Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Is the Right's Attack on Obama's Legitimacy New or Unprecedented?
Several people objected in comments, emails and other places to my argument yesterday that what Rep. Joe Wilson did -- though dumb and juvenile -- was hardly some grave threat to the Republic or even a substantial deviation from standard right-wing political behavior. Some argued that Obama's race has caused the Right's hostility towards him to be both unique and unprecedentedly intense. That some people react with particular animus towards the first black President is obvious. But there is nothing new about the character of the American Right or their concerted efforts to destroy the legitimacy of Obama's presidency.
To see that, just look at what that movement's leading figures said and did during the Clinton years. In 1994, Jesse Helms, then-Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, claimed that "just about every military man" believes Clinton is unqualified to be Commander-in-Chief and then warned/threatened him not to venture onto military bases in the South: "Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He better have a bodyguard." The Wall St. Journal called for a Special Prosecutor to investigate the possible "murder" of Vince Foster. Clinton was relentlessly accused by leading right-wing voices of being a murderer, a serial rapist, and a drug trafficker. Tens of millions of dollars and barrels of media ink were expended investigating "Whitewater," a "scandal" which, to this day, virtually nobody can even define. When Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden, they accused him of "wagging the dog" -- trying to distract the country from the truly important matters at hand (his sex scandal). And, of course, the GOP ultimately impeached him over that sex scandal -- in the process issuing a lengthy legal brief with footnotes detailing his sex acts (cigars and sex talk), publicly speculating about (and demanding examinations of) the unique "distinguishing" spots on his penis, and using leading right-wing organs to disseminate innuendo that he had an abandoned, out-of-wedlock child. More intense and constant attacks on a President's "legitimacy" are difficult to imagine.
This is why I have very mixed feelings about the protests of conservatives such as David Frum or Andrew Sullivan that the conservative movement has been supposedly "hijacked" by extremists and crazies. On the one hand, this is true. But when was it different? Rush Limbaugh didn't just magically appear in the last twelve months. He -- along with people like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Bill Kristol and Jesse Helms -- have been leaders of that party for decades. Republicans spent the 1990s wallowing in Ken Starr's sex report, "Angry White Male" militias, black U.N. helicopters, Vince Foster's murder, Clinton's Mena drug runway, Monica's semen-stained dress, Hillary's lesbianism, "wag the dog" theories, and all sorts of efforts to personally humiliate Clinton and destroy the legitimacy of his presidency using the most paranoid, reality-detached, and scurrilous attacks. And the crazed conspiracy-mongers in that movement became even more prominent during the Bush years. Frum himself -- parading around as the Serious Adult conservative -- wrote, along with uber-extremist Richard Perle, one of the most deranged and reality-detached books of the last two decades, and before that, celebrated George W. Bush, his former boss, as "The Right Man."
It's also why I am extremely unpersuaded by the prevailing media narrative that the Right is suddenly enthralled to its rambunctions and extremist elements and is treating Obama in some sort of unique or unprecedented way. Other than the fact that Obama's race intensifies the hatred in some precincts, nothing that the Right is doing now is new. This is who they are and what they do -- and that's been true for many years, for decades. Even the allegedly "unprecedented" behavior at Obama's speech isn't really unprecedented; although nobody yelled "you lie," Republicans routinely booed and heckled Clinton when he spoke to Congress because they didn't think he was legitimately the President (only for Ted Koppel to claim that it was something "no one at this table has ever heard before" when Democrats, in 2005, booed Bush's Social Security privatization proposal during a speech to Congress).
This is why so many people were so skeptical of the heartfelt belief among many Obama supporters that he was going to usher in some sort of new, harmonious "post-partisan" age. The long-standing and well-established nature of the American Right would never permit such a transformation. After 1990s House Majority Leader Dick "Barney Fag" Armey told Joan Walsh on Hardball earlier this year that "I am so damn glad that you could never be my wife," I wrote:
These are the people who have largely been in power for the last two decades and the country is in the shape one would expect it to be in as a result. That's why all of this chatter about post-partisan transcendence and trans-partisan harmony and the like is so inane.
