-11 among other unhinged attacks. Remember Al Gore’s hysterical rant calling Bush a traitor with the veins standing out on his red-faced forehead? Really civil and restrained. In other word, “Truthers” are legitimately sane but “Birthers” are BS crazy? No contradiction there at all.
“Ann Romney is talking about killing somebody.” “In Ann Romney’s case, it’s a deliberately chosen phrase designed to demonize her husband’s opponent.”….Burl
“Unless things change and Obama can run on accomplishments, he will have to kill Romney,” said a prominent Democratic strategist aligned with the White House.”…Politico 8/9/11
Now Brad, Burl, and bud, please tell us who fired the first “kill” word across the bow of the campaign, Ann Romney in a recent interview or Obama’s campaign in 2011? Did any one of you take to the internet to skewer the Democrats the way you are doing Ann Romney and for good measure, adding Laura Bush’s accident that took place when she just turned 17? Not just no but HELL no!!
From Yahoo! News July 7, 2012
“We found no evidence to support the claim that Romney — while he was still running Bain Capital — shipped American jobs overseas,” FactCheck.org concluded in a report last month.”
“Independent media monitors that track campaign advertising report that 76 percent of the TV ads Obama’s campaign has aired over the past month have had a negative, “anti-Romney” message.”
When Terry McAuliffe made his comment that his main purpose was to make GWB the most hated man in America, I guess that was being civil in the same manner as Lee Atwater was in his day. Of course, the comment cannot be found on the internet any longer.
Then we have the civility of George Soros and Peter Lewis when they opened their vast fortunes to support MoveOn, DailyKos, other liberal organizations whose purposes among others was to defeat George W. Bush. Soros made his billions from currency speculation that created financial chaos in Malaysia which resulted in massive losses affecting the indigenous population who could not afford the financial hits he caused. Yet, when the Koch brothers opened their fortunes to help in Wisconsin and other conservative causes, they have been attacked and demonized by the liberal media and Democrats alike. Of the ones mentioned, the Koch brothers actually employ approximately 75,000 people in America and 25,000 in other countries. Their jobs are not the low paying, low skill level jobs that are popular in America since Clinton signed NAFTA into law.
I guess the only comments available to some are the talking points directly out of the DNC or the media who continue to carry the water for Obama.
Bart: here’s a very revealing example about liberals vs. conservatives. One of the most popular “epithets” about liberals is to call them “bleeding-heart liberals.” It always struck me humorously, as if to have a heart, and one capable of bleeding, full of actual human life force, was a bad thing. Well, mark me down as one of those I guess.
Then along came the Bush campaign slogan about “compassionate conservatism”. That also cracked me up because it was so revealing of the fact that at its heart modern American conservatism is anything but compassionate, otherwise why would you have to append this modifier as though this were some NEW kind of conservatism? Compassionate conservative as compared to what?
Of course rhetoric and vitriol can emanate from any side in political argument, and I would not dispute that in the least. In the end, it matters more about policy, and while I flirted with conservative economic ideology when I was young, I still wandered back to progressive thinking because I felt morally more comfortable with it, felt it appealed to the best instincts rather than the most self-centered ones, and felt then as I still do that a capitalist system (while still better than most other options) needs checks and balances from a democratically-elected government if any kind of “democracy” is to survive or thrive. And, I do feel that modern conservatism is bullying, and I never felt comfortable as a bully. I don’t, for example, feel morally superior to those who make less money than I do, don’t feel that one’s moral worth is equivalent to one’s net worth, and that right there disqualifies me from membership in today’s GOP. I can’t measure the value of everything in dollars and cents, and that also seems to be at the core of most conservatives’ argument about anything these days.
So, to Burl’s point about relative levels of meanness, or whatever…when it comes to rhetoric one could make an argument for equivalency I suppose (though I still don’t totally agree with that) but when it comes to action and policy no contest. The demonization of the poor and the working-class by modern conservative policy positions makes it a slam-dunk.
There are a few areas of overlap between conservative and liberal. The whole “drones over the US” thing seems to be one of those.
Also, it seems as though the war on drugs is oppossed by as many on the right as on the left. It always seemed to me like a good fit for the conservative, “small government” crowd but for some reason it didn’t catch on with those folks in the 80s and 90s. But it seems as though things my be changing the that regard.
On the other end of the spectrum it seems like more and more liberals are less inclined to support foreign aid missions except for humanitarian purposes. The whole nation building thing just doesn’t seem to resonate much anymore. That would put liberals in agreement with extreme right wing types like Jim DeMint.
