Republicans Were Against Big Government Before The Election, Too.

Apparently, the Obama administration is learning that calling a large percentage of the American people racist wackos isn’t a very good idea: it cheapens the terms, which carry more charge if applied to Stormfront and the birthers, respectively. Obama on Leno last night (text via LA Times) suggested that maybe people are opposing him because that’s what the opposition in politics does, not because he’s black:

Asked about Jimmy Carter’s charge that opposition to Obama health care reform is rooted in racism, Obama said, “I was actually black before the election.” Attributing the criticism to the heat of the issues, the president noted that FDR was reviled as a socialist, Ronald Reagan as a reactionary.

“This is not untypical,” he said. “One of the things you sign up for in politics is folks yell at you.”

So let’s go through one other charge. Some say that Obama is being called a socialist because he’s black. That’s patently false. He’s being called a socialist because he’s a Democrat. Want some evidence? See this [fairly socialist] ad from Hillary’s campaign, which was widely pilloried on the right (and here at TLP):

And, speaking of some wackos, let’s take a quick look at some choice responses in the comments from the freepers after the ad dropped (after the fold):

Ho, Ho, Ho and a Happy Socialistic Christmas to you/sheesh!

“Universal Pre-K”

All your children are belong to us…

Buying votes from fools who think they’re getting something for nothing. The Democrats and their voters are a collection of idiots.

I can’t WAIT for the You-Tube parodies.

“Oh yes! Here’s the box of Cigars for Bill… “

Vote Hillary, she’s the only candidate with enough b*lls to tell you up front she intends to take your stuff away and give it to someone more deserving.

“Universal Pre-K”

Another name for Hitlery’s Youth.

Hillary Poster

This isn’t about race. This is about a goverment “which is going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good”. A few of us out here think they’ve taken enough.

  • Jim

    I agree with the basics…that this has more to do with politics than bigotry. However, there is still a large section (not even close to a majority) that have shown their bigotry time and time again. As long as the Republican Party doesn’t condemn it, it will be tied with them, since this is where these folks are appearing and getting support. I do take exception with the title, though…when they were in the majority, they seemed to have NO problem with increasing the debt, the size of government, and all the fiscal policies they said they stood for. They’re going to have to prove, to me, they’ve changed their ways before they get my vote again.

  • Brad Warbiany


    I think the Republicans in Congress were spendthrifts, yes. I think the Republican base was fed up with this, and that’s a big reason why they lost so many seats in congress in the 2008 elections. In 2008, Republican turnout declined by about 1.5% while Democrat turnout increased by about 2.5% (both numbers compared to 2004).

    Of course, I’m a libertarian, so I may not have my finger firmly on the pulse of the Republican Party electorate and elected. But that’s my gut feeling, and my title was directed more at the grass-roots Tea Party types (that often barred guys like Michael Steele from speaking and booed John Cornyn) than the Republican establishment, who enjoy the trappings of power as much as anyone else in Washington.