Why would anyone think that "common ground," on any consistent basis, can be found with people like this, or that it would be beneficial to eliminate real differences in order to accommodate their views?
Nothing that the GOP is doing to Obama should be the slightest bit surprising because this is the true face of the American Right -- and that's been true for a very long time now. It didn't just become true in the last few months or in the last two years. Recent months is just the time period when the media began noticing and acknowledging what they are: a pack of crazed, primitive radicals who don't really believe in the country's core founding values and don't merely disagree with, but contest the legitimacy of, any elected political officials who aren't part of their movement. Before the last year or so, the media pretended that this was a serious, adult, substantive political movement, but it wasn't any truer then than it is now. All one has to do is review their behavior during the Clinton presidency -- to say nothing of the Bush years -- to see that none of this is remotely new. Nothing they're doing to Obama is a break from their past behavior; it's just a natural and totally predictable continuation of it.
- Posted in
36 Comments so far
Show AllIn the 1960's, when I was a child, I used to collect pennies for Unicef along with Halloween Trick-or-treating. On at least one occasion, I, then about age 10, encountered an angry (female, not male) middle aged woman who screamed at me that I was collecting money for the "communists". It was one of those life moments that etches itself in memory. No, it is not new.
Sioux Rose
Excellent analysis by Greenwald. I only differ in believing that Obama is fully aware of what "the other side" is composed of and about. Therefore all the posturing to seek bipartisan consensus on topics of grave importance to the nation in my view constitutes theater taken to a high political art form. By making himself into the sympathetic party, he elicits the liberal crowd's shock and awe. "Oh, poor Obama, look what he's up against in his brave attempts to make change, to promote progress, to improve life for the American citizen," etc. In point of fact, these moves have already been factored into the mix; and the net effect is to rally FOR the status quo, no matter that said status quo at this point in time is racing towards some kind of ecological holocaust, promoting war when the nation can scarce pay for necessary social programs, turning "democracy" into a veritable pay-per-view sporting event, and sowing the seeds of karmic destruction (and its inevitable blowback) everywhere. And that's when it's not using the public's money to finance the Wall St betting casino! Sure, bipartisanship makes sense when the nation has veered wrongly on all its critical decisions and determinations for the past 20-30 years (or more).
How the nation needs a leader or movement that is willing to go to bat for OTHER!
I agree. I think these outbursts and teabagger scenes give Obama cover to slide his agenda through with a more sympathetic populace. They will take the position that Obama needs "coddling" (the excuse can always be racism) and Obama sucks at that teat for all it's worth.
Lindorff's article today points out the numerous LIES Obama actually told during his speech.
Sioux Rose
BLAIR: The Lindorff article was excellent.
Sioux Rose,
I've read many of your posts over the years and this may be your most prescient. I agree, wholeheartedly, that what we are witnessing in the media play is a very bad Kabuki Theater to convince the Obama supporters that Poor Mr. Obama is under such an onslaught from his arch-nemisis that he simply CANNOT hold his ground and must concede ground for the sake of political peace. When, in fact - that is how the narrative was written from the beginning.
We are witness to a carefully crafted farce being played out, while the ultimate puppet-masters behind the curtain shreek with glee as they see more zeros before the decimal point added to their bank accounts.
Sioux Rose
DERSUUSALA: Thank you again. When we realize that the scene of Bush reading a children's book was likely staged--"alas, a man so innocent, as to read to children!" What BETTER front as backdrop to the big events of 911? Or how 'bout his flight suit on the air craft carrier staged to look just like "Mr. Macho/John Wayne, a leader for our times!" Or demonstrating all the caring of a nurturant role-model, we see him next cutting the turkey (a fake one, how appropos!) for our troops overseas. Yep. We've come to the merger of Hollywood with government, leadership BY photo-op, and/or stage-managed by a crew of military insiders invited to speak on all the important TV "debate" shows, no expense sparred when it comes to manufacturing consent for the unholy, unconscionable, and costly beyond measure policies of this new pseudo-state. Yes, I think given this evidence, it's quite clear that a team of writers has been busily writing the script that "the anointed one" will be impressed upon to enact. Thank you for noticing, and for your intelligent, supportive comments.
