Palin Gives Dr. Laura’s Racial Rant Thumbs Up

August 21st, 2010 at 8:57 am | 163 Comments |

| Print

Just when it appeared that a whole month might pass without Republicans becoming involved in a racially-tinged episode, case along comes Sarah Palin’s Twitter account to help meet this unfortunate quota.

Much has been said over the last week about President Obama’s needless interjection into the “Ground Zero mosque” debate, advice but the former governor of Alaska was not to be outdone. Palin inexplicably felt the need to defend the incendiary radio outburst of Dr. Laura Schlessinger, recipe a media caricature so dated she was lampooned 10 years ago on The West Wing. This during a week in which the country received yet more bad economic news in its latest unemployment numbers, and the president’s own once-vaunted communications apparatus scrambled to salvage the White House mosque message.

Politico ran an extensive piece this week on Haley Barbour’s emergence as de facto leader of the Party. Unfortunately, leaders like Barbour are repeatedly preempted by ad hoc Palin musings. Here is a party that has nominated candidates like Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez, Meg Whitman, Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina – and over there is a former vice presidential nominee championing the right to shout the n-word over the public airwaves.

Can Republicans please quit the evading and rationalization?  A party that aspires to lead a multi-ethnic country must not degenerate into the voice of white racial panic.  Whether the topic at hand is the merit of the Civil Rights Act or the allegation that American Muslims are all secret jihadists.  The racial messaging from Sarah Palin’s Twitter feed meets with pathetically meek resistance from elected leaders.  Tragically, some who ought to know better – such as former speaker Newt Gingrich – have apparently decided, “If you can’t beat Palin – copy her.”

And if American blacks or Hispanics or Muslims or whoever is targeted next are insulted and alienated?  It will never occur to Palin that any offense caused by her words might be legitimate.  Instead it must be political correctness run amok, unleashed to deprive “real Americans” of their “First Amendment rights”. So there will be no retreating, no reflecting, no apologizing: only more “reloading”.  When will Republicans understand that the ammunition Palin is firing is aimed at their own heads?

Recent Posts by Jay Gatsby



163 Comments so far ↓

  • brandon

    Watusie, Palin was running for VP, Obama was running for the main job.

    I’m not McCain’s biggest fan, but clearly by any objective standard he had more experience and was far more ready to be president than Obama.

    Easton, yes many smart people fell for Obama’s empty rhetoric. Many of those same types like Mort Zuckerman and Ed Koch now admit they were wrong.

    Anyone who was looking at the facts in 2008 would have known that Obama would not turn out to be who you hoped and wanted him to be. I’m not saying that President Obama is a bad person, just that he is in over his head and this shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone with common sense.

  • Watusie

    Yes, Brandon, as I said, “the alternative to Obama was John McCain”. Who was visibly terrified in October, 2008. And who had such poor judgment he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate having met her only once. So, tell us some more about those “objective standards” that demonstrated he was far more ready to be president than Obama.

  • anniemargret

    Dr. Laura not only used the enword 11 times to make her point, knowing fully well she was being insensitive and race-baiting, but then went on to say that blacks voted for Obama because he was half-black.

    As if blacks were actually going to vote for McCain who ended up sputtering about the economy and Palin who couldn’t name a newspaper she reads. Or as if a minority of any stripe would in any way find conservative policies helpful to their lives.

    Dr. Laura has a superiority complex. Palin has a mega-ego because she cannot keep herself removed from any culture-baiting conversation . That’s who she is.

    As as Obama… he plugged the cratering of the economy; he is bringing home troops, he created a healthcare reform package that will help thousands . And that’s in two years.

    McCain and Palin are both neocons…. they never saw a war they wouldn’t like. Does Palin know the difference between Iraq and Iran? I wish someone would ask her, being she is being groomed to be the ‘leader of the free world.’ McCain was befuddled when asked about the economy. First he was for illegal immigrant reform, not he is against it . He is an old fool who had his day. Palin is a Big Zero.

  • easton

    Brandon: “I’m not saying that President Obama is a bad person, just that he is in over his head and this shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone with common sense.” Yeah, enacting Health Care reform, something that has been on the Democratic parties agenda for 50 years showed he couldn’t enact his agenda? Or how about Financial reform? Look, Obama has passed the overwhelmingly large part of his stated policy agenda that he ran for office one. Increase troops in Afghanistan, check. Decrease troops in Iraq, check. He didn’t close gitmo, but lets face it, that ain’t exactly pressing for anyone.
    The only 2 areas he has not finished up is immigration and global warming. As to immigration, Bush couldn’t get that done either, and I have a feeling that business is quite happy that things go along as they have been, demonizing and exploiting illegal labor. I have not seen the Republicans advocating mandatory jail time for anyone who knowingly hires illegal labor. And as to global warming, considering how much the Indians and Chinese will pump into the atmosphere, even if we went zero emissions, it wouldn’t matter. And in the fact of 2 wars, the Republicans could not even be swayed by National Security issues by getting off of Saudi oil, there is no way they will remotely care if we destroy our environment.

