Obamacare Attacks Fizzle
Not so very long ago, Republican candidates foresaw a single-issue campaign for the 2014 midterms. The race would be won, they assured themselves, on stoking the public's seething hatred of Obamacare. Republicans didn't need to do anything else this year (something House Republicans excel at: doing nothing), and in fact they didn't want to hold votes on any other contentious issue (like immigration reform), since all that would do is distract people away from the single campaign issue of Obamacare.
While it's too early to see how all of this will work out for Republicans this year, at midsummer the anti-Obamacare campaign strategy is starting to fizzle like a wet firecracker. Partly, this is due to external events which are beyond the control of Republicans (and Democrats, for that matter) -- in any political campaign, you cannot predict what sorts of "October surprise" issues will pop up along the way. External events always shift the political ground, constantly. But even allowing for outside events, it still seems the anti-Obamacare campaign isn't exactly going as planned.
One reason why is that good Obamacare news keeps intruding on the Republican storyline. Just this week we got two studies on the rate of uninsured Americans, and both of them showed Obamacare to be working very well indeed. Gallup just reported that the rate of uninsured dropped 2.2 percent last quarter, to the lowest point they've ever recorded (granted, their polling only goes back to 2008, but still, that's a hard chart to argue with). The rate of uninsured has dropped like a stone (from 18.0 percent to 13.4 percent) since Obamacare began signing people up, although it should flatten out for the rest of the year until the next open enrollment period begins (which will, unfortunately, be after the election). Another new report from the New England Journal of Medicine credits Obamacare with (when all categories are included) signing up 20 million people for health insurance.
The Republicans have lots of scary stories and nightmarish scenarios, but the Democrats are getting more and more solid data as time goes by, and so far that data is pretty darn good. But there's something else going on here as well: the money being spent on anti-Obamacare ads is actually having the opposite effect than Republicans had hoped for. Almost half a billion dollars has been spent so far this year on ads which mention Obamacare, and the anti ads outnumber the pro ads by 15-to-1 (58,000 positive ads versus 880,000 negative ads). Despite this flood of money, they haven't had a whole lot of effect on the polling in the four battleground Senate states they've largely been targeted at (Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Kentucky) -- Democrats are still viable (to varying degrees) in all of them. One Republican candidate tried to make his campaign all about Obamacare in New Hampshire, and he's now trailing by double digits.
The public in these states has long ago reached the saturation point on these ads. They tune them out. No matter how much money is spent from this point on, it'll likely have little effect on the public's attitude. Those who are against Obamacare don't need any more convincing, those who are for it aren't listening, and there are very few left to persuade either way.
The truly ironic thing is that all of the anti-Obamacare ads actually helped Obamacare in a very real and tangible way: more people in the targeted states actually signed up for Obamacare than in states which weren't targeted. Either the people there were made more aware of Obamacare by the flood of advertising, or they became convinced that Republicans might actually get rid of it -- which caused a rush of people to sign up (I should mention that Salon has a great article which lays out many of the points I'm summarizing here).
So the numeric data on Obamacare keeps getting better as time goes by, the public is ignoring Republican ads which attack Obamacare, conservatives have poured half a billion dollars into local economies (television station budgets, mostly), and Republican candidates in swing states are seeing little to no traction from the issue at all. Will any of this good news change the Republican midterm game plan of all-Obamacare-hating, all the time? Probably not. What will likely happen instead is a massive doubling down on the subject, leading to lots more scary ads. They've fizzled so far, but that likely won't stop Republicans from lighting one dud after another, all the way to November.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
The problem for Republicans is that Obamacare affects voters individually and concretely. They can see for themselves if their current insurance is more expensive or more comprehensive and more affordable. Unlike the typical Republicans scare tactic, people can objectively judge if all the horror stories are true based on their own personal experience.
And people who see themselves as benefiting aren't going to be scared off by baseless hypothetical pronouncements of doom. Nor are voters going to flock to support those who want to take something they consider valuable away from them. Even the Obama-haters aren't overly eager to hurt themselves just to symbolically spite Obama.
Once Halbig vs. Burwell is decided, that will signal the beginning of the end of TrainWreckCare...
I won't bother posting all the horror stories that are STILL coming out of TrainWreckCare.
Doctor shortages.. Predicted..
Long wait times.. Predicted..
Patients DIEING because of incompetent TrainWreckCare care.. Predicted
Naw, I won't bother with all that...
Because the proof that I am right is two fold..
One we can see right now.
Obama's approval ratings dropping like a lead anchor...
One we'll see in November when the GOP increases their hold on the House and takes the Senate..