I agree that for several years there have been extremist sentiments in the Right. However, I would argue that it would be a mistake to characterize the Right as a whole on the basis of its extremist elements. I agree that these extremist elements have been vocal, but these elements do not speak for everyone on the Right. Thus I would argue that to claim that these extremist elements are "the true face of the American Right" is not an accurate portrayal of the American Right.
Many on the American Right are truly concerned about what for many years has been called "The Culture Wars" and, as pointed out by Thomas Frank (in "What's the Matter With Kansas") will vote against their economic interest because of the concern about what they perceive to be the moral decline of the United States. I appreciate the point that Frank makes, but I believe he does not fully understand how seriously "The Culture Wars" are taken by many conservatives. It seems to me that rather than being seen as voting against their economic interests, many conservatives are in fact indicating how seriously they take "The Culture Wars." This concern, I believe, makes many on the Right susceptible to the virulent rhetoric from extremists - and, I believe, those extremists are fully aware of this. From a purely Machiavellian point of view, the extreme Right has performed superbly.
Sioux Rose
AMORIN: Addressing your point about "the culture wars," I think it's important to reference the insights related in John Dean's book, "Conservatives without Conscience." A percentage of the population naturally gravitates towards an authoritarian mindset. Such persons are very uncomfortable without strict rules, and they are extremely threatened by those who appear to live without them. GRANNY D wrote about this mindset, and being in her 90's, having been part of a number of significant movements that radically changed the face of this nation several times over, I think she's in a great position to articulate her observations. She was particularly astute with respect to deconstructing the anti-abortion mindset. Recognizing the tight noose many authoritarians live under, she felt that their identification with the unborn fetus was in many respects a form of mourning for the lives they never let themselves live. How empty it must be to live by another's creed, particularly when one finds that their particular hero holds traggic human flaws. Betrayal can make one realize they wasted their lives bowing before the mantle of a false idol!
The authoritarians are behind the anti-drug policies of the nation. No matter that the drug war rages on and just as many people use drugs now as when the damned thing began. No matter that families are broken apart, there is untold suffering on the part of young children who grow up without their parents, all for a non-violent "offense." The whole charade becomes its own brutal irony in a nation that covets its guns, promotes cigarettes and booze, has high rates of road rage/road accidents, and makes war for profit unapologetically. In other words, there IS no moral high ground from which to espouse rules of ANY sort given the criminal record, its egregious negligence against what it purports (law and order?) to uphold.
Many conservatives or authoritarians are NOT well educated, read little, absorb what they think they know the way the baby bird takes the chewed up food direct from its parents (right wing radio pablum). They live in fear, and to live in fear shuts out prospects of change, experimentation, bold adventure, and most of all... discovery! It's the cultural equivalent of seating a population in a school room and then forcing them to wear ear plugs and tying their hands behind their backs. Small wonder the nation fights so hard to see any progress whatsoever. Indeed, those who champion the better way are branded as heretics, dangerous firebrands, the architects of destruction!
I take some comfort in recalling that our nation has had many cycles. It never remains the same way for long. It seems we are dealing with a redux of the l950's and the McCarthy phase, albeit with a little too much Inquisition/Dark Ages/Crusades added to the mix for my particular consumption. Nonetheless, these things, too, shall pass. WHAT America is next to become is the great mystery, and I believe, symbolic of a genuine Phoenix rising from ashes phase now just beginning.