Perhaps there are others, securing old USSR nukes is perhaps another area. I’d suggest we try to work on these areas of overlap whoever is elected POTUS come November. It’s likely to be a very evenly divided congress so perhaps that’s the best we’ll be able to do.
Wow–I am yet again humbled by the genius of Phillip. <3
@ bud – The small government crowd is usually correct on civil liberties. I don’t see one good reason to use drones over the US, except for to patrol our ports and borders, and those patrols could be technically outside the territorial US.
Drugs destroy people’s lives, and not just the lives of the people who use them. If the destruction were merely limited to the user, I’d be fine with letting everyone do what they want. If I have to pay for their medical care, methadone, hospitalization, dental care, neglected children, welfare and whatnot, I care. If someone plows a car into me or my family/friends, I care. We can’t have civil liberty without personal responsibility. We are a bit short on personal responsibility lately.
Securing warheads & such does seem to be an area where we can all build some of Brad’s consensus.
The reason there appear to be “areas of overlap between conservative and liberal” is because we misuse the terms. I think I’ll do a separate post on that…
It’s always interesting that rabidpublicans believe that Rosie O’Donnell is a policy leader among progressives. But I agree that birthers and truthers are both wacky conspiracy crazies. The only difference is that truthers are a tiny fringe group, while birtherism is a core value among conservatives.
@ Burl – of course had the Obama campaign released the birth certificate in a timely fashion they could have addressed the issue. Instead they chose to stall before finally releasing a poorly photoshopped looking “birth certificate” which basically only added fuel to the fire. The fact that Obama’s publisher used an outdated bio of him that said he was born in Kenya probably didn’t help matters either.
I don’t consider myself a birther, but I do feel like the whole thing is rotten somehow.
@Kathryn – You should start a fan club.
I can’t tell whether Silence is serious or just trying to pull our leg. Let’s hope the latter.
Tell you what — I’ll give it a tug…
The birther sensibility lives not because of any particulars, such as actual birth certificates or lack thereof. It has legs because it speaks to an essential truth about Barack Obama — his background, his origin, is starkly different from that of any previous president.
It’s the fact that he’s DIFFERENT that makes people keep reaching for concrete ways of pointing it out. He makes certain people uneasy with his difference, and they have trouble articulating what it is that bothers them, so they reach for conspiracy theories.
But there’s really no mystery about it. And no, his main difference is not that he’s “black.” In fact, he’s as different from most black Americans as he is from most white ones.
He’s like Bill Clinton in that he didn’t know his father growing up. He’s unlike any previous president in that he’s from Hawaii, our most cosmopolitan state, and that missing father was not only a foreigner, but was African. Mind you, this is a nation that only a generation ago had to take a giant leap to accept an Irish Catholic, which is way less exotic, by typical American standards, than a Muslim Kenyan.
Even if you think of Obama as black, you have to deal with the fact that he is not of West African heritage. His ancestry — and to my eye his personal appearance — speaks to an entirely different ethnicity. And of course, his background lacks the central narrative of race in America — not one of his ancestors was brought to this country as a slave.
Add to that his “no-drama Obama” persona, his cool intellectualism, which makes him wildly different from your typical back-slapping American politician. He takes it way beyond JFK’s cool, to the point that it’s almost a Mr. Spock thing — he seems as much half Vulcan as half East African.
He’s just way, way different. And a lot of people have trouble putting their fingers on the specific differences, so when they hear some crazy story such as he wasn’t born in this country, it resonates with them…
I was aware of all of the above in 2008, and yet I personally found much to identify with in Obama’s story. I saw him as different in some ways that I, too, was different.
But things will crop up that take me by surprise, nevertheless. The Churchill bust, for instance. There seemed to be a tone-deafness on the part of the administration in that case, a lack of having the special relationship hard-wired into their brains.
And then it was pointed out to me that not all that long ago, the Obama clan was living in a British colony, and that the president’s grandfather was once imprisoned by colonial authorities. Oh. I can see how that could give a guy a different perspective. I can see how maybe he wouldn’t consider “Mother Country” to be a synonym for “England.” At least as much as though he were, you know, Irish or something. (And without JFK’s WWII experience.)
We’ve had presidents who were not anglophiles before, of course. But not since Jefferson and Madison have we had anyone with less likelihood of identifying closely with the Brits.
Not bad, nor good. Just different.