So, I'll keep my powder somewhat dry for the next few months... :D
I DO predict a rip-roaring time come November and December however.. :D
Michale
One we'll see in November when the GOP increases their hold on the House and takes the Senate..
Does anyone doubt this???
"Anyone?? Anyone?? Beuhler??"
:D
Michale
RE (2)
??? predicted ??? what do you mean? Predicted, and has now actually occurred? Or maybe predicted, but still awaiting confirmation?
Also, nothing in this whole wide world but AHC affects presidential popularity?
Incompetent TrainWreckCare care? I had eye surgery (cataract) a few weeks back. The doctor accepted my Market Place insurance, he trains most of the new eye surgeons in the area, he's the ex head of ophthalmology at a large military installation. Seemed pretty competent.
Results can be summarized as "Was blind (right eye), but now I see." Better than 20/20.
Wait time? Two weeks from my cold call until surgery.
I'm just one data point, but one with an actual case history to talk about.
Incompetent TrainWreckCare care? I had eye surgery (cataract) a few weeks back. The doctor accepted my Market Place insurance, he trains most of the new eye surgeons in the area, he's the ex head of ophthalmology at a large military installation. Seemed pretty competent.
If you were the only one using TrainWreckCare then you would have successfully refuted my position...
But yer not so ya didn't.. :D
Michale
Also, nothing in this whole wide world but AHC affects presidential popularity?
Oh no, of course not...
There is PLENTY that is dragging Obama's numbers down to the gutter..
TrainWreckCare is just one of the most obvious indications of incompetence...
:D
Thank you for clarifying that... :D
Michale
But as Eilperin notes, “to some, breaking free can also look like running away.” The last thing Democrats need right now in the run-up to the 2014 elections are split images on television of chaos at the border combined with shots of President Obama playing golf or roaming the streets of an American city before yet another fundraiser.
Reince Priebus, chair of the Republican National Committee, snarks that “the only way we’ll ever get President Obama to visit the border is to have the Democratic National Committee hold a fundraiser there.”
President Obama’s behavior and verbal petulance is now opening him up to ridicule. That’s always a dangerous place for a president to be — especially one with an approval rating already hovering at 40 percent.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/382510/obama-goes-rogue-he-having-his-katrina-moment-john-fund
It's not going to be pretty for Democrats this November..
They might be so pissed that they will JOIN the GOP in impeaching Obama..
Wouldn't THAT be a hoot, eh?? :D
Michale
So, TS....
What's yer prediction for the November election?? :D
Michale
Fundamentals favor Republican control of Senate and House. The senate advantage flips in 2 yrs.
Fundamentals favor Republican control of Senate and House.
See!!? We agree!!! :D
Albeit for different reasons, but agreement nonetheless.... :D
Michale
If that happens, I'll be taking a couple of years off. Come to think of it, I believe I've already begun that vacation. It's been a long time coming ...
If that happens, I'll be taking a couple of years off. Come to think of it, I believe I've already begun that vacation. It's been a long time coming ...
Hope ya change yer mind, but if ya don't ya better start making plans..
Because the way things are going for Democrats, it's not a question of IF the GOP will take the Senate, but rather by how large of a margin...
At least we know that Obama won't be able to do KING/Messiah things anymore... The GOP will have him firmly in hand....
Michale
The Republicans have done nothing to deserve more power or responsibility.
Of course, people rarely get what they deserve.
I would like to see what might get done in the next couple of years if Democrats have effective control of Congress. Otherwise, that's a train wreck I don't care to follow too closely, especially in this comments section.
The Republicans have done nothing to deserve more power or responsibility.
Perhaps... Perhaps not..
But it's a damn sure thing that Democrats have proven that they can't govern...
In the upcoming mid-terms, Republicans are the lesser of the two evils..
I would like to see what might get done in the next couple of years if Democrats have effective control of Congress.
Democrats had MORE effective control of Congress for the EXACT amount of time in 2008 than they would have if they took the House and retained the Senate in 2014..
What makes you think 2014-2016 would be any different than 2008-2010???
Otherwise, that's a train wreck I don't care to follow too closely, especially in this comments section.
Aww com'on!! I had to put up with ya'all's gloating since The Messiah was elected...
Can't ya'all reciprocate?? :D
Michale
I've never gloated and have often been extremely disappointed if not depressed over how things have gone these last many years since Obama/Biden were first elected.
How many days did Democrats have effective control of Congress?
How many days did Democrats have effective control of Congress?
730 days..
Which amounts to about 90 actual working days..
:D hehehehehehehehehehehehehe
Michale
I've never gloated and have often been extremely disappointed if not depressed over how things have gone these last many years since Obama/Biden were first elected.
True enough..
I stand corrected.. :D
Michale
There were 60 Democrats in the Senate for 730 days?
