Bush and the Pseudo-Race Card

Once again George Bush is trumping up the spectre of racism to try to tar his opponents. Remember that people opposed to the war in Iraq simply believed that brown-skinned people couldn’t govern themselves? Remember when people who opposed Alberto Gonzalez’ nomination were simply anti-hispanic? Now, if you oppose his plan for Social Security, you are racist.


This guy is a fucking asshole. Your ideas suck shit, you little bitch. They’ve got nothing to do with race.

Shouldn’t he be able to defend his proposals on their merits, rather than trump up allegations of racism at every turn? Oddly, he isn’t trotting out his lie about African Americans being disadvantaged by the SS system anymore.

All Democratic politicians: throw Bush an anchor on this one.

Now, Hentor, you’re smarter than this. Some people opposed Gonzalez not because they were anti-Hispanic, but because they must resist a Hispanic shift to the Republican column.

It’s the same reason they must resist the changing of a program seen as one of the crown jewels of the Democratic Party, and one that, not coincidentally, makes all people, including African Americans, beholden to it. Break dependence on it, and dependence on the Democratic Party is broken as well.

If I were a Democrat, I’d be fightin’ mad as well. It’s a good thing I’m not one. :smiley:

We resisted Gonzales because he was fucking pro-torture.

Now, Mr. Moto, you’re smarter than that. People opposed Gonzales because he authored memos supporting torture. Come on, don’t be Bush.

Mr. Moto: Break dependence on it

:confused: Where do you get the idea that the proposed “privatization” plans for Social Security count as “breaking dependence on it”? I think you may be confused by the use of the term “privatization”, which often refers to moving a particular industry or infrastructure out of government control and into the private sector.

In the case of “Social Security privatization”, though, that’s not what it’s about. The SS plan that Bush proposes would still be controlled and managed by the government, and the government would still specify the essentials of how much money you can/must contribute to it, and how and when you can/must get money out of it.

The only significant differences would be that some of the money would be invested in designated individual accounts rather than transferred in the pay-as-you-go system, and that the benefits under the regular plan would be drastically reduced.

The plan is in no way intended to make SS obsolete or to stop providing SS support for retirees in order to “break their dependence” on the program. What’s wrong with retirees being “beholden” or “depending” on Social Security as part of their retirement income, anyway? That’s exactly what Social Security is there for!

Or at least, that’s what the Administration’s been assuring us. If their real intention, as you seem to suggest, is to eliminate Social Security so as to “break dependence” on it because it’s an eeevil Democratic gummint program, then they really ought to come clean about that.

Nope. He was resisted way prior to those revelations.

Don’t you recall that his name was mentioned by Kennedy in those Judiciary Committee Democratic memos? The same ones in the scandal that got Elaine Jones of the NAACP to resign?

I believe the phrasing used was that Judge Gonzalez, because he is Latino AND conservative, is “especially dangerous.”

I don’t doubt the sincerity of your anti-Gonzalez stance. That doesn’t mean others don’t oppose him for more base reasons.

I never heard of the guy before the torture memo and everyone I know who opposed him opposed him as AG did so because of the torture memo.

You’re thinking about Miguel Estrada.

By the way, Moto, are you admitting that Bush accusing people of opposing his policies out of racism is pure bullshit or do you agree with him? Do you think it’s ok for him to hurl that kind insinuation around the way he does?

Estrada was dangerous not because of his heritage but due to the fact that he is an unabashed idealogue, had virtually no written judicial record, and claimed to be unable to evaluate Roe v. Wade during his Senate confirmation hearings. Even the Congressional Hispanic Caucus opposed his nomination bitterly.

Maybe they all look alike to him? :smiley:

Sorry, you’re correct. I read a piece that got it wrong, and got it all switched around in my head as well.

Thanks for setting me straight on that one. Mea culpa.

Well, liberals often do claim that certain policies have a disparate racial impact. Wouldn’t this be another example?

Actually, no. We’re not talking about whether a policy will have a disparate racial impact, we’re talking about whether liberals are opposing certain policies because they (the liberals) are racist?

For instance, Bush said that people who opposed the Iraq war did so because they didn’t think brown people were capable of democracy. Do you agree with that suggestion? Do you believe that liberals think that brown people are incapable of democracy? Is there any basis for that accusation?

Do you think that anyone who opposed the Gonzales nomination was racist?
Never mind the right or wrong of the policies on other grounds. Is it accurate to suggest that liberals are opposing Bush policies out of sheer, mean racism as Bush suggests?

And white, black, brown, red, or yellow, fact is that most people suck at managing their own investing. Just like with most complex tasks, the professionals are usually better than the amateurs - and this is one area where even the professionals’ record leaves a lot to be desired.

This is the whole idea of Social Security as social insurance - it spreads the risk out over the entire present and former labor force, and doesn’t require Joe Sixpack to be good at something he’s not skilled at.

Joe Sixpack? Now GWB would probably accuse me of demeaning blue-collar workers. Whatever.

I heard Corzone of NJ push this “Social Security is insurance” nonsense on CNN a few months ago. If he means that the whole point of SS is to NOT pay benefits than he may be right.

But if SS is indeed a way to secure one’s retirement then we have to come to grips with the fact that SS was not really created for this purpose and in order to fulfill its goal needs a significant reworking.

Frankly I think SS is both the biggest and best intentioned lie that that we currently suffer under.

Keep in mind that Bush never actually produced a single example of someone who actually made this claim. I think the term for this kind of argument is “straw man”.

Speaking of which, can we get a link to him saying that?

The “brown-skinned” quote?

From here (way down the page):

Corzine was right. At least as far as “social security is insurance” is concerned.