I am always amused that the drone industry as we know it was born in the Columbia River Gorge – where people of a liberal, rural bent move to windsurf and drink good beer.
Palmdale, CA I would understand, but White Salmon, WA? It’s just too funny – like if one of the places the industry had come to maturity was in the hollows around Ashville, NC.
I have a lot bigger issue with surveillence intrusions inside a home than I do from the idea that UAVs are circling US airspace – even if they can recognize my mug.
@ Brad – I think that the Kennedy election was like two generations ago, nowadays. Maybe 2.5. 51 years ago?
If you’re running for public office, shouldn’t things like birth certificates, college transcripts, etc. be made available? The only reason to hide them is if there’s something in them you don’t want people to see.
“It’s always interesting that rabidpublicans believe that Rosie O’Donnell is a policy leader among progressives.”….Burl
What is also interesting is that when an example of liberal looniness is given, i.e., Rosie O’Donnell, liberals automatically come back without an honest response to the issue at hand. Now Burl, where in my comments did I imply that Rosie is a policy leader? I know she is a nutcase and was used as a great example of the loony left but she does have her audience, shrinking as it may be. I think the exercise in juxtaposition is yours, not mine. So, using another snarky neologism like “rabidpublicans” is a retort that is supposed to accomplish what exactly? Forgot “Rethugicans”, “Repugs”, etc.?
As for the “Truthers”, depending upon the particular polls one relies upon, they have consistently run anywhere from 28% to 42% who support the belief that Bush helped with or knew about the 9-11 attacks before they happened. As for “Birthers”, depending again on the polls you use, they range from 38% up to 51% who believe Obama was not born in the US. Or if you prefer, CBS polls show that 25% of all Americans across the board believe Obama was not born in the US while CNN has a poll that shows only 3%.
Not being a “birther” myself, the “birther” and “truther” issues should be examined a little closer to determine which one COULD come closer to being the actual truth. The circumstances surrounding the possibility of Obama NOT being born in Hawaii comes a lot closer to being the truth than the belief that GWB knew and/or assisted in the events on 9-11.
If I were to buy into the “birther” theory, there are some inconsistencies that could lead one to believe that Obama was not born in Hawaii. If I were to believe the bio that was supposedly written by Obama for his book, “Dreams from my Father”, then by his own admission, he was born in Kenya. However, what is one to believe that comes from Obama anyway? His seething anger over a story in Life magazine that was never written proved to be a lie and so did many of his claims in his book as proven by of all people, David Maraniss of the WAPO, not your ordinary “birther” crackpot with the support of Obama’s friends and former acquaintances.
But, I suppose like everything else that reveals a little more about the man, it is either a lie or “Bush did it”.
@Burl – Aren’t tax returns already available?
Why did it take the Democrats months to produce a birth certificate? If I were running, I could get a copy to you in about 20 minutes providing the bank was open.
Now about those college transcripts…
“The demonization of the poor and the working-class by modern conservative policy positions makes it a slam-dunk.”…Phillip
If you would accommodate a request, please confirm your comment by stating verbatim modern conservative policies that demonize the poor and working class as an official position. No opinions, no parsing of words, just clear, concise facts to support your comment.
As for the “bleeding heart liberal’ moniker, one of the many definitions is “A person who is considered “excessively”(my italics) sympathetic toward those who claim to be underprivileged or exploited”.
“I can’t measure the value of everything in dollars and cents, and that also seems to be at the core of most conservatives’ argument about anything these days.” …Phillip
The two comments should be considered together and placed in the proper context of the reality of life and the fact that the human condition has remained virtually unchanged since recorded history started with the rudimentary drawings left by our cave dwelling ancestors. Or if you are a believer in the Bible, the history of humans from the beginning or Genesis of humans on earth.
For the sake of identifying the differences between the ideologies, the term “bleeding heart liberal(s)” is used, not meant to be derogatory or derisive.
When the “bleeding heart liberal” is left unchecked to do as his or heart dictates without concern or care for where the largesse’ comes from, at some point, the treasury runs dry and the objects of their compassion must face the reality that their benefactors must find a means to continue their support system. Then, the bleeding heart liberal must also face reality and seek to find revenues from places other than their own accounts that is if they have been willing to forego their own fortunes, large, medium, or small in order to facilitate their bleeding heart tendencies. There are not too many sources of disposable income available to continue the support other than the government or the resources of those who provide jobs and take a more pragmatic approach to the plight of the poor and working class by requiring they do more than just accept the benefits without making a contribution in return.