Are you sure?
There were 60 Democrats in the Senate for 730 days?
Are you sure?
"effective" control doesn't mean filibuster proof..
"Effective" control means majority...
If "effective" meant filibuster proof, then the GOP was never in "effective" control of Congress during the Bush years which, in turn, means that NOTHING is the fault of the Republicans.. :D
Michale
You haven't been paying attention to what has been happening in the US Senate since Obama/Biden were elected.
Effective control of the Senate in 2009 forward has meant the equivalent of 60 votes, as per the Republicans.
Effective control of the Senate in 2009 forward has meant the equivalent of 60 votes, as per the Republicans.
Sorry.. You don't get to change the definition of 'effective' simply because your side can't handle the minority Party..
If Democrats cannot execute "effective" control of Congress as the Majority, then there really ain't no reason to GIVE Democrats the majority ever again...
Right?? :D
I can see the Democrat campaign slogans now..
"If yer not going to vote us in with a Filibuster Proof Majority, don't bother voting for us at all!!!"
:D
If Democrats can't govern with a Majority, maybe they should just stay home.. :D
Michale
Michale
Pizza
Pizza
:D
Michale
Or we could just do the logical thing and do away with Political Partys all together... :D
Michale
That's the difference between ya'all and me..
Ya'all think that it's JUST the Republican Party that is the problem.. Democrats are ALWAYS right...
Me?? I think that BOTH Political Partys suck purple panther piss..
And the facts and overwhelming evidence supports my conclusion over ya'alls... :D
Michale
Once again, Michale,
Might I suggest you consult a good dictionary? "Effective" control the way you are using the term means "technical" control. It does nit mean actual control. Because of the unprecedented Republican abuse of the filibuster Democrats did not have control.
So, "Democrats had MORE effective control of Congress for the EXACT amount of time in 2008 than they would have if they took the House and retained the Senate in 2014," simply isn't true--under any interpretation of the word "effective."
Sorry, Michale, you don't get to lie, and misrepresent the meaning of the words in order to substantiate your lies.
And if Republicans win control of the Senate and Obama just vetoed everything they did, you sure as hell wouldn't be blaming Republicans for not accomplishing anything!
Your idea of "nonpartisan," thay "both parties are just as bad, but Democrats are worse" is not nonpartisan.
BTW Michale,
While your "370 days" is closer to reality than the usual two years you, and the rightwing, usually claim Democrats had effective control, its still a vast misrepresentation. Let me help you out here.
Al Frankin finally sworn in, after frivolous delaying Republican lawsuits, giving Democrats effective control July 7, 2009. Sen. "Ted" Kennedy died in office August 25, 2009, ending Democratic effective control.--Total number days of Democratic effective control--fifty. Days Congress actually in session? Twenty.
Wow, did I ever give Michale a pass! You can take my typo downplaying your 730 day misrepresentation as 370 days as a gift!
Also, if the Republican "obstruct everything and blame Obama strategy" proved so disastrous they actually lost the House in a midterm election they should have had an advantage in even if they had no strategy, even Republicans would find obstructing everything and refusing to compromise untenable!
If Dems took the House and retained the Senate in 2014 the Dems effective control would be vastly greater, not to mention twenty times longer, than it was in 2008.--And that's without even considering the impact of filibuster reform!
LD,
Fine...
If ya'all want to say that Democrats didn't have "effective" control, even when they had a majority, I am all for that.
That means that there will be NEVER a reason to vote Democrat unless Super Majority is assured...
Why vote in leadership that, by ya'alls own admission, can't be "effective"??
And, again by ya'alls own admission, this PROVES that Republicans are better leaders..
Because they CAN be effective with a simple majority.. And they can protect the country even if they are the MINORITY Party..
If Dems took the House and retained the Senate in 2014 the Dems effective control would be vastly greater, not to mention twenty times longer, than it was in 2008
As usual, things are vastly different on your planet than here on earth..
It's a moot point.. Democrats will not take the House. Democrats will lose the Senate..
And then, by YA'ALLS own admission, we will get a group in there that can exercise EFFECTIVE control... :D
Michale
Your idea of "nonpartisan," thay "both parties are just as bad, but Democrats are worse" is not nonpartisan.
Only on YOUR planet.. :D
And the ONLY reason Democrats are "worse" than Republicans is that Democrats sided with Al Qaeda against their own country.
And Democrats did it for purely political reasons to further their own Party agenda...
Michale
Michale,
Democrats didn't have effective control because they didn't have a majority. I've just proven that. SEN. Franken gave Democrats a majority in July which they lost again in August. I've repeatedly pointed that out to you, as has CW. You persist in lying. You know its a lie, but you simply don't care. The only thing proven is that you constantly, intentionally, lie.