    Of course Obama is not over his head. Bush was (but not GWHB). Now you can disagree with Obama’s policies all you want, but you can’t deny that his first year and a half have been one of the most successful beginnings in decades legislatively. Disagree with the legislation, absolutely, that is fine, but you can not deny his success.

    Far too many Republicans have Obama derangement syndrome. I might disagree with some of Reagan’s agenda, but he was successful passing it and, in point of fact the Unemployment rate was 10.6% at this same time under his first term, the stock market had gone down 30%, etc. But would Brandon have said: “I’m not saying that President Reagan is a bad person, just that he is in over his head and this shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone with common sense.” Of course not.
    He would have said, stay the course, this is Jimmah’s fault, Reagan is doing a great job, etc.

    As I said, I might have disagreed with some of his policies (fact is, I didn’t) but I would not have said he was over his head.

  • vidoqo

    Deep South Populist, I have a question for you:

    You obviously don’t like the n-word. But would you consider a young kid who refers to his friend as “my nigga” in a completely loving way, and a white man who refers to “ni**ers” in an obviously derisive way?

    It seems to me this is a very important distinction to make, considering that we ought to respond to such individuals in very different ways.

  • Gramps

    Brandon said…
    “…just that he is in over his head and this shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone with common sense.”

    I say, Brandon…yer spending way to much of your time, listening to the drug addled ramblings of the rotund, mound of right-wing sound from Palm Beach!

    I’ll also say this Brandon, Obama is still treading water in a muddy, muddled financial ditch, Little George left us and him, in…

    Obama, is in the process of getting us out of one of “baby Bush’s mistakes in Iraq and hopefully will continue to have the same good sense with respect to Afghanistan.

    Olde soldier sends, all the best Brandon!
    You “nailed it, easton,definitely…ODS!

  • brandon

    Easton, Obama had a huge Democratic Congressional majority and barely passed a Healthcare “reform” bill that doesn’t contain costs, is a huge plus for the insurance companies because of the mandate, and doesn’t include the liberal “wet dream” of a public option.

    Gramps, I rarely listen to Rush because I’m usually at work during his show.

    You are right, Obama inherited a mess from Bush. But have Obama’s policies so far decreased unemployment? Have they reduced the deficit? Is the war in Afghanistan over? Is Iran nuclear free? Hope and change!

  • DeepSouthPopulist

    “You obviously don’t like the n-word. But would you consider a young kid who refers to his friend as “my nigga” in a completely loving way, and a white man who refers to “ni**ers” in an obviously derisive way?”

    No, definitely not, I wouldn’t hold a kid to the same standard as an adult, though if I were a teacher or relative in that kid’s life I would try to discourage it.

    “It seems to me this is a very important distinction to make, considering that we ought to respond to such individuals in very different ways.”

    Sure, and I agree with that.

    While I personally disagree with adults using that word in most contexts, my complaint isn’t so much about with what ordinary people do in their day-to-day interactions, but rather with high visibility, high profile adults who have full knowledge of the history of that word and use it anyway knowing many people will hear it.

  • Watusie

    brandon, if Obama’s Congressional majority was so overwhelming, then why was the election of a single Republican senator – Scott Brown – proclaimed from the mountaintops as the one vote that would undo everything? Factual accuracy does not appear to be your strong suit.

  • Gramps

    Brandon, it took “baby Bush” and “Big dick” eight long, disastrous, years to “muck” things up…

    I don’t expect Obama to correct all those terrible, unmitigated mistakes in both judgment and leadership, in just seventeen months…

    Hope and change… take time, Brandon; have patience…!

  • brandon

    Watusie, if Obama was as talented and as smart as you and the media foolishly thought he was then one vote wouldn’t have mattered. Reagan passed his budgets, tax cuts and increased defense spending with dozens of Democratic votes. And if “factual accuracy” was your “strong suit,” you’d understand that Obama’s health care “reform” is a terrible piece of legislation.

    Gramps, I would be patient if I had the even the smallest inkling that Obama understood simple economics and what it would take to get employers to start hiring again. Since he has shown that he doesn’t understand the slightest thing about wealth creation, I have little “hope” that we as a nation will be in for positive “change” in the near future.

  • Watusie

    LOL, brandon, I guess that is your way of retracting your erroneous claim?

    I’m curious – how much more talented and smart would Obama have to be before a single Republican would give up obstructionism? If he were Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower all rolled up into one it would not make one jot of difference. Case in point – the Republicans who invented the idea of the individual mandate now pretending that it is unconstitutional.

  • Slide

    brandon saying the same tired old talking points over and over again doesn’t make it any more convincing. I will grant you that Republicans do know more about “wealth creation” if your talking about just the top 2% of the population. Created them a whole boat load of wealth. The rest of us? Not so much.

    I always love it when the Dems get lectures from righties about economic matters. All one has to do is look at any charts, on almost any economic indicators (level of poverty, unemployment, GDP, jobs created, stock market, average wage, etc.) and you will find that the vast majority of Americans do significantly better under Democratic administrations than they have under Republican administrations. Funny how that happens when dems don’t know squat huh?

