Political Discussions

Political Discussions » General Discussion
csiunatc

If it's racism, why hasn't healthcare passed before?

Posted by csiunatc • 9/20/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: false accusations

So we hear these statements that opposition to Obama, Obamacare, increased spending and whatnot is based in racism.

House majority leader Steny Hoyer said the the other day that the debate on healthcare has been the most vitriolic since 1993-94, the first two years of the Clinton administration.

Now, if it was this bad (or worse) in 93-94, and the healthcare reforms didn't pass then. How come it wasn't racism then. And why would the same resistance today BE racism?

Someone on the left please explain why if the resistance to OBamacare is racially motivated, it didn't pass when Bill / Hillary was working on it.


Reply

User Comments

  1. anticsrocks
    9/20/09
    anticsrocks
    O_o You're gonna getttt it.
    [reply]
  2. cooper
    9/20/09
    cooper
    I haven't really heard that, we must be reading different newspapers,
    [reply]
  3. polybore
    9/20/09
    polybore
    If you are referring to Pres. Carters statement he was talking about some of the unsavoury personal attacks on Obama rather than opposition to any specific policy.
    [reply]
  4. clioandme
    9/20/09
    clioandme
    I don't recall anyone saying that resistance to health care was racially motivated. Someone is twisting the former president's 25 words. In case you forgot, you can find them in the first paragraph of this piece: www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112960207
    [reply]
    1. anticsrocks
      9/20/09
      anticsrocks
      Why read his words?

      www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b5xoUHCBsk

      But just in case it is too difficult to click on the link, here is what he said -

      "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American. I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way; and I've seen the rest of the country that shared the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans.

      And that racism inclination still exists. And I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country.

      It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply.      "

      And by the way - word count is 118 words, not 25, unless we are cherry picking only a certain 25 words.

      Finally, lets not forget that Brian Williams was specifically asking Carter about the 9/12 Tea Party Protestors.
    2. cooper
      9/20/09
      cooper
      Mark: Carter is a non-issue, he has no real significance. He has always spoken like this, but right now there doesn't seem to be anything anyone can jump on that is coming from those who are actually in power, so they have to go out and find some doddering old man (and btw everyone knows - and that means media - that Carter is always good for saying things that stir up controversy when news is slow), in order to get people all riled up when they really aren't talking about the policy at all.
    3. csiunatc
      9/20/09
      csiunatc
    4. anticsrocks
      9/21/09
      anticsrocks
      Well, the far left media dredged this up and I think they used Carter as a foil. It seems that too many of these little coincidences are happening, smacks of orchestration between the MSM (specifically NBC) and the WH.

      Let's look at this -

      NBC asks Carter to give his thoughts on the 9/12 Tea Party Protesters.

      He says they are racists. (paraphrasing for sake of brevity - I posted his exact quote elsewhere)

      Obama denounces Carter's comments.

      Preparing for a CNN interview, Obama calls Kanye West (another black man) a jackass for his stunt at the VMA's.

      Result - Obama rises above the fray on this one. This is a position that he favors. He did this with the Stimulus, Cap and Trade and his Health Care - he lets someone else come up with it, that allows him to be detached from it unless it is successful, then he reaps the rewards. It is a very smart, yet transparent M.O.

      Maybe this is what he meant by transparency...
    5. clioandme
      9/21/09
      clioandme
      Yes, Cooper, Republicans and those further right seem to be in permanent reactive mode. Journalists too, unfortunately, because they either only see the easy story, or budget cuts are making it harder to cover real stories.

      In sports being in permanent reactive mode is a bad thing, or so I thought. Seizing the initiative, determining the nature of the game is where it should be at. The Republicans made a reasonably effective effort at that this summer, but they were still playing defense, and they still reacted like a Jack-in-the-Box every time something like this came up. Offense? Well, if going after an easy target like ACORN counts, that's about all I've seen.
    6. clioandme
      9/21/09
      clioandme
      @CSI:

      The headline for your first link reads, "12% Say Most Opponents of Obama Health Care Plan Are Racist." As questionable as that proposition is, it is not the same thing as saying that racism forms the basis of opposition to health care. Also, 12% means what? A minority among supporters of health care reform . . .

      And have you got someone who matters saying what you are arguing against in this thread? I don't feel like answering for what every individual left of center might have to say on the matter.

      While I strongly believe that there is a link between racial attitudes and some of the anger towards Obama, you don't need race to understand opposition to Democratic proposals. We've seen right-wing attitudes on this subject before, like when Medicare and Medicaid were rejected as socialism, or when a militia movement flourished under Clinton. But just because race is a factor in much of the anger and rhetoric does not mean it has caused people to change their politics and go from being liberals to conservatives or reactionaries. It affects the tone and quality of the debate, but it has not caused the debate or opposition or anger to occur in the first place.
    7. csiunatc
      9/21/09
      csiunatc
      Anderson Cooper and Rasmussen Aren't mainstream enough for you?

      Hardball with chris matthews, is in the videoclips..