Republicans, unlike Democrats, do not act in good faith. Just as you don't debate in good faith. Like you they simply lie. Democrats don't filibuster, or vote against, their own proposals just to spite Republicans. So, yes, Republicans get more done. Not because they're better at governance than Democrats, but because they're not as committed, not as ethical.
Like spoiled children, if Republicans can't have their way they won't let anyone else get their way either. That is not the democratic process. That is not representative government. That is why government doesn't work. That is why Republicans are far worse than Democrats.
Your latest unsubstantiated rightwing conspiracy theory is the perfect example.. Democrats killed Bin Laden. Democrats have so weakened Al Qaeda that Al Qaeda's rival ISIS is now more powerful. Republicans couldn't catch Bin Laden. Republicans increased Al Qaeda recruitment and strength instead of weakening it.
The ones supporting Al Quaeda over their own country would be you and Republicans. You're determined to undermine effective counterterrorism strictly for partisan reasons, just as you're determined to undermine and discredit anything else Democrats accomlish for this country. As always, you project your own misconduct on to Democrats in hopes that someone ignorant might be deceived by your utterly transparent lies.
I am neither ignorant nor deceived.
And, Michale,
There's nothing "moot" about the fact that your comment was a lie. And that WAS my point.
Correction, "majority" should have read "supermajority." Under Senate rules a simple majority doesn't give a party effective control if the minority refuses to act in good faith and chooses to abuse the filibuster. For effective control under those circumstances a supermajority is required.
I am neither ignorant nor deceived.
No, I don't think you are ignorant any more than I think a fanatical christian who swears fealty to his/her god is "ignorant"...
But yer definitely on the losing side and even black Americans are now turning against your messiah...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/14/obama-slammed-worst-president-ever-black-chicagoan/
Stick a fork in Obama and the Democrats..
They're done....
Michale
Correction, "majority" should have read "supermajority." Under Senate rules a simple majority doesn't give a party effective control if the minority refuses to act in good faith and chooses to abuse the filibuster. For effective control under those circumstances a supermajority is required.
Then the choice is clear..
If Democrats can't acheive a supermajority then there is absolutely NO REASON to vote Democrat...
If one Party can't govern w/o a supermajority and one Party can, then it's clear that Americans should vote for the Party that CAN be effective with only a majority...
I like your reasoning. :D
Michale
Michale,
Your inability to think logically never ceases to amaze. Since Republicans have now decided the minority has the right to bring government to a halt until, and unless, they are in control, what's to atop Democrats from doing the same thing?
Your claim that Republicans can govern without a supermajority when Democrats can't is based on what, exactly? Because if its the belief that Democrats will always act in good faith even though Republicans refuse to do so, there's no reason to believe it. People are willing to compromise and accept that they can't get everything they want every time, but few people are stupid enough to continue to play a game they know is rigged because the other side will always cheat to ensure they always win.
If elections are going to mean nothing unless Republicans win it doesn't mean there's no reason to vote Democratic. It means there's no reason to vote. It means that either our democracy dies or the Republican party does.
So you've just proven that Republican obstruction is putting party before country, and that Republicans aren't better at governing, they are destroying our government and our country.
Your inability to think logically never ceases to amaze. Since Republicans have now decided the minority has the right to bring government to a halt until, and unless, they are in control,
The Republicans are simply doing what they think is right for the country..
I happen to agree with that...
what's to atop Democrats from doing the same thing?
Absolutely nothing..
And, when Democrats find themselves as the Minority Party, I fully expect them to attempt to be as obstructionist as the Republicans have been..
And I am absolutely positive that ya'all will be CHEERING the Democrats for doing so..
Right?? :D
So you've just proven that Republican obstruction is putting party before country, and that Republicans aren't better at governing, they are destroying our government and our country.
No, YA'ALL have proven that Republicans are the more EFFECTIVE Party than Democrats...
What you can't seem to comprehend is that Republicans are doing what THEY think is best for the country..
Just as Democrats are doing what THEY think is best for the country..
Only a hypocrite would slam one Party for the action and cheer on the other Party for the exact same action..
The facts apparently show that Republicans are right and Democrats are wrong...
Michale
Michale,
I'd also like to add that I'm really beginning to weary your racism. You claim that a black woman being subjected to racist prejudice is a racist herself for noticing that her attacker is white and the people around her are all white. But you seem to find it significant anytime you find criticism of Obama by a black person because they are black.
In spite of your racist bigotry black people are like everyone else in America. Some support Obama and some do not. Finding one who does not is not of some momentous significance.--Why, there are even black people stupid enough to be Republicans! Only about ninety percent of black people support Democrats.