To perpetrate the misconception that conservatives wish to keep the poor and less fortunate from having access to the “American dream” of gaining wealth via the free enterprise or capitalist economic system available to the citizens of this country is a continuation of the class warfare that has grown to the largest proportions in my lifetime or remembrance. Personally, I know of no conservative who possesses the heart you described and I would dare say, with the exception of one or two, no one else on this blog is personally acquainted with a conservative who meets the definition either.
I am not addressing the multi-millionaire/billionaire class who in their waning years decide to establish philanthropic organizations and charities as a depository for their huge fortunes and where they still maintain control and decide who will or will not be the beneficiaries. For the most part, they also insure a continuance of their lifestyles by working for the organization and allowing their families to do the same and enjoy the tremendous tax breaks allowed by the government. As a side note, if Warren Buffett was so concerned about the disparity of his tax burden compared to his secretary, then he should have drawn a taxable salary and allowed his income to be taxed at the same rate as hers. Instead, he opted to be taxed at the rate available to individuals who earn income via their investments and pay a lower rate. I think his actions are hypocritical.
At some point, the public treasury becomes the source or horn of plenty to support the efforts of the bleeding heart liberals. The public treasury is filled via the efforts of the working class that includes everyone who works for the private sector employers, whether they be of the 1% or a fortunate individual who is able to provide employment for one or two while making less than the benchmark set for wealth by Obama. The treasury is also filled via taxes collected from the companies or industry owned by private sector employers. So far, I have not found one government run business that contributes to the treasury other than GM, Chrysler, and at one time, the failed house of prostitution in Nevada, The Mustang Ranch. Hell, the government can’t even efficiently run a service that provides one of the most basic of all human needs without “screwing it up”, pun intended.
Conservatives and liberals comprise two sides of the same coin. On one hand, the conservatives are generally the ones who practice a more pragmatic approach about how the funds from the treasury are dispensed to offset the sometimes overzealous endeavors by the liberal side of the coin. The biggest problem is the perception of each by those who have the loudest bullhorn or occupy the central stage on the issue. As it is, the media and entertainment industry is dominated by the liberal/Democrat side of the coin and as such, they have the greatest opportunity to influence the opinions of Americans to a greater degree than the conservative/Republican side.
All I know about you Phillip is what I read on this blog. Based on the stories relayed by Kathryn, apparently you are a very talented musician and piano teacher. This is in keeping with your political and social ideology and rightfully so. I would like to ask a couple of questions of you if you don’t mind.
Apparently you are from New York based on your comment about spending some time on Trump’s yacht. If so, what prompted you to move to Columbia, SC, clearly the antithesis of the Manhattan lifestyle and availability of a wide array of artistic and entertainment opportunities? Second, as a concerned liberal, bleeding heart or not, do you practice what you advocate, i.e., do you provide free lessons to the less fortunate children who cannot afford them from someone who is as qualified as you? Do you volunteer your time in the underachieving schools to introduce the children to classical and semi-classical music?
One last observation in the ongoing battle for the minds and votes of the people of this country as it relates to communication of ideas.
Liberals and Democrats rail against Fox News as the source of all evil yet in stark numbers and reality, Fox is only one against many yet maintains a massive lead in the viewer numbers compared to MSNBC, CNN, HLN, and all other cable outlets. Fox is demonized, attacked, and belittled even by the White House yet it remains as the single force standing against all comers and is not only surviving but gaining audience numbers. FWIW, I do not watch any of the cable or network news broadcasts or political opinion oriented shows. They make the reality shows look like Shakespeare in the Park.
Yet, even with the great advantage, the liberal/Democrat message has not resonated as well as one would expect. Argue as some may, i.e., the claim by Obama he was outspent in the 2008 election evokes a reaction of incredulity of almost historic proportions, is an example of the failure of the argument that liberals are more concerned with the welfare and improvement of the human condition than the monetary aspect of the issue. Ultimately, it is all about the money and who collects the most and who controls the purse strings.
“And then it was pointed out to me that not all that long ago, the Obama clan was living in a British colony, and that the president’s grandfather was once imprisoned by colonial authorities. Oh. I can see how that could give a guy a different perspective. I can see how maybe he wouldn’t consider “Mother Country” to be a synonym for “England.””….Brad
Brad,
You really need to keep up with the current events, especially on the publishing side. David Maraniss dispelled that myth recently.
Do you have a link?