    Don’t believe me? Here are the numbers:

    http://currencythoughts.com/2008/08/19/how-the-us-economy-performed-under-democrat-and-republican-presidents/

  • brandon

    No, I stand by my claim that Obama is incompetent.

    I also stand by my assertion that anyone who was informed about him in 2008 knew he was not up to the job and that too many people fell for the “rock star” media created “messiah” image and that fact causes me to worry about the future of the electorate.

    I do agree with you that Republicans should be looking for ways to work with the administration to solve the country’s problems. Hopefully, we will take back the House and have enough Senators that Obama will be forced to work with us like Bill Clinton successfully did.

  • brandon

    Slide, your numbers are way too simplistic and we are getting way off topic from the original point of this thread and what could be more tired than the Democratic talking point that only the top 2% enjoy wealth under Republicans policies.

    Just a couple of points for you to ponder:

    1. JFK’s economic policies would be considered Republican in today’s world.

    2. Reagan’s policies enabled us to have the largest peacetime economic growth in the history of the world that continued except with a small recession or two through the Clinton administration.

    3. Obama believes based on his policies that government can create wealth. This is historically false as all the government can do is redistribute wealth (taxes), borrow money or increase the money supply (print money).

    He has done absolutely nothing for the small business owners of this country which create the majority of jobs.

  • TJ Parker

    Goodness, Palin is the “mean girl” from high school who has just never grown up.

  • Rabiner

    Brandon:

    “2. Reagan’s policies enabled us to have the largest peacetime economic growth in the history of the world that continued except with a small recession or two through the Clinton administration.”

    Except for a small recession? Do you even reread what you’re claims are? It’s like saying under Bush we had no terrorist attacks and then mentioning an exception being 9/11.

    “1. JFK’s economic policies would be considered Republican in today’s world.”

    Yea because Democrats were against tax cuts when rates were in the 60-70% range?

    “3. Obama believes based on his policies that government can create wealth. This is historically false as all the government can do is redistribute wealth (taxes), borrow money or increase the money supply (print money). ”

    So when the government invented the internet that didn’t create wealth down the line? When they built the interstate highway system that didn’t create wealth? Government does more than just transfer payments you realize?

    “He has done absolutely nothing for the small business owners of this country which create the majority of jobs.”

    Because that 30 billion dollar small business loan package he’s trying to pass through the senate is being filibustered by Republicans. Perhaps you should rephrase this and say Republicans are doing nothing for small business owners.

  • brandon

    Rabiner,

    The one recession we had between the Reagan recovery and the end of the Clinton administration (1990) was extremely mild. Are you arguing that it wasn’t?

    The interstate was not built for economic stimulus, but for military defense. Yes, it allowed commerce to create wealth for some as a collateral benefit, but it took away wealth from those who were bypassed by it. Private enterprise making the transport of domestic goods more efficient was what gave us the wealth creation. The internet is very similar.

  • JeninCT

    Watusie wrote:

    “brandon, if Obama’s Congressional majority was so overwhelming, then why was the election of a single Republican senator – Scott Brown – proclaimed from the mountaintops as the one vote that would undo everything? Factual accuracy does not appear to be your strong suit.”

    Because it was the 41st senator with a R and prevented the supermajority, and it was Teddy Kennedy Seat (say that with respect now) from the ultra liberal Mass.

  • JeninCT

    brandon wrote:

    “No, I stand by my claim that Obama is incompetent.

    I also stand by my assertion that anyone who was informed about him in 2008 knew he was not up to the job and that too many people fell for the “rock star” media created “messiah” image and that fact causes me to worry about the future of the electorate.”

    I completely agree!! I also think that alot of people voted for him to prove they weren’t racist and to elect a black president so we could finally move on from racial politics. Of course that’s not they type of thing you can poll because not many people will admit it.

  • Rabiner

    Brandon:

    “The interstate was not built for economic stimulus, but for military defense. Yes, it allowed commerce to create wealth for some as a collateral benefit, but it took away wealth from those who were bypassed by it. Private enterprise making the transport of domestic goods more efficient was what gave us the wealth creation. The internet is very similar.”

    Building the interstate highway system may of been primarily a military defense project but the economic benefits were obvious before it was being created. Good roads have historically always created commerce by lowering the cost of transport. So no, it wasn’t private enterprise making the transport of goods more efficient, it was government providing the ability for private enterprise to take advantage of superior infrastructure to create wealth.

    If you were to look at a large segment of the inventions created by government resources in the 20th century you would be left wondering why private industry didn’t do it first. Computers, plastics, internet, highways all done by the government or public universities or both. Sorry but you’re ability to even comprehend how important government intervention is to creating wealth is stagering. Why don’t you ask some people in the Tennessee Valley Authority who built the dams and hydroelectric plants that power their homes and businesses and if they wish it wasn’t done with government money? Hoover dam provides so much electricity or Las Vegas would be a ghost town. Seriously you think private industry did all that?

    Yes, the 1990 recession was minor in comparison to the 1979-82 or current recession but was worse than the 2001 recession.