Michale,
"Doing what you think is best for your country" even if it means destroying your country and betraying your oath of office is not "doing what's best for their country." Republicans are lying about claiming to be doing what they think best for their country. As are you.
"Doing what you think is best for your country" even if it means destroying your country and betraying your oath of office is not "doing what's best for their country."
That is your OPINION as to what the Republicans are doing...
And it's an opinion fueled by irrational and hysterical bigotry...
It's like the Catholics and the Protestants fighting it out years and years ago..
God is on YOUR side and your enemies are demons...
I'd also like to add that I'm really beginning to weary your racism. You claim that a black woman being subjected to racist prejudice is a racist herself for noticing that her attacker is white and the people around her are all white. But you seem to find it significant anytime you find criticism of Obama by a black person because they are black.
Actually, what I was pointing out had absolutely NOTHING to do with race...
I am not surprised that it went over your head.. :D
Michale
Michale,
When was the last time you felt mentioning that the author of one of your op-ed cites was white was significant? When was the last time you claimed one of those op-eds proved Obama was in trouble with white people?--I'll give you a clue--NEVER!
Why do you insist on injecting race into the discussion? Why do you only do it when someone black says something you like? Why does any black who says something you like represent black people? And why do you claim winger op-eds by blacks represent black Americans while claiming winger op-eds by non-blacks represent "Americans?"--I'll give you another clue.--Because you're a racist.
Nothing went over my head. You're a racist. I got that. And I'm getting tired of it.
When was the last time you felt mentioning that the author of one of your op-ed cites was white was significant?
I never feel that mentioning race is significant..
That's yer forte, my friend.. :D
Why do you insist on injecting race into the discussion?
Yer kidding, right?? :D
Nothing went over my head. You're a racist. I got that. And I'm getting tired of it.
Journo-List strategy...
It's as amusing as it is ineffectual... :D
Michale
LD,
i tend to agree with you and disagree with michale about how racism is defined. the views he holds about the nature of racism come from a position of privilege, and do not take into account the pervasiveness of unreported, unadmitted racist discrimination in our society. i've walked around with enough people of color to be fully aware that peggy mcintosh's "invisible knapsack" is something that is real and everywhere. furthermore, i share your frustration at michale's apparent failure to at least try to see things from that perspective.
however, i take issue with labeling michale as a racist, because that label carries with it a host of other implications that are in all likelihood not true. based on all i've seen and heard, michale is someone who in his own life would never even look at someone sideways because of their ethnicity, much less actively discriminate. his political views come from a philosophical foundation that i strongly disagree with, and you have every right to be infuriated by it. but calling someone a racist is sort-of like godwin's law; once that's on the table there's no point in continuing the discussion.
try this vid on for size:
http://youtu.be/AUhReMT5uqA
JL
however, i take issue with labeling michale as a racist, because that label carries with it a host of other implications that are in all likelihood not true. based on all i've seen and heard, michale is someone who in his own life would never even look at someone sideways because of their ethnicity, much less actively discriminate. his political views come from a philosophical foundation that i strongly disagree with, and you have every right to be infuriated by it. but calling someone a racist is sort-of like godwin's law; once that's on the table there's no point in continuing the discussion.
And here you hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial head...
Accusing someone of racism doesn't mean squat anymore...
And here's why...
Because the accusation has been thrown around so often and so inaccurately and so agenda-driven it is now meaningless..
It used to be that you had to issue a blatant racial slur to bee accused of racism. You had to commit a blatant act of racism to be accused of racism..
These days, all you have to do is disagree with a black person and you're a racist..
These days, all you have to do is argue with a black person on a political website and you are a racist..
These days, the ONLY "proof" required for racism is that a black person is involved..
That's it... "Oh, he disagrees with the President who is black. So he MUST be a racist.."
Obama and the Democrats have done more to screw over race relations and the fight against racism in the last 8 years than in the previous 60 years prior...
Which is what I alluded to in a previous commentary thread...
I used to view racism as a "defining quality".. Like being a terrorist or being a child molester...
You can't be a terrorist and still be a good guy... You couldn't be a racist and still be a good guy..
Well, I have changed my mind on that... Because, in the here and now, all you have to do is disagree with some Lefty (either the POTUS or some guy) politically and viola'.... Yer a bona fide racist...
So, now I am a lot happier.. Now I know that LD can be a racist and still be a nice guy I would love to have a beer with...
I appreciate you trying to bring a little sanity and logic to this discussion.. But it's a losing battle..
Those who play the race card over and over and over and over and over again are not interested in sanity or logic.. They, whether it be Eric Holder or LewDan, just want to hate... Hate anyone who would stand against their messiah...