I’ll admit that I don’t spend a lot of time researching such things. (I’m more interested in what policies the president pursues than I am in what his grandfather did.) That was offered as an explanation for why Obama didn’t feel the same about the Special Relationship, and perhaps I accepted it too readily. It does provide a rather pat explanation, and I should be suspicious of that.
Shouldn’t tax returns also be made available? How about financial disclosures of off-shore investments?
Birth records and other items have been made available from the present elected administration, to the point where this is the most vetted president in history. But that’s not the crux of conspiracy theory:
* Any item or document produced that doesn’t fit the predetermined theory is treated as “proof” of conspiracy.
Birtherism is a crackpot religion, not a deductive process.
@Bart– Phillip grew up in Charlotte and moved to South Carolina when his wife got a job as a professor at USC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Bush
I doubt there are any children who could benefit from lessons of the caliber Phillip gives who cannot afford them. He is a world-class pianist.http://www.free-times.com/index.php?cat=1992912064227409&ShowArticle_ID=11010207121123560
I studied for many years, including with a USC professor, and still can barely tap into the greatness that is Phillip’s pedagogy.
@Bart–As far as Maraniss goes, it’s pretty undisputed that the Obamas lived in Kenya, a former British colony. I do doubt that much about the President’s father had a lasting impact on him, since he only saw him, what, twice?
I just finished the New Yorker article on the Maraniss book and Obama and his heritage. I think there’s a paywall for nonsubscribers….
“I doubt there are any children who could benefit from lessons of the caliber Phillip gives who cannot afford them.”
So am I to assume that Phillip is not able to teach beginning students basics of playing? Or is that he’ll only give these types of lessons to those who can afford them?
@Kathryn,
Thanks for the information on Phillip.
Once again, I do not doubt the gift Phillip has with the piano but if one has a gift and identifies as a “bleeding heart liberal”, then why not share the gift with those who cannot afford it?
Is Phillip’s gift available to only the wealthy? If so, how does this differentiate Phillip from the 1% in terms of sharing an abundance of wealth but on the artistic side, not the monetary?
I am uncomfortable at this point discussing Phillip in the abstract. Any further discussion will be with Phillip. Based on his comments and command of the English language, he can provide the answers if he cares to.
@Brad,
There are several articles addressing the lack of proof that Obama’s grandfather was ever imprisoned by the British. The NYT, the Telegraph, and other publications did report on Maraniss’ book and the interviews he had with at least five of Hussein Onyango Obama’s friends who could not recall or remember his imprisonment, much less the torture he was supposed to have endured.
According to his friends, if he had been jailed, he would never have been able to secure a job with a British family, especially a diplomat’s family and his son, Obama’s father, would not have been accepted into a prestigious boarding school in Western Kenya. Even one of his daughters disputed the claim of imprisonment and torture.
I understand the “literay license” authors take when writing a story or docudrama but the book, “Dreams from my Father”, was a memoir of his pursuit of understanding who he is and how he come to the realization of what his life’s purpose was to be. FWIW, I did read the book with an open mind but the further into the book and his experiences, there were some small doubts about the veracity of the accounts of several events. Too many lapses, too little detail about critical times in his life, especially his educational journey.
Invoking a line from the movie, “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance”, when the newspaper editor tore up the notes after the interview with the Jimmy Stewart character he said what was the single most important line in the movie. “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”
pardon the misspelling – should be “literary” ,not “literay”.
@Bart: I appreciate your thoughtful response, and I recognize that there is, or perhaps I should say there once was, a conservative economic ideology that had a consistent viewpoint and expressed itself in terms of the interests of all Americans. If I ever heard that from conservative politicians, I’d be more receptive to their arguments today. About “demonization”: we constantly hear the implication that those who benefit from a social safety net are “lazy,” “freeloaders,” etc., or that those who are in financial trouble are in that condition must be that way due to some moral failings within themselves. That’s because there is this myth of class mobility in America, that if you work hard enough, you can rise from poverty to great riches. It does happen on an individual basis now and then, but class mobility has been proven to be MORE static in the US than even a number of social democracies worldwide. The truth is, millions work hard, play by the rules, try hard, and still find themselves in dire economic straits. If these people merely benefit from any kind of safety net to help them hang on until such time as they can keep trying to climb the ladder to at least economic stability, well, they’re called either “not members of the productive class” or worse, “stray animals” (Andre Bauer).