    JeninCT:

    “I completely agree!! I also think that alot of people voted for him to prove they weren’t racist and to elect a black president so we could finally move on from racial politics. Of course that’s not they type of thing you can poll because not many people will admit it.”

    I voted for him because he had the best ideas for the job and I really like what he’s done so far. McCain’s picking of Palin scared the shit out of me since she’s incompetent and simply tries to pit ‘real America’ against the urban cities. Had nothing to do with race and your trying to say race was a positive more than a detraction to the overall electorate is unfounded.

  • anniemargret

    I didn’t vote for Obama because he was a half-black man. Neither did my husband, daughter, two sons, sister and her husband, two nephews and my 86 year old mother. In fact, I knew no Democrat in my family, or in my friends and acquaintances circle who voted for Obama because we wanted to bridge any racial gap . Rather….

    We voted for him because 1)He was a Democrat and he embodies all the democratic ideals for which we honor, 2) he was articulate with his goals and could express more than adequately the frustration of millions of Americans, 3) he offered us a new direction away from the neocon administration of GWB and Cheney, and 3) the idea that McCain and the Pitbull would lead this country scared us silly.

  • Slide

    Brandon: “Slide, your numbers are way too simplistic”

    Simple yes, but not simplistic. Numbers are how you judge things like economies. I know you would rather stick with old bromides and anecdotes but I like empirical evidence, which I know is not a strong suit on the right side of the aisle. So, to recap my “simplistic” numbers.

    For the 40 years between 1961 and 2000, a Democrat was President 20 years and a Republican was President 20 years. And then we had GWB for 8 years. So what do the number say for that 40 year period and for the GWB period?

    GDP Growth
    Dem 4.1%
    GOP 2.9%
    GWB 2.2%

    Growth in Employment
    Dem 2.9%
    GOP 1.7%
    GWB 0.5%

    Consumer Price Index
    Dem 4.0%
    GOP 5.1%
    GWB 3.0%

    Dow Jones Average Growth
    Dem 8.1%
    GOP 6.5%
    GWB 0.9%

    Change of the Dollar
    Dem +0.8%
    GOP -3.6%
    GWB -5.9%

    Yep. Pretty “simplistic”. Tells a story doesn’t it?

  • brandon

    Slide, your numbers are simplistic because presidents don’t control the economy all by themselves. There are all kinds of other factors like Congress, wars, global events etc.

    Part of the problem with your theory is that the political parties have changed so much since the 1970s. The Democratic Party of today is unrecognizable from the party of 1960.

    Rabiner, you may have thought Obama had the “best ideas” and you may have liked what he’s done so far. But so far he has been a failure at moving the country toward peace and prosperity. There is a big difference between passing legislation and that legislation being effective. Obama’s healthcare “reform” will be a disaster for the country. Thank God, his nonsensical “cap and trade” energy policy has been pushed aside. Even after his “America has wronged the world” apology tour,” he has no foreign policy victories of his own.

    As JeninCT pointed out, I agree that a lot of people voted for him so we could move beyond racial politics. This was one area that I had hope for him, but he has also been an absolute failure at using the pulpit of the presidency to help unite the country. He practices the most divisive politics I’ve ever seen from a sitting president.

  • Rabiner

    Brandon:

    “He practices the most divisive politics I’ve ever seen from a sitting president.”

    Please elaborate. I think Bush saying ‘you’re either with us or against us’ is pretty divisive.

    “Part of the problem with your theory is that the political parties have changed so much since the 1970s. The Democratic Party of today is unrecognizable from the party of 1960.”

    The Republican Party of today is unrecognizable from the party of 1993. Now they call an individual mandate unconstitutional while back in 1993 some of the same people were calling for an individual mandate as their counter proposal to the Clinton Health Care Plan.

    “Rabiner, you may have thought Obama had the “best ideas” and you may have liked what he’s done so far. But so far he has been a failure at moving the country toward peace and prosperity. There is a big difference between passing legislation and that legislation being effective. Obama’s healthcare “reform” will be a disaster for the country.”

    Why do you think it will be ineffective at increasing coverage for individuals and reforming insurance practices?

  • brandon

    Rabiner,

    You are correct that the Republican Party has also changed and not for the better. But we have a far better chance of reforming the GOP than we do of the current Democratic Party.

    Democratic strategists Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen explained how Obama is divisive far more eloquently than I could:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703700904575391553798363586.html

    Healthcare reform is a complex subject and why Obamacare is horrible legislation would be hard for me to explain in the amount of words one can write on a forum.

    But if you are truly interested in exploring the subject beyond talking points:

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/06/Obamacare-Impact-on-Future-Generations

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/05/Obamacare-Impact-on-Seniors

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/05/Obamacare-Impact-on-Doctors

  • JeninCT

    Rabiner wrote:

    “your trying to say race was a positive more than a detraction to the overall electorate is unfounded.”

    I said it was my opinion. Many people I spoke to and heard from back then that said it was ‘time for a black president” including my co-workers. My son even heard it from teachers at his school.

  • JeninCT

    Rabiner wrote:

    “Brandon:

    “He practices the most divisive politics I’ve ever seen from a sitting president.”