I've learned to accept that it won't change until Obama is out of office....
Michale
and do not take into account the pervasiveness of unreported, unadmitted racist discrimination in our society.
I'll be happy, no... ECSTATIC to take such racist discrimination in our society into account and to see things from that perspective..
All you have to do is PROVE IT to me...
With real and tangible EVIDENCE and FACTS.
Not nebulous "code words" and phantom actions and such..
REAL and TANGIBLE evidence that I can examine..
Until there is that, then I simply follow in the footsteps of Dr Martin Luther King and will look at the CHARACTER of the people involved and NOT the color of their skin...
Michale
We are talking something that (used to be) REALLY serious, right???
I mean, if accusations of something as heinous and perverse as racism are going to be applied, SHOULDN'T there be SOME sort of real and tangible evidence beyond nebulous "code words" and non-existent racial slurs???
Call me silly (a silly racist :D) but I would THINK (or at least, would HOPE) that the phrase "beyond a shadow of a doubt" would be required to label someone a racist...
Don'tcha think??
Michale
Call me silly (a silly racist :D) but I would THINK (or at least, would HOPE) that the phrase "beyond a shadow of a doubt" would be required to label someone a racist...
But, considering the last several years when all the Left needs to label someone a terrorist is political disagreement, I guess throwing out the accusation of 'racist' is pretty much par for the course for Democrats....
Michale
Border Backlog Crisis, Wed. July 9
#6 - Michale introduces race.
"Anyone have an answer for these black Americans???
Anyone???
Michale"
At #21 Michale once again spuriously introduces race.
At #24 Michale gives a history lesson in which (#27)
Northern discrimination against blacks prior to WWII wasn't racism, institutional racism doesn't exist, and, yet again, spuriously introduces race.
"On the other hand, you have such high unemployment amongst your fellow black Americans which will shoot massively higher if Democrats get their way to mint fresh new Dem Voters.."
At #32 Michale plays the "angry black man card" because my recognition of the historical fact that blacks were passed over for jobs in favor of white European immigrants prior to WWII tells Michale that:
"To you EVERYTHING is racism.. There is NO OTHER POSSIBLE explanation, save that of racism for you..
You got a HUGE chip on your shoulder, my friend... "
Which also led to Michale's edifying take on institutional racism.
"You haven't given me one..
But, I can give you one.
The ONLY case of institutionalized racism that this country has left is Affirmative Action...
That's the ONLY institutionalized racism left in this country...
Michale"
At #35 we learn that northern Republcans were incapable of racism because seventy-five years earlier Lincoln was a Republican!
"You really ARE ignorant of your own history, aren't you??
The Northern Industrial states were run by Republicans (ya know?? The ones that ENDED slavery.. Democrats were the slave owners... ya know?? remember???) were NOT about racism. They were about the bottom line. And it was cheaper to import immigrants and put them to work...
When bringing in immigrants proved too costly at the outset of WWI, that is when the industrial states turned to black Americans..
Racism had little, if anything, to do with it..."
We also learn that blacks are low-intelligence.
"Companies and corporations are chomping at the bit to hire low-intelligence, low pay workers for menial, fast food, housekeeping kinds of jobs..
Do you know which racial group predominantly fills those jobs now??
I'll give you 3 guesses, but yer only going to need one.."
At #37 Michale doubles down on his claim that the only racism in America victimizes whites by infringing upon their "right"to more than their fate share.
"Still waiting for you to name institutionalized racism in the here and now besides Affirmative Action...
And waiting... and waiting... and waiting.... :D
Michale"
Meaning that since Michale #42 tells us:
"The ONLY people who keep crying "RACISM!!" are the racists themselves...
Michale"
Michale must therefore be a racist, no?
#44,
"You know who is always convinced that other people are racist??
Racists.... :D
Michale"
#47,
"All you have are statistics...
Put together by a bunch of racists with a racial agenda..
That's ALL you have...
Michale"
#49
"The ONLY institutionalized racism in this country is Affirmative Action.
THAT is the textbook definition of institutionalized racism...
Racists ignore that ironic twist... :D
Michale"
You see only those who support affirmative action are "racists." The dreaded quotas! What could possibly be more evil that allocating scare resources according to groups share if the population? Denying the white man's RIGHT to more than their share?
Michale #50,
"But I did find it interesting..
Why did this black woman who was telling the story feel the need to say that the women behind here were "elderly white women"....
What does their color matter to the obvious racism of the cashier???
That indicates to me that the black woman is already predisposed to take color into account in her daily activities...
Which, in turn, indicates to me that there were more racists involved in that story than just the cashier..."