You write of class warfare being worse now than ever. I agree, but I think it runs in the opposite direction. All conservative economic policy is oriented towards tax breaks for the wealthy, and have resulted in the greatest income and economic disparity this country has ever seen. It seems like if you feel class “anger” has increased, it’s because the middle class is hurting or shrinking, the poorer classes are really being stepped on, all so that the top 5% or so can accrue more and more of the wealth (and power) in our society.
I have no problem with the capitalist system and fully understand the conservative economic ideology which says we must stay a dynamic-enough society to generate growth which can help all. I simply feel that the balance has gotten way too skewed in the past 30 years, and that worship of profit motive and market forces as the all-seeing-all-knowing power to guide us is leading us down a path away from a democratic society and closer to something resembling an oligarchy.
Whether I “give enough” or do enough charitably is a separate issue. The point is I am willing to pay my share of taxes to support a healthy society, even if that means I am keeping less of my income than I would otherwise. That’s my patriotic duty. We vote our representatives in or out based in large part on where we want our money to go. If I make a greater salary, I’m willing to pay a higher chunk to taxes, because I would recognize where I am on the economic scale relative to our society in general.
About individual charity: we should all do what we can. But conservatives talk about individual charity as if we all lived in some tiny village in Montana where we’d all look out for each other on an individual basis. We’ve left that behind long ago. Suppose I don’t drive much and you do: should I say that you should just contribute money directly, charitably, to the building of roads? I didn’t have a child until a few years ago, came late to fatherhood…but I never questioned my taxes going to public schools.
It seems like if you feel class “anger” has increased, it’s because the middle class is hurting or shrinking, the poorer classes are really being stepped on, all so that the top 5% or so can accrue more and more of the wealth (and power) in our society.
-Phillip
I hate to always agree or disgree with anyone but I find it extremely hard to find something I disagree with Phillip on. So I’ll resort to nitpiking a bit.
I just don’t see a huge increase in “class anger” directed toward the rich. It seems as though talk radio and Fox News have somehow innoculated the rich against this type of “class warfare” that conservatives like to suggest is promoted by liberal activists. The problem as I see it is there just is not ENOUGH “class warfare” coming from the lower classes. It’s entirely a one-way battle of the rich getting richer at the expense of the middle/working classes with very little pushback. Let’s see how Obama’s call for ending the Bush tax cuts on just those making $250k+ turns out. If, as I suspect, this goes nowhere then that would seem good evidence that class warfare is really nothing more than a conservative talking point.
@Bart–Who Phillip is, as great as he is as I have come to know him, is not relevant to the truth or validity of his statements. If he were a naturalized citizen formerly from the communist China, he’d still have the right to assert what he did.
Do I have more of a right to say something because I grew up IN SC instead of across the state lines. Is my husband, who has only lived in the South for 14 years, less valuable as a citizen?
@Bart: a couple very quick points, and then I’ll leave the field to you…
“Is Phillip’s gift available only to the wealthy?” Glad you asked that, because that’s at the core of why we shouldn’t eliminate the SC Arts Commission. Rather than having to hope that a random poor child is able to somehow come in contact (through chance?) with the chance to experience music, learn, etc., why not make the small investment to ensure that access to the arts (and all they bring to a child’s complete education) is available to as many such children as possible, in an organized fashion? This is very much what the SCAC does.
More about liberalism: you cite the concern about when it is “left unchecked…without concern or care for where the largesse comes from, at some point, the treasury runs dry and the objects of their compassion must face the reality that their benefactors must find a means to continue their support system.” Fundamentally, I don’t believe we should spend more than we have (though in certain economic circumstances, like now for example, I believe the debt is less a crisis than lack of growth and joblessness, and support further stimulus). But conservatives have also spent beyond their means, just on the wrong things, in my opinion. While economic conditions do fluctuate, fundamentally I believe this country can and should afford things that represent an investment in its own people, of all classes and races. It could more easily do so were it not for the crippling overspending on so-called “defense,” most of which is not for defense, and “welfare for the wealthy” in the form of these unaffordable Bush-era tax cuts. “But it’s their money” you’ll say…Wrong, that’s where you and I fundamentally disagree. Millionaires, no matter their talents and hard work, do not make their money exclusively through their own efforts, but their success is made possible by the societal conditions in which they have created their wealth. The farther away each of us is from manual labor or subsistence conditions, and deeper into a state where “what we do” depends on the infrastructure and cultural conditions of our society, the less our income is really 100% “our own.”