Sioux Rose,
Once again I am awe-struck! WHAT a cogent observation of recent US history despite the references. The anti-abortion mindset was truly brilliant and spot-on. These are truly people who never left the nest as their siblings flew into their own cosmic awakening... and as such must build a ridged structure of confinement around their conception of the world at large and force others to conform.
I can only hope that your sentiments voiced in the final paragraph are indeed an indication of things to come.
Peace be with you Sister
Sioux Rose
DERSUUSALA: Thank you for the warm compliment. I have my personal dark days; but I think Martin Luther King was a Master, and his relating that the universe arcs towards justice is something that I do believe to be true. The process can be long, painful, and cathartic. This morning I received an email from Paul Loeb which relates the letter written by his friend who's dying from brain cancer. It was circulated on the web as a letter to president Obama. And while this highly inspired man of grace sees in Obama the promise I do not, the man's last words are profound and remind us that life is precious. I also received an email from the daughter of the artist who did sketches for my children's book, another person struggling with a very formidable form of cancer. And on a trip to Puerto Rico two weeks ago, I learned that one of the loves of my life passed over from brain cancer at the tender age of 53. In two of these cases the brain cancer showed up after former cancer treatments. I have a feeling that the treatment sends the cancer to the brain. Years ago I sat in on a fascinating study done by oncologists who were studying the cancer treatment models used in other nations. Germany had the most promising program as it worked on all aspects of the person: diet, their mind set, their lifestyle, blood, etc. And the American model tends to push cancer back for 5-8 years where it almost always returns. The German model eradicates it by treating the true causative factors, as opposed to "fighting the enemy," in this case disguised as a disease.
I am working on an article I will post on my website that explains all the astrological factors behind the present global transition. What amazes me is how these come, almost like a cosmic freight train, car by car, JUST in anticipation of the year 2012, which was arrived at by the mathematicians of Mayan/Mexican heritage. The way we live cannot continue as thus... far too many are suffering, added to the collapse of interconnecting ecosystems. All this, while the criminals of Wall St dream of new ways to steal money from decent citizens and hard working souls, not to mention the impoverished Indigenous of varied lands. One could not imagine a paradigm that made greater use of all the wrong values and systems of reward and punishment than the ones engineered by the marriage of (advocates to) mammon and (advocates to) Mars. This ungodly combination threatens much that we call civilization. It, too, has an expiration date, and MUST pass away. Peace.
Yeah, Glenn,
I remember the viciousness of the Republican Right from the 70's onward. I've always felt that Orwell's Two Minute Hate best captures the spirit of the screamers - there's really no thinking going on within the GOP, nor has there been since the liberals began to organize and resist and work change through.
Good article, thanks for writing it.
I think that both the Republican party and the 'christian' right wingers have been hijacked by the Neo-Cons. They are being led to their doom by AIPAC and the Antichrist.
No surprise, true, i'm not surprised. But STILL A REAL THREAT, and not just the threat of meanspiritedness.
The Rabid Right is not simply a loud-mouthed demonizing personal attack machine. The threat is not just manipulating media, the public, and the electoral process to accumulate political power.
Resort to naked violence including direct seizure of political power has always been on the draft agenda of some on the Rabid Right. The fact that this has been going on for thirty years shouldn't put us to sleep.
"Resort to naked violence including direct seizure of political power has always been on the draft agenda..."
i.e. the so-called "Brooks Brothers riot" which shut down a recount in Florida in 2000. It's instructive to watch video of this encounter every now and then, and remember that these were political operatives flown in from DC.
"The fact that this has been going on for thirty years shouldn't put us to sleep."
Longer than thirty years. The hatred towards JFK and MLK was visceral. There was a "Wanted For Treason" full-page ad in a Dallas paper the morning Kennedy was shot. Unlike Clinton and Obama, he was actually pushing through legislation which affected the bottom line of corporate America, and so would pay a truly heavy cost.
I hate to break your bubble, but the hatred shown by the left toward Bush over the last eight years was not inconsiderable. Republicans probably figure that you reap what you sow, and they are better haters...