    Please elaborate. I think Bush saying ‘you’re either with us or against us’ is pretty divisive. ”

    Obama never misses an opportunuty to use straw men (there are those who say…) and repeatedly criticizes Republicans. And there’s his now-famous “We Won.”

    ” “Rabiner, you may have thought Obama had the “best ideas” and you may have liked what he’s done so far. But so far he has been a failure at moving the country toward peace and prosperity. There is a big difference between passing legislation and that legislation being effective. Obama’s healthcare “reform” will be a disaster for the country.”

    Why do you think it will be ineffective at increasing coverage for individuals and reforming insurance practices?”

    Actually increasing coverage for individuals and reforming insurance practices wouldn’t be a problem, the problem is the massive government bureacracy including 159 new boards and commissions, individual mandates and smoke and mirrors funding, including double counting cuts and my personal favorite, not including the ‘doctor fix’ in the original legislation.

    That’s right up there with passing financial reform legislation that doesn’t apply to or fix Fannie and Freddie.

    Look, I’m sure Obama is a nice guy, but the combination of him, Reid and Pelosi is toxic to this country.

  • Madeline

    He has done absolutely nothing for the small business owners of this country which create the majority of jobs.

    Brandon, do you have a cite for small businesses creating the majority of jobs? I hear this pretty frequently (usually on the Sunday morning talk shows), but I’ve never seen any statistics that back this up.

  • Slide

    Madeline: “Brandon, do you have a cite for small businesses creating the majority of jobs? I hear this pretty frequently (usually on the Sunday morning talk shows), but I’ve never seen any statistics that back this up.”

    Brandon? Statistics? lol. No, don’t you see that Brandon doesn’t need no damn statistics. We show him how the country does better economically under Democratic Presidents and he just summarily dismisses it with a wave of the hand and says that there are other factors. Of course, but I can remember the brandon’s of the time pronouncing with complete assuradness that when Bill Clinton increased taxes at the beginning of his Presidency (without one Republican vote mind you) that it would destroy the economy. Needless to say, the economy took off like a rocket. Wrong then. Wrong now.

    Oh, and for the silliness of this brandon gem, ” But so far he has been a failure at moving the country toward peace and prosperity.”

    Wrong. Obama has put a tourniquet on the bleeding of jobs that occurred under the Bush administration. Anybody looking at the chart at the bottom of this article would have to admit that we are at least “moving” in the right direction.

    http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/22/steele-bush-created-jobs/

    The red bars are the periods under the Bush administration – the blue, Obama. Tell me brandon, can you at least admit that we are “moving” in the right direction? Or is this another case where there are “other factors” and we should disregard facts and numbers because they are inconvenient to your argument?

  • Fairy Hardcastle

    JeninCT,

    According to Andrew Young’s nonfictional work Politician, Ted Kennedy reportedly said that the 60s were more civilized because he could work until 4 and then step over to his brother’s House where “they would chase women all night.” I really think we should reevaluate all of the lion’s life. It may turn out it looks something more like a jackal’s.

  • John

    …but back to the article? As a Republican, I’m concerned about the points raised. Instead of saying “yeah, well the dems are just as bad” why not address the points and try to do better? Does anyone contest the notion that Palin’s ‘support’ for Dr. L’s n-word rant alienates black people? Does anyone think that the GOP will be successful if it continues to endorse this sort of behavior toward non-whites?

  • abj

    slide –

    We show him how the country does better economically under Democratic Presidents and he just summarily dismisses it with a wave of the hand and says that there are other factors.

    Correlation vs. causation, until the argument is better refined. What specific policies did these Democratic presidents pursue that led to economy prosperity, and how/why did they result in economic prosperity? (I’m not asking to be flip…I know you’re an intelligent guy and I’d like to see your responses).

    Wrong. Obama has put a tourniquet on the bleeding of jobs that occurred under the Bush administration. Anybody looking at the chart at the bottom of this article would have to admit that we are at least “moving” in the right direction.

    Again, a correlation vs. causation problem. Most of the government’s $3T efforts to stanch the bleeding were well underway before Obama even took office, in particular TARP and the Fed’s easy loans to banks. Bush’s emergency relief measures are indistinguishable from Obama’s. Only the $787B stimulus bill is directly attributable to Obama, and while it did help the economy, its impact was likely marginal (estimates are that it may have reduced unemployment by between 0.5 and 2% – a welcome, but hardly depression-slaying measure). Perhaps those early relief efforts implemented in October 2008 just needed some more time to work? I don’t have an answer to that question, but it’s certainly far more complex than “Obama good, Bush bad.”

  • CentristNYer

    John // Aug 23, 2010 at 10:08 am

    “…but back to the article?”

    Thank you.

    I have mixed feelings about this entire incident. Dr. Laura’s original point — that the rules about when you can acceptably use the N-word — was a totally fair one and I don’t think she should be crucified for daring to raise it. At the same time, she also tried to politicize the exchange by taking swipes at the NAACP and Obama and made a snarky comment about the woman’s marrying out of her race, all while overindulging the use of the N-word. Not so smart.