Of course a white woman being victimized by a Black woman would NEVER notice that she was in a black establishment surrounded by black people! Clearly black victims of racism are racist too!
JL, Michale exploits racism for partisan politics, denies racism past and present, defends racists past and present, condescendingly denigrates anyone who has the nerve to so much as point out historical instances of racism, much less present ones. He promotes racial stereotypes, actively opposes efforts to remedy the effects of racism. And he tries to silence victims of racism by painting anyone (other than himself and like-minded white folks) who complains of racism as "racists."
Why should I care whether he hates black people or not? Why should I care how many blacks he may number among his BFFs? He is a racist.
Do you seriously think southern whites in the 50's weren't racist unless they were Klan members? Many whites had blacks raising their kids, cooking their meals, and, as long as blacks "knew their place" had nothing at all against blacks. But they believed in segregation. They believed blacks were stupid and lazy. And they believed that they were entitled, by virtue of their natural superiority, or just "because that's the way things are," to have the things blacks were denied. And the believed that they weren't racists. The "outside agitators" stirring things up always claiming "racism," they were the "racists.
They believed those things. and it was believing them that made them racists. Just like Michale.
I like Michale. I respect him. In part because I grew up in a time and place when racism was so prevalent no one confused "racist" with "evil" because everyone was racist. Some were clearly good, and others just as clearly evil. And all of them were just people.
Racism isn't about who you like. Its about what you believe. And Michale is a racist. The word carries such heavy freight because racists intentionally make it so. They want to silence the victims of racism. They want to empower racist and racism by shutting down communication if a victim complains. The idea that you must hate black people to be a racists didn't come from black people. No one was saying that in the '60s when we were protesting racism. That claim came from racists, to "prove" there are no racists outside of a few radical extremists.
Just like affirmative action, immigration reform, amnesty, and a host of others, the standard play in the conservative playbook is to redefine terms and misrepresent words to paint opponents as extremists, silence opposition, portray the victims as the victimizers.
You can buy into it if you want JL. But I will not play along.
JL,
Nice video. Thanks. Recapped the usual suspects regarding affirmative action pros and cons that I've always heard.
Here's where I think they're wrong.
Starting with the premise that admissions relying on grades is fair is faulty logic. The decision to rely on grades is arbitrary. Grades reflect instruction received not just information retained. Not all students are equally schooled and aptitude isn't measured by what facts you retain.
That reliance on grades reflects attempts to achieve the schools mission is faulty logic. The mission of colleges is no longer to educate scholars. College education is now basic education.
I once had a college chancellor who used to say "Students can't fail classes. If they show up for class they have to learn something. No one will leave dumber than when they arrived!" So the fallacy of selecting the "best" students is disproved by the fact colleges don't use aptitude test scores. Someone uneducated with great aptitude can surpass the highly educated with no aptitude. I've seen it happen. Hell, I've done it!
I once worked for a company that hired only those in the top twenty-five percent on their admissions test. A year after I was hired the company wanted to eliminate the test because few of the applicants they wanted to hire could pass it. So my manager asked me what I thought of the test. And I told him that the problem was that it was an aptitude test. People with years of experience were failing because determination and study could enable them to do the job but nothing would give them an aptitude for it unless they happened to be basically born with it. The firm wanted to choose from the best applicants but their test was far more restrictive than they'd intended. Those with aptitudes in the top 25% wasn't at all the same thing as those with demonstrated performance in the top 25%, although high aptitude usually meant high performance. Demonstrated high performance requires opportunity. You can demonstrate performance without having much aptitude and you can have aptitude without having much opportunity to demonstrate it. So great resumes and great test scores rarely coincided because they measured different things and few were proven in both.
College entry tests don't measure aptitude as they claim so their role in promoting institutional racism isn't justified. Neither do they predict success in attaining degrees. And why would that matter anyway if the goal is to educate people? There's no telling what piece of information given to which individual will result in great benefit to society. No telling how an individuals knowledge may end up benefiting society or the individual. High school and college dropouts have made significant contributions to society just like PhDs. The tests certainly don't predict if anything significantly beneficial will result from someone earning a degree.
Why do colleges think they should, or can, predict who's education will be most beneficial to society? Why doesn't everyone have an equal right to an education. People are paying to be educated what gives the school the right to discriminate? That's institutional racism.
"Fair" would be first come first served. Take all comers. Bakers don't get to decide to refuse to bake wedding cakes for gays by simply deciding its not their "mission." And they don't get to refuse because they don't think the couple would appreciate it enough either. Every customer has an equal right as long as they're willing to pay the fee.
If colleges weren't discriminating and practicing institutional racism diversity would be achieved roughly proportionate to populations without affirmative action. Affirmative action is used to offset the discrimination and institutional racism being practiced.