True, there was/is hatred of Bush in the left, but remember that Bush implemented dozens of policies that were un-American in the extreme. For this alone the hatred of Bush is well deserved.
Beyond the mountain of criminal acts of Bush that are in the public domain there are many, myself included (LIHOP), that believe that if the truth about the secrets of the Bush administration ever becomes public knowledge bush would replace fu*k as the most vile word in the English language.
While I acknowledge the left is capable of mistakes, some of which like “political correctness” are mistakes on a grand scale, I do not see many elements on the left that rise to the level of un-Americanism.
Note that I did not justify Bush's policies. Stupid they were. But, looking at this from a Republican point of view, they probably think, heck, if THEY did it to us, for whatever reason, why not do it back. Especially since the Republicans find Obama's health care to be horrible.
Sioux Rose
MADHOOSIER: "Don't Bush with me! Or you'll get Bushed, real quick!" Love it!
Bring America Back !!!!.......Exactly right as Mr Greenwald says............Plus, Joe Wilson did not even throw his sneakers at the President.
***I hear all the Republicans love to wear very expensive sneakers with their very expensive Givenchy suits., at all these bi=partisan joint Sessions.
**It really does not make sense, after all, Team Obama has caved-in on every campaign promise Obama made to his left base, and given us the exact term of Office King George would've given as a Third Term.
**So, all the rude , crude, dude, Repubby slander, slams,
slurs, and such just show themselves as the Demogogues they
are, and always have been!
**The Neocons could take off a couple years and relax, because Team Obama is a one term pony, just like Carter and
H. Bush. Read my lips, we need a Progressive for 2012 !!
Are we pushing him yet?
Glenn Greenwald's essay raises at least this obvious question: why, then, does Obama seek consensus with the far right while freezing out everyone to his left?
Politcal theater sounds to me too much like wishful thinking. Policy is what matters, and in policy Obama has done little to distinguish himself from his predecessor. Any political theater that maintains a continuity of the same damage that one purportedly opposed strikes me as self-defeating.
On the other hand, up could be down; black could be white; right could be left.
Its not the Right that is doing anything to President Obama. It is Obama that is doing things to Obama. The very idea that his race has anything to do with his probles is laughable.
The Right has no power to do anything to him. He holds the votes. His problem has been and continues to be inept plolitical actions, political policy mistakes, hiring people he shouldn't, ignoring the people that elected him.
That Republicans outburst on the House floor is unforgivable. As disappointed in this guy as I am, he is President of the United States and deserves the respect for his office. It does not matter that the guy was telling the truth. That was a lie. If passed as it is, illegal aliens could and indeed would get coverage. That is fact.
The reality is that not too many folks trust this guy at this point and hardly any one but their synchophants trust the Pelosi/Reid bunch.
Republicans didn't cast the deciding votes for the "stimulus" bill nor for the pork laden Omnibus bill nor his overstuffed budget. Republicans didn't decide to take over GM, Chrysler and some others, Republicans are not trying to pass a bill that will make Hospitals, Drug Companies and lawyers rich while doing not much for anyone else.
Its Obama that has lost the support of Seniors, Independents and quite a few Democrats at this point. Defying the will of the majority of the American people is not a recipe for longevity in politics. Its Obama that has allowed the Speaker of the House and Reid to insult most of the country.
But its damn sure not the Republicans or Limbaugh or any of the other whipping boys that are Obamas problem. Obama is his own worst enemy.
Like it or not, here is a President that has staked his political future on something that less than 11% of the country was concerned about or even thought of. How smart is that?
The only place the Republicans are really involved in here is accepting the gift Obama has given them. Raised them from the dead.
No list of affronts to common decency by the right should omit the time on the Rush Limbaugh TV show where Rush said here’s a picture of the White House dog and then displayed a picture of teenaged Chelsea Clinton.