      Forget about the second to last Youtube clip, i managed to paste the wrong one.

      This is the real one.
      www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXR-yyxrKSw


      The others are making the same claim, Does it have to be in the mainstream media for the claim to have been made?
    8. clioandme
      9/21/09
      clioandme
      I changed the content of my statement while you were typing, forgetting that I had already submitted the comment. That's why your first sentence might seem off to later readers, even though it does address what I had initially written.

      I started over with just Rasmussen and addressed that on its own terms. I can't work with the video, because of where I am at the moment. In general, I don't think very highly of any network or cable news outlets. They seem to trade only in sound bites, but that's not a real argument, I know. And that's why I went back on my comment about mainstream outlets, because I realized that I was not addressing the actual content, and that was taking the easy, and not altogether intellectually way out. I think what I said above now works better. I just wish I hadn't hit submit and edit in the middle of making it.
    9. csiunatc
      9/21/09
      csiunatc
      12% a Minority.. yes, but the number itself is misleading.

      But as you point out, it would come from the supporters of obamacare, which currently have about 48% of the population.

      And those 12(25%) think its PRIMARILY a racial thing, doesn't say anything about the rest.

      So that means 25% of all supporters of obamacare would somehow think that this is primarily a racial thing.


      Now instead of debating the numbers, which may be interesting. HOwever, the main question doesn't change.

      Why weren't people screaming racism when It failed under clinton? Obviously the resistance was there then too. and Maybe even larger ( we still don't know if this will fail or not)
    10. anticsrocks
      9/21/09
      anticsrocks
      12%, 20%, 100%....none of that matters. Obama actually said it best on Letterman when he was asked if people were opposed to him because he is black. Obama replied - and I am paraphrasing - "I was actually black before the election."

      Meaning?

      Meaning that if people were only opposed to him because of color, he would never have gotten elected.
  5. csiunatc
    9/21/09
    csiunatc
    WP
    [reply]
  6. Agit8r
    9/21/09
    Agit8r
    *Ignoring the "racism" bit, since we've clearly been over this before*

    I should note that the original Clintoncare was a bit more authoritarian than any of the present bills are o_0
    [reply]
    1. csiunatc
      9/21/09
      csiunatc
      No we haven't been over this. Please stop hijacking the thread.

      1. How would you consider that bill more authoritarian?

      2. Would a more authoritarian approach by Obama mean that opposition is no longer at risk of being called racist?
    2. Agit8r
      9/21/09
      Agit8r
      we've been over the "racism" bit in the Jimmuh Carter thread. Racism exists and may influence the temperment of dissent, but cannot account for ALL dissent.

      It would be hard to say that I'm off-topic, in that the "topic" here is spurious at best.
    3. csiunatc
      9/21/09
      csiunatc
      And still no addressing the questions posted....
    4. clioandme
      9/21/09
      clioandme
      @Agit8r: Another difference to Clinton's time is the exploding cost of health care. And yes, the discussions about race and racism on this board have been anything but fruitful.

      @CSI: I should think you'd find Agit8r's input useful. Regardless of what his stance on racism here might be, the question of opposition to Clinton is directly relevant to trying to understand today's opposition, even if the opposition and the programs under question are by no means identical.

      Edited to add: There's something to Agit8r's characterization of the OP as containing a spurious claim, since it is worded to act as if the claim it is attacking is held by people who matter or a majority of Democrats or something. The OP could have been phrased in a more honest way and thereby invited more discussion. By the way, is this small percentage out there disrupting town hall meetings of GOP representatives and senators? I ask, because I haven't notice any relevant section of the population going the route suggested by the OP.
    5. csiunatc
      9/21/09
      csiunatc
      The statement has been made high up in the Democratic party, it's been used, or insinuated by people as high up at Pelosi. It's also being thrown about by lots of high profile people.

      My OP didn't suggest anything of the sort, it stated what has been said and what has been done, my supporting evidence later enforced it.

      How about someone actually discuss the question posed? Instead of attacking the wording of some small part of the OP.

      IF you can't discuss the argument, then at least say so.

      You bring up Clinton, but show ZERO support, zero comparison that validate your claims. How about you start there. Your claim is that healthcare costs have risen since clinton.

      Would low healthcare costs mean that dissenters wouldn't be called racists?
    6. clioandme
      9/21/09
      clioandme
      You're using the passive voice in your first paragraph, and that matters, because it allows you to avoid stating clear facts who said what.

      Here's an example from the previous administration of using the passive voice to avoid unpleasantness: language4you.wordpress.com/2007/05/24/passive-voice/

      Care to restate your position using the active voice and evidence? Who said what when and in what context?
    7. csiunatc
      9/21/09
      csiunatc
      Logical Fallacies, Passive voice... YADA YADA..

      How about you actually.. FOR ONCE address the questions posted and not try to derail the conversation?

      Edited to add, There's plenty of links posted as to who has said what.

      READ!
« back to discussions

Add Your Comment

Login to leave a message.