    If Palin’s tea partiers embrace her defense of Dr. Laura, it seems to me that that will only raise more questions about how colorblind the movement really is.

  • easton

    “There is a big difference between passing legislation and that legislation being effective. Obama’s healthcare “reform” will be a disaster for the country.”

    Assertion without any evidence, and how can their be any evidence for something that has not yet been put into effect (except for the millions who can now buy insurance who could not before, and the ending of rescission, but hey, you want to say a 20 year old with cancer getting insurance is a disaster, be my guest)

    “Actually increasing coverage for individuals and reforming insurance practices wouldn’t be a problem, the problem is the massive government bureacracy including 159 new boards and commissions,” Oh my God, a commission? How can we survive that?

    individual mandates (without mandates you can not end denial of care due to pre-existing conditions or rescission, people can simply wait until they are older and need insurance before they buy it, so the whole insurance industry would spiral down the drain, and whatever happened to RESPONSIBILITY? The Heritage Foundation promoted mandates so there would be no more free riders, people who can afford insurance but who go to ER’s for free care)

    and smoke and mirrors funding, (evidence, none, just assertion)
    including double counting cuts (another lie, the “double” she is referring to is that the spending cuts are being applied both to health care budget and the federal budget, but being that the health care budget is part of the federal budget it is not being counted twice. If I put $500 in the bank to save for a new car, I can say it is part of my car savings and my general total savings)

    and my personal favorite, not including the ‘doctor fix’ in the original legislation.

    But why would it have been since Republicans themselves never included the doc fix in any of their own calculations? Simply put, the doc fix was happening with or without the original legislation, as such it is irrelevant to the legislation that was presented. You can also say “my personal favorite, he did not include funding for some proposed weapons program”
    And Republicans themselves never put forward a proposal to fix this once and for all.

  • easton

    Correlation vs. causation, until the argument is better refined. What specific policies did these Democratic presidents pursue that led to economy prosperity, and how/why did they result in economic prosperity?

    Well, Republicans could never live with that since everything that has happened the past 2 years is Obama’s fault.

    The first Bush and Clinton undertook serious deficit reduction in order to lower long term interest rates which freed up Capital markets for investment. That money happened to come along at a very fortuitous time since we had the whole high tech boom, rapidly increasing productivity, etc. No doubt Clinton benefited from a helluva wave, but he helped it by his free trade policies, tax policies, etc.

    GWB blew it by targeting the bulk of his tax cuts on the rich, and kept them after 9/11 when there was no way in hell these people were going to invest that money in an uncertain world economy. The market plunged down to 7800 and Bush threw literally untold hundreds of billions of dollars at the rich just to get the market back up, temporarily. Meanwhile, after the shock the rich just invested the money in Asia or in shell games in the US to take advantage of low short terms capital gains taxes. Hedge fund managers don’t even pay income taxes on money they manage for other people, they pay only capital gains taxes. Bush and the whole short term profit regime.

    If he had favored long term Capital from the outset (lower capital gains from income tax levels down to zero the longer you hold onto capital investments) we would have avoided the whole housing bubble (or a lot of it) Getting hit by a 35% tax rate makes flipping houses a lot less lucrative than 15%, but a family holding onto a house for 50 years should only pay a few % of capital gains.

  • John

    @CentristNYer

    I agree that crucifiction would have been inappropriate for daring to touch a thrid-rail issue like the appropriateness of using the n-word – or even for pointing out that there’s (sort of) a double standard in that people usually are less offended when black people refer to each as my n***a than when non-blacks use the word in any context.

    Leaving aside whatever point Dr. Laura may or may not have had, I think Gatsby’s point (with which I agree) is that Palin’s twitter post expressed solidarity with Dr. L’s 1st Amendment right to scream the n-word on air, not with her provocative question about when it can be used at all. I think Palin’s calculated endorsement was a not-so-coded shout-out to her ‘real american’ base and it should have been flatly rejected by the Republican leadership.

  • brandon

    Madeline:

    Just over half of all private sector employees work for a small business.

    http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqIndexAll.cfm?areaid=24

  • abj

    easton-

    The first Bush and Clinton undertook serious deficit reduction in order to lower long term interest rates which freed up Capital markets for investment. That money happened to come along at a very fortuitous time since we had the whole high tech boom, rapidly increasing productivity, etc. No doubt Clinton benefited from a helluva wave, but he helped it by his free trade policies, tax policies, etc.

    I agree for the most part. Especially with regard to the timing, which was crucial.

    If he had favored long term Capital from the outset (lower capital gains from income tax levels down to zero the longer you hold onto capital investments) we would have avoided the whole housing bubble (or a lot of it) Getting hit by a 35% tax rate makes flipping houses a lot less lucrative than 15%, but a family holding onto a house for 50 years should only pay a few % of capital gains.