About NYC vs. the South…Kathryn is right, I grew up in the South and consider myself a southerner. Columbia, though, is a surprisingly progressive and culturally-percolating little city with lots of diversity (which is why a lot of y’all try to move out to Lexington, Blythewood, further and further away). I’ll also add that as for the South in the larger context, it’s more fun to live in a place where not everybody thinks like you do. I’ve had that experience (4 years in Ann Arbor, for example) and believe me, the only thing worse than living in a sometimes-startlingly-reactionary culture is to be almost entirely surrounded by smug, self-righteous liberals. Ugh! 😉
It’s interesting you should say that. I was having a chat the other day with Kathryn Fenner and Michael Rodgers, and said something similar. Only I was serious.
I’d rather be in SC, with all its self-destructive political impulses, than hanging out at wine-and-cheese soirees with the smug lefty set in New York, Boston or San Francisco. Or L.A., or Portland, or wherever…
Although… if I ever had the chance to live in London, I might chuck it all for the opportunity. And any time I got tired of the Labourites, I could hang with the Tories.
But then, that’s so far from my grandchildren…
I am serious, too, Brad! I would sometimes find myself starting to argue libertarian or conservative economic viewpoints just to keep things interesting, or to remind the people I was with that rational people CAN have an opposite view. Though I haven’t watched in a few years, one of the things I used to enjoy about South Park was that they skewered the cultural excesses of self-righteous liberalism as much as those of right-wingers. (Their portrayal of Al Gore, for example, hurt me to the core, but I had to admit there was something fundamentally true about it).
I also don’t see any real class-anger. Not even class-annoyance. What I do see is a faction devoted to portraying themselves as victims as an excuse for denying rights to others.
@Bart–
Re: Phillip’s gift and the wealthy: Phillip’s music is available to anyone with an internet connection or the price of a CD/MP3, and many concert promoters have outreach efforts to the less fortunate. Realistically, though, to become a world-class artist, or even a professional, in many types of art, being from the kind of family that can afford lessons and equipment like instruments and pointe shoes and supplies is almost mandatory in this country. While several of my high school band mates went on to have musical careers, outside of those who got into the military bands, they all were from better off families that could afford private lessons. There was no dance education in the Aiken public schools, little visual arts, almost no chorus, one drama class…and Aiken is an arts-savvy community by SC standards. Kids who go to fancier schools or more enlightened school districts (which means, invariably, wealthier ones) have a lot more options.
My parents were middle-middle class, and we had (and they still have) a tiny spinet piano, which limited my advancement. I was lucky that another faculty spouse, this time at USCA, was available to give top quality lessons. My parents could not have afforded a grand piano, nor is there room in their modest house for one.
Of course, there are arts that are accessible to less well-off children–and plenty of examples of outliers who overcame the very long odds, but the odds are definitely in the favor of kids from better off homes.
This is why it is so crucial for government to fund arts organizations and arts in the schools!!! Arts–either as participant or as spectator– should not be just for the wealthy!
“Millionaires, no matter their talents and hard work, do not make their money exclusively through their own efforts, but their success is made possible by the societal conditions in which they have created their wealth.”…Phillip
I cannot argue against your comment because it is absolutely true. Anyone who becomes a millionaire through entrepreneurship by starting a business will require employees to maintain and increase growth who do indeed contribute to the accumulation of wealth by an individual. If the business grows and can offer stock to the public, investors contribute to the wealth of the owner(s) and employees of the company. In turn, if the company is a success and dividends are earned, the investor is rewarded. So, in my estimation, if the one who started the company, took the initial risks, and spent the hours and dedication it takes to be successful, then why is it wrong for them to receive the rewards of success?
Should there be a limit on how much they can earn and if they exceed an amount set by an outside entity, should they be taxed or have any amount over the threshold taken away for the common good? Is this right? Is this fair?
The magical number apparently for measuring success and classification in the 1% is $250,000. Who established the number and why this particular amount?
As for my questions about your public service, if they were interpreted as a criticism, they were not intended to be.
“@Bart–Who Phillip is, as great as he is as I have come to know him, is not relevant to the truth or validity of his statements. If he were a naturalized citizen formerly from the communist China, he’d still have the right to assert what he did.”….Kathryn
Kathryn, did I make the comment that Phillip did not have the right to assert what he did? If so, please point it out to me. We all have the right to offer our opinions or make a point, whether you and I agree with one another or not.
@Phillip
Conservatives over the years have engaged in excessive spending the same as liberals. No doubt about it. I find some of the military spending totally unnecessary and a waste of resources. The wall along the border was to me an exercise in futility and even if completed, would be ineffective.