When most of the nation was outraged by the incident Limbaugh lied and claimed that it had been a mistake. America’s corporate owned media quickly gave him a pass on the issue…conveniently forgetting that the Rush Limbaugh TV show was pre-recorded and had it really been a mistake it could have been corrected during the editing stage.
A prevailing joke in the African-American community (I think I first heard it coming from Chris Rock) was that Bill Clinton was "the first black president." The point of this being, the treatment of Clinton by the Right was what it would have been like if Clinton had actually been a black man. I think we can see now the truth of the comic observation. Greenwald is right, the current Right-wing has been a long time a'comin'. it didn't just pop up recently.
I would like to tag on to this my perplexity about the Obama administration's response to the Republican-Right's tactics, especially this past month, at Town Hall's etc. And say that I wonder where Obama's "attack dog" Rahm Emmanuel is? I heard this morning a commentator (sorry, don't have the reference) who pointed out that the Right is using tactics of direct action(grassroots or not) taken from the Left, while the "Left" or fighting liberals, or whoever, are sending e-mails! Is the Obama administration fighting on the virtual front? If so, they should reconsider in the light of the Right's willingness to go after anything, such as the president's talk to schoolchildren, or anything else he does or says.
And, as always, the Democrats put forward an already-compromised position acceptable to their corporate paymasters. This ensures that the position will be indefensible or incomprehensible (e.g. "Hillary-Care") and thus go down to defeat. Then they lamely claim that "they tried". Consider how easy it'd have been to write [well, HR 676] a 1000 WORD bill allowing enrollment in Medicare, instead of a 1000 PAGE bill prone, by its size, to misrepresentation. As Saundra Locke said to Clint Eastwood in "The Gauntlet", "Harry! Did it ever occur to you, they don't want this job done!"
Never let the wackiness of the Republican right obscure the issue. And the issue is this: the Dems are pushing mandatory private healthcare insurance with a weak (or dead) public option, and the whole thing insensibly doesn't cover illegal aliens.
Now, that's objectionable. Healthcare should be publicly supported and free for all. It's quite offensive to let sick people (of whatever status) suffer or die.
Wilson is annoying only because he's wrong - the plan does in fact exclude illegal aliens, just as Obama said. But let's not come to the aid of poor Obama when he sells out the public with a bad plan, rejecting single-payer healthcare as "too radical." Loyal Dems should consider that to be a true affront to all.
-TIA
In Winston-Salem, the nine school board members split 5-4 in favor of letting President Obama speak to the 57,000 children through television. The vote was done by telephone poll after
one member pointed out that a formal decision "wouldn't look good." But I'm breaking the story right here right now.
Four years ago, bringing up the issue of class would get you trashed and persecuted at by the conservatives. Today, bringing up the issue of class will not only get you trashed and persecuted at by the Obamabot wing of the Democrats/progressives/liberals but you might even be called a "racist". It really doesn't matter what the Left says against Dubya or the Right says against Obama. The important thing is to pay attention to who really looks out for you and please stop judging people by party affiliation !
P.S.: On today's article on cannabis, nobody or the author dared mention Ron Paul's efforts to legalize cannabis. Was this simply because he was a Republican? This is wrong.
Thanks for mentioning Ron Paul. He is unique and I'm sorry there doesn't seem to be anyone else with his integrity. And yes, many people here trashed him, yet there was probably more agreement with him on the issues we were facing (financial mess, war/empire, torture, drug legalization) than with the mainstream candidates. He also has courage to stand up for what's right. And, amazingly, he had been quite clear about his priorities which did not include destroying the welfare state or gutting environmental laws. It was also interesting that folks who seem to understand the smear tactics of mainstream media so readily jumped on the "racism" charge.