    That’s a factor I hadn’t really considered, but to the extent that it may have contributed to the housing boom, it’s just one of many causes. The main cause, I think, is a (bipartisan) policy approach emphasizing the necessity of home ownership, which in turn spawned the lax regulation of mortgage underwriting standards. There was little effort to verify incomes, check applicants’ credit histories, etc, and on the part of the applicant, little to no understanding of how an ARM works. Apply that on a macro level and…boom. For roughly three decades, members of both parties myopically pursued a policy agenda emphasizing home ownership…regardless of the long term consequences. That, I think, is the root cause of the housing bubble.

  • Slide

    Lets have a little flashback to 1993 when Clinton proposed a budget with some tax increases. What was said by Republicans back then?

    Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), February 2, 1993: We have all too many people in the Democratic administration who are talking about bigger Government, bigger bureaucracy, more programs, and higher taxes. I believe that that will in fact kill the current recovery and put us back in a recession. It might take 1 1/2 or 2 years, but it will happen. (Congressional Record, 1993, Thomas)

    WRONG

    Rep. Bill Archer (R-TX), May 24, 1993: I would much rather be here today supporting the President and I would do so if his proposals could expect to increase jobs and the standard of living for Americans, but I believe his massive tax increases will do just the opposite. (Congressional Record, 1993, Thomas)

    WRONG

    Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-GA), July 13, 1993: Small businesses generate the bulk of this Nation’s new jobs . And they will be the hardest hit by the Clinton tax-and-spend budget. Because, when you raise taxes, you kill jobs. (Congressional Record, 1993, Thomas)

    WRONG

    Rep. Thomas Ewing (R-IL), February 21, 1993: The Clinton plan will hurt the economy and kill new job creation…,By crippling small- and medium-sized businesses, the plan will kill jobs. (Congressional Record, 1993, Thomas)

    WRONG

    Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), August 5, 1993: Do you know what? This is now your package. We will come back here next year and try to help you when this puts the economy in the gutter. And virtually every major economic estimating firm in this country says your bill is going to kill jobs. (Congressional Record 1993, Page: H6249)

    WRONG

    Rep. Robert Dornan (R-CA), August 5, 1993: The problem with our economy is that there is too little employment and too little growth. This plan will do nothing to improve that condition and will actually make it worse. (Congressional Record, 1993, Page: H6148)

    WRONG

    Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA), May, 27, 1993: This is really the Dr. Kevorkian plan for our economy. It will kill jobs, kill businesses, and yes, kill even the higher tax revenues that these suicidal tax increasers hope to gain. (Congressional Record, 1993, Page: H2949)

    WRONG

    Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-MN), March 17, 1993: These new taxes will stifle economic growth, destroy jobs, reduce revenues, and increase the deficit. Economists across the ideological spectrum are convinced that the Clinton tax increases will lead to widespread job loss. (Congressional Record, 1993, Page: H1355)

    WRONG WRONG WRONG

    Rep. Phil Crane (R-IL), March 18, 1993: The budget proposal offered by the Democrats is a recipe for economic and fiscal disaster…It proposes to increase taxes at a time when we have a fragile economy–higher taxes will only stifle job creation and economic growth.(Congressional Record, 1993, Page: H1454)

    WRONG

    Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), August 2, 1993: The impact on job creation is going to be devastating, and the American young people in particular will suffer a fairly substantial deferment of their lives because there simply won’t be jobs for the next two to three years to go around to our young graduates across the country. (CNN)

    WRONG

    Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO), August 4, 1993: However Clinton wants to spin his tax plan, the bottom line is this: It will raise your taxes, increase the deficit, and kill over 1 million jobs. (Congressional Record, 1993, Page: H5745)

    WRONG

    Of course we all know that 23 MILLION jobs were created during the Clinton Administration. How many under the tax cutting Bush Administration you ask? 3 million.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

    Read the above quotes. They are the same exact things that are being said about keeping the Bush Tax Cuts that worked such wonders during the last 10 years. Amazing how the naive the right is.

  • brandon

    1993 was 17 years ago Slide, economic conditions are not the same in 2010.

    Yes, Bill Clinton was president during very good economic times, but he had the internet bubble and the peace dividend among other factors.

    Raising taxes today would likely be similar to what raising taxes in 1982 would have done to the economy. Fortunately, we had President Reagan who unlike those in the White House today understood economics.

  • CentristNYer

    John // Aug 23, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    “Leaving aside whatever point Dr. Laura may or may not have had, I think Gatsby’s point (with which I agree) is that Palin’s twitter post expressed solidarity with Dr. L’s 1st Amendment right to scream the n-word on air, not with her provocative question about when it can be used at all.”

    The problem with Dr. Laura’s claim (and Palin’s subsequent tweet) was, of course, that her first amendment rights were never actually abridged. There’s a big difference between being silenced because of your views and merely losing lucrative sponsorships because of your views. Palin chose to equate the latter with the former, but then nuance is not her strong suit.

    I saw Gatsby’s original point as being that it was a big mistake for headline members of the GOP to line up behind racially incendiary comments. Fair enough. I was only trying to suggest that this particular “rant” by Dr. Laura doesn’t neatly fall into the category of racist, because she did have a legitimate point, even if she made it in a spectacularly clumsy way.

