One of the parents at my daughter’s school is a staunch Republican. I suspect he probably works on Capitol Hill. On his SUV is a bumper sticker with “You Lie” over the Republican symbol. (He has no other stickers, just that one.)
Now, it seems to me that most of the Republicans I’ve spoken to were not terribly proud of the moment in question. Ithardly seems the type of thing that you’d want to randomly remind people of. In fact, when I first saw it, I wondered if he was a Libertarian trying to make a point against the GOP.
I’d like to hear the Dope opinion of this. What would be the motivation? Is it likely to help the party at all?
I’d have thought that putting “You lie” over the Republican elephant was an allegation that the Republicans were liars – and so not very helpful to the GOP cause at all.
Congressman Joe Wilson blurted out “YOU LIE, BOY!” as the president was saying that a government sponsored health plan would not provide coverage for illegal aliens.
Personally, from what I’ve read, the bill as written doesn’t seem to provide it, but at the same time, I don’t see how that would last as time goes by, court decisions, etc.
But that’s a subject for another thread. . . .
ETA: OK, he didn’t actually say “BOY,” but Maureen O’Dowd said that’s the way she interpreted it, and if it’s good enough for her, it’s good enough for me.
I’d read it as tea-bagger chest-thumping. And I’d make some snap assumptions about the driver’s level of compassion, overall intelligence, and critical thinking skills. I’d then make every effort to stay behind that person on the road. Wouldn’t want to get rear-ended.
No – he simply shouted “You Lie!” There was no “Boy” at the end, although some people seemed to think this was implied. I recall this because I specifically asked about this in a thread shortly after it happened – is “You Lie, Boy” a common expression somewhere in the country, so that the “boy” could be “understood”. The consensus was that, in fact, it was not, and the columnist who suggested the “boy” was implied was imposing her own belief. Wilson was guilty of rudeness, but not racism.
Nah, nothing like that. I actually thought her article was kinda funny in its cluelessness, and think some urban legends, misquotes, misattributions are worth perpetuating, at least for comedic effect.
I’m not trying to defend the action itself, but there’s no substantiation for this “boy” bit. It really bothers me that she would say that and that you would have that “be good enough” for you. It’s an insulting diminutive at the least, and racist at the worst. I’ve not heard anyone else imply that’s what Wilson meant.
Maureen Dowd is entitled to interpret the siubtext however she wants, and she did express it as an interpretation, she didn’t try to report it as a fact.
Whether her interpretation is reasonable or not is debatable. Obviously, no one has to agree with her, but I don’t think her interpretation is out of the question, since racial resentments of Obama on the right fringe (and not necessarily just the fringe) are palpable and sometimes overt. I don’t think it’s off the wall to question whether Wilson would have done that to a white President, and while I’m not going to say I know what was in Wilson’s mind, I don’t think it’s crazy to wonder if he felt more entitled (even subconsciously) to yell back at Obama because he was black.