It isn't a matter of being corrective, in attaining a more accurate measure of academic success. The tests don't even attempt to measure potential for academic success, that would be aptitude tests. And success isn't a matter of quantity of learning.
It isn't a matter of compensation for past wrongs. The wrongs, the discrimination is on going and currently being practiced. Its institutional.
It isn't a matter of diversity, of some broader social mission, because nothing about the exams predicts future societal benefits.
I'm with Socrates. The goal is to educate the general public. Everyone should have the right to attend. An equal right to attend. If your not selecting based upon aptitude you're just arbitrarily discriminating. Reliance on test scores arbitrarily and unproductively discriminates and promotes white privilege through institutional racism.
Thinking one has a right to admission because of high test scores is thinking there's a right to discriminate. It isn't fair. Everyone does have equal opportunity. Having the price of admission and the desire to attend should be all the requirements one has to meet. Just like any other retailer. We don't need affirmative action at grocers and dry cleaners because they simply don't discriminate. Colleges take their "right" to discriminate as a given. As long as they're allowed to do that we'll need affirmative action too, to counter their discrimination.
Want to end affirmative action? just take all comers. First come first served. Of course then there'd be no white privilege either.
Re Godwin's Law,
Calling someone a racist is like some kind of Godwin's Law?
Is calling someone a nazi under Godwin's Law when your talking about Hitler? I'm not using hyperbole.
There are plenty of people who employ some kind of Godwin's Law to arbitrarily, and groundlessly, shut down and discredit talk of racism and rape. Usually to protect racists and rapists.
There's a reason such terms have such bad connotations, and deserve them. Racism is an extremely dangerous and damaging proclivity. Maybe if the connotations are bad enough it'll deter people from being racists instead of just deterring them from wanting to be called racist. Protecting people who are racist from being called racist just facilitates racism.
This isn't about political disagreement its about accurate use of the English language.
Protecting people who are racist from being called racist just facilitates racism.
Falsely accusing of racism is worse than racism itself...
EVERY SINGLE PERSON you have accused of racism (myself, CW and a plethora of others) you have done so without absolutely NO PROOF WHATSOEVER, save your own hysterical and bigoted opinions..
NO.... PROOF... WHATSOEVER...
Falsely accusing people of racism is WORSE than racism itself.. Because it cheapens the accusation, it waters it down, it makes it meaningless...
To you, everyone who opposes Obama and the Democrats are racists...
In that, you stand alone..
Michale
There are plenty of people who employ some kind of Godwin's Law to arbitrarily, and groundlessly, shut down and discredit talk of racism and rape. Usually to protect racists and rapists.
And there are plenty of people on the Left who falsely accuse people on the Right of racism, just to shut them up..
This is a well-documented fact...
Michale
Michale,
"To you EVERYTHING is racism.. There is NO OTHER POSSIBLE explanation, save that of racism for you..
You got a HUGE chip on your shoulder, my friend... "
Which also led to Michale's edifying take on institutional racism.
"You haven't given me one..
But, I can give you one.
The ONLY case of institutionalized racism that this country has left is Affirmative Action...
That's the ONLY institutionalized racism left in this country...
Michale"
THAT isn't falsely accusing someone of racism?
"All you have are statistics...
Put together by a bunch of racists with a racial agenda..
That's ALL you have...
Michale"
Or that?
I gave a dozen examples of you racism from a single conversation!
The ONLY one making false accusations of racism is YOU, Michale!
"And there are plenty of people on the Left who falsely accuse people on the Right of racism, just to shut them up..
This is a well-documented fact...
Michale"
Its what you do.
I gave a dozen examples of you racism from a single conversation
No.. You gave me a dozen examples of what you THINK racism is...
Which simply proves my point..
You think that every time someone, who is not of your political ideology, even MENTIONS black people, you THINK that is racism...
I say Obama is incompetent.
YOU call it racism, even though race has NOTHING to do with my statement...
I say Obama is a foreign policy disaster..
YOU call it racism, even though race has NOTHING to do with my statement...
And on and on and on..
You have absolutely NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that any accusation of racism you have made is actual racism...
NO.... PROOF... WHATSOEVER....
No one can even TALK to you about it because everyone is wrong and you are right...
Michale
Getting back to the subject of TrainWreckCare...
Obamacare Misses Its Target on the Uninsured by Half
Only in Washington could something that fails to hit even half of its original target be considered a gasp-inducing success.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-misses-its-target-uninsured-half_796636.html
Yea.. ObamaCare is awesome..
Yet the MAJORITY of the American people don't want it....
Funny, iddn't it.. :D
Michale