It is time to return to the tasks at hand and end this discussion with a genuine thanks for a civil discourse and your comments.
@Bart–You seemed to question his origins. I’m sorry if I misread your query.
As for the class warfare thing just tune in to conservative talk radio whenever they’re discussing the inheritance, aka, “death” tax. Most of the callers probably won’t inherit more than a few hundred thousand dollars tops. Yet they argue with great stridency that inheritance should not be taxed, period. Not sure why a person of modest means would be so willing to have their taxes raised in order to give a billionaires child a tax-free inheritance.
“@Bart–You seemed to question his origins. I’m sorry if I misread your query.”….Kathryn
My query was based on a comment Phillip made several months ago when he said he had spent time on Trump’s yacht. My conclusion was that he was from NY, not local. Just goes to show, should never draw conclusions until you have the facts.
Ah so….Phillip has led an interesting life, for sure!
@bud – Not this again. Try inheriting farmland when it’s valued at $2000/acre. Doesn’t take much land or equipment to make you a millionaire on paper even if your tax return could qualify you for government subsidies.
If your assets have been taxed once, why do they need to be taxed again just because you died?
Why is bud listening to conservative radio? That’s like me watching gay porn or the video footage inside a puppy slaughter house.
“If your assets have been taxed once, why do they need to be taxed again just because you died?”
Because it’s a realization event, same as if you sold them. They will be transferred to someone. Of course, smart tax planning goes a long way to avoiding this. Besides, there’s already a great deal with a step-up in basis for inherited property–you (r estate) may pay estate tax, but your heirs don’t pay tax on the appreciation you made.
and when the heirs sell the farmland to Mungo….
Bart said, “When the “bleeding heart liberal” is left unchecked to do as his or heart dictates without concern or care for where the largesse’ comes from, at some point, the treasury runs dry and the objects of their compassion must face the reality that their benefactors must find a means to continue their support system. Then, the bleeding heart liberal must also face reality and seek to find revenues from places other than their own accounts that is if they have been willing to forego their own fortunes, large, medium, or small in order to facilitate their bleeding heart tendencies. There are not too many sources of disposable income available to continue the support other than the government or the resources of those who provide jobs and take a more pragmatic approach to the plight of the poor and working class by requiring they do more than just accept the benefits without making a contribution in return. ”
I have been called a bleeding heart so I feel the need to respond. I don’t know if I really am or not because I don’t tend to label myself that way and I don’t feel familiar enough with the term to use it comfortably. But what is most striking to me about your comment here is the underlying assumption that the only way “bleeding heart liberals” can follow their heart’s dictates is to give monetary support to the objects of their compassion. That is a rather limited view. I would contend that liberals advocate and actually do a lot more for the poor than simply through monetary support. But anyway, you describe bleeding hearts this way in the same post where you dispute Phillip’s assertion that the current conservative movement tends to quantify everything in terms of money, and yet that seems to be exactly what you, presumably a conservative, just did. If I am a bleeding heart, then the thing I mostly take issue with is your apparent belief that liberals cannot take a pragmatic approach – as if the two are mutually exclusive. The idea that conservatives have cornered the market on pragmatism is also laughable in today’s political climate, where they more seem to be in the ideology camp. (Refusing to fund teacher pay raises with one time money is an ideological rather than pragmatic position, for example). If anybody deserves the descriptor, pragmatic, it probably is the moderate. But I do tend to think of myself as fairly pragmatic most of the time, so if I am also a bleeding heart, then surely these qualities must be able to co-exist. To me the distinction between these two different attitudes towards poverty and how to deal with it comes down to one group who trys to understand the situation and offer solutions accordingly as understanding grows vs. one group who tends to make negative judgements about the situation without having all the information (and without trying to get the information) and then wanting to exact punishment based on this negative judgement. It really is all about perspective – one group is so rooted in their own perspective that they will not allow themselves to see somebody else’s point of view. It is easier to think someone else is lazy (a negative judgement) than to try and understand that they may be doing all they can given their circumstances and available resources, for example. It requires a willingness to investigate the situation and try to see it through the other person’s eyes, and that is not something I see from conservatives very often. This is probably why I like Atticus so much. He said, “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view – until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.” So I don’t know what labels I personally should have (liberal, bleeding heart, moderate, pragmatic …probably not conservative), but I will always come down on the side of trying to understand first and then making a plan to do the most good with what’s available (that’s the pragmatic part).