  • easton

    1993 was 17 years ago Slide, economic conditions are not the same in 2010.
    Raising taxes today would likely be similar to what raising taxes in 1982

    Wait, you mean 28 years is less than 17?

    Slides point is that Republicans were absolutely and completely dead wrong then, were dead wrong when they said the Bush tax cuts would balance the budget and lead to an unending period of prosperity, and are very likely dead wrong now.

    And Republicans have no solutions to the future besides tax cuts for the rich and less and less health insurance for everyone else.

    And Reagan raised taxes how many times in office?

    I have no problems with some genuine Conservative ideas, like revamping our Social Security system more like Chile’s (I kid you not, they have great ideas there), and indexing Capital gains to favor long term Capital investment. (yes, it will benefit the rich, but will produce jobs)

  • SpartacusIsNotDead

    Brandon wrote: “Raising taxes today would likely be similar to what raising taxes in 1982 would have done to the economy. Fortunately, we had President Reagan who unlike those in the White House today understood economics.”

    I agree that economic conditions are different from 1993, but the detailed examples of 1993 were raised to refute the assertion that there was only a correlation (not actual causation) between Democratic policies and superior economic performance. The country was in a bad recession at the time of the Clinton tax increase, yet the tax increase caused no harm.

    As for Reagan, I would suggest you heed your own caution about the differences between then and now. Reagan lowered the top marginal tax rates from well somewhere around 60-70% to 40%, and he did so before the budget deficit ballooned. Obama is letting the top rate go from 36-39% for the purpose of creating a larger budget deficit. There simply is no evidence whatsoever that a 3% tax increase on people with *taxable” income (not gross income) is going cause harm to the economy.

    The GOP has never considered a tax increase of any kind at the national level to be acceptable economic policy.

  • Slide

    brandon // Aug 23, 2010 at 1:05 pmRaising taxes today would likely be similar to what raising taxes in 1982 would have done to the economy. Fortunately, we had President Reagan who unlike those in the White House today understood economics.

    Reality is such a pain in the ass ain’t it?

    It’s conservative lore that Reagan the icon cut taxes, while George H.W. Bush the renegade raised them. As Stockman recalls, “No one was authorized to talk about tax increases on Ronald Reagan’s watch, no matter what kind of tax, no matter how justified it was.” Yet raising taxes is exactly what Reagan did. He did not always instigate those hikes or agree to them willingly–but he signed off on them. One year after his massive tax cut, Reagan agreed to a tax increase to reduce the deficit that restored fully one-third of the previous year’s reduction. (In a bizarre bit of self-deception, Reagan, who never came to terms with this episode of ideological apostasy, persuaded himself that the three-year, $100 billion tax hike–the largest since World War II–was actually “tax reform” that closed loopholes in his earlier cut and therefore didn’t count as raising taxes.)

    Faced with looming deficits, Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years, mainly through closing tax loopholes for business. Despite the fact that such increases were anathema to conservatives–and probably cost Reagan’s successor, George H.W. Bush, reelection–Reagan raised taxes a grand total of four times just between 1982-84. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0301.green.html

  • brandon

    “The GOP has never considered a tax increase of any kind at the national level to be acceptable economic policy.”

    I think more Republicans and citizens in general would be open to tax increases if they thought the money was going to be spent wisely.

    The problem is that more taxes just means more spending. Have you ever really looked into what the federal government spends your tax dollars on?

    I would not necessarily be opposed to certain tax increases if the money was going to be spent on deficit or debt reduction.

  • brandon

    Does anyone really believe that you should raise taxes during a recession?

  • pampl

    Actually, the reason that people oppose federal spending is because they DON’T look into where it’s going. They think something like 10% of the federal budget goes towards foreign aid, when it’s under 1% (and the majority is for Israel, natch). They don’t realize that 90% of it is defense and Social Security, both of which people love.

  • JeninCT

    easton wrote:

    “Oh my God, a commission? How can we survive that?”

    159 new commissions and boards. All appointed. Big difference. Huge government bloat.

    “The Heritage Foundation promoted mandates so there would be no more free riders, people who can afford insurance but who go to ER’s for free care.”

    Generally speaking, people who can afford insurance and go to the ER get a bill, not free care. What country have you been living in?

    “and smoke and mirrors funding, (evidence, none, just assertion)
    including double counting cuts (another lie, the “double” she is referring to is that the spending cuts are being applied both to health care budget and the federal budget, but being that the health care budget is part of the federal budget it is not being counted twice. ”

    No, NOT a lie:

    hotair.com/archives/2010/03/19/ryan-cbo-score-uses-double-counting-funds-15000-irs-agents

    “Republicans themselves never included the doc fix in any of their own calculations? Simply put, the doc fix was happening with or without the original legislation, as such it is irrelevant to the legislation that was presented. ”

    I think BOTH parties stink, and BOTH parties should be reforming, really reforming government. But, since THIS healthcare legislation claims to REFORM healthcare, then the the doctor fix should be in there, or shouldn’t be counted at all. Blaming the Republicans isn’t an answer. Don’t say your solving a problem if your not solving it!

  • JeninCT

    @fairy: I was JOKING about respecting Teddy Kennedy.