Ron Paul I support but on some issues. I would still prefer Kucinich, Mckinney, Nader, etc... over him. But as for trashing him here, I won't say it's as bad as people on Alternet and Huffpost doing it. There, anybody who brings up Ron Paul's overlapping support is painted as racists and/or misogynists. Those people who do the painting care very little about the economic and foreign policy issues and will even support Obama on them. They hate Ron Paul simply because of his positions on abortion and claims that he is racist even though they cannot prove it. Yes, I don't support Ron Paul on his take on abortion, single payer, and much of his pro-libertarian stand on the economic policies but he does support civil liberties and freedom at large, ending the war on drugs, and paving the way for truly free markets. Ron Paul is a rare Republican and he's a hell of a lot better than my Republican congressman who's a party robot all the way.
Ron Paul has interesting and unique ways of actually caring for the environment. I like his fight for legalizing raw milk across state line, industrial hemp to replace crude oil at large, and doing away with huge corporate subsidies of Big Oil and Agri that are causing environmental damage to name a few. I wished more environmentalists would look at those ideas first instead of cap-and-trade if they really cared about the environment straight from the heart.
P.S.: On the racism charges against Ron Paul, someone said something about it being based on some endorsement. Whatever. At this point, there is no evidence that Paul is or was ever racist. All I care about are the issues.
He'd take away subsidies, but would let them destroy the environment without raising a finger so long as they were doing it on their own dime.
Without subsidies, they won't have the kind of power to destroy the environment. It would be easier for smaller businesses and farms to actually compete. The result. Quality over quantity would come first meaning that quality production and regards for the environment would come first before profiteering. I don't see Ron Paul like most Republicans. I could be unexpectedly misjudging Paul though but I look at the whole picture and map his ideas out long term like I do for any other pol.
The Vanity Fair article on the battle between William Manchester & RFK on Jackie Kennedy's behalf again describes the maniacal atmosphere of the right wing during the Kennedy administration. The hard rightwing got its first bump when the anti-government Goldwater people managed to run their candidate in the general election. Michael Talbott's "The Brothers" goes into greater detail.
The ugly truth: right-wing terrorism is effective in the United States & has been four five decades.
What legitimacy? Obama's a war criminal and has committed other crimes against humanity. I understand criticising the "right's" attacks, but to say that his presidency is legitimate, other than for having been elected by the voters, is nonsense, bogus. He should be indicted along with Bush and Cheney; Obama and others of his administration, that is.
Yes, Greenwald is correct. This has been going on a long time, I'd say since the 20's, maybe since Reconstruction. But, although this is not about race (neither were all the attacks on Harold Washington when he was mayor of Chicago), the forces of reaction and status quo maintenance will use race to further their ends, even if it includes fomenting race war. Don't fall for their shtick and start snarling at "racists", most of whom are mostly scared and angry.
Greenwald's points are interesting and true. But I think the real significance of the Joe Wilson outcry lies in what he was responding to -- Obama's statement that illegal aliens wouldn't be entitled to benefits under his health care plan. Wilson, who no doubt disbelieved Obama on many points, showed that he could restrain himself about anything but that. He's convinced government help for people in this country illegally would be/is completely unacceptable. His Republican colleagues echoed this sentiment in supporting him.
Wilson's wild outcry left Obama looking cool and rational. Yet Obama agrees with Wilson that illegal aliens don't deserve to be helped under his plan.
If you or I found someone dying, injured, on the street, we would feel morally bound to help. Anyone who would say "Let it alone; he's an illegal alien" would rightly be considered a moral cretin. Yet the Republicans are outraged at the idea that the U.S. government would help such a person. Obama at least doesn't seem outraged at the possibility of helping illegal aliens, but he's giving in to moral cretinism.
No rational person thinks illegal aliens who are incarcerated and then become ill or injured should be treated differently from other prisoners. But if a law-abiding (except for how he/she got here) illegal alien becomes ill or injured on the job or at home with family, it's a different story. There's no moral justification for the distinction.
Thousands of people every year -- I understand anywhere beginning at 18,000 -- die prematurely due to inability to afford health care in the U.S. A substantial fraction of those must be illegal aliens.
I think this is the real significance of the Joe Wilson outcry.