A few months ago, for example, the GOP presidential hopeful responded to questions about contraception access by saying, “If you’re looking for free stuff you don’t have to pay for, vote for the other guy.” Soon after, Romney complained that Obama is trying to buy students’ political support by offering them “free stuff.”There is a pattern to this. If you’re a woman who wants access to preventive care you might not otherwise be able to afford, Romney sees you as wanting “free stuff.” If you’re a young student who can’t afford higher-ed tuition, Romney assumes you expect “free stuff.”And if you’re an African American supporter of the NAACP who wants your family to have access to affordable health care, Romney suspects you’re just looking for “free stuff.”
"I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." Harry S. Truman
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Romney On NAACP Booers: They’re Freeloaders
Monday, November 21, 2011
Obama Didn't Call Americans Lazy -- But Right-Wing Media Routinely Do
Right-Wing Media Claimed Obama Called Americans "Lazy"
President Obama took the nation to task today for being lazy.The comments came during a meeting between the president and CEOs attending the annual Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meetings. The United States is hosting this year's gathering in Hawaii.[...]It's not the first time the president has accused Americans of being lazy. [Fox News Radio via Fox Nation, 11/14/11, via Media Matters]
HANNITY: What do you make of the President? This is not the first time that he's kind of attacked the American people, that you know, the people are a little bit lazy, he spoken a while back about them getting soft, we lost our ambition, our imagination. What do you make of that? Are the American people not smart enough to accept his goodness and greatness? [Fox News, Hannity, 11/15/11, via Nexis]
In Fact, Obama Didn't Call Americans Lazy ...
Republican presidential hopeful Perry takes Obama's comment out of context.Obama was speaking to a group of CEOs about the challenges of attracting foreign investment in the U.S., not about individuals or their economic challenges.[...]Perry is using the comment to portray Obama as out of touch, even contemptuous, of ordinary Americans. [The Associated Press, 11/16/11]
"Can you believe that? That's what our president thinks is wrong with America? That Americans are lazy? That's pathetic," Perry says in the spot that's airing in Iowa and New Hampshire.The only problem: the full context of Obama's remarks made Saturday during a meeting of CEOs in Honolulu indicates he wasn't suggesting that at all.Boeing CEO James McNerney asked Obama about his thinking on the perception by some countries of "impediments to investment" in the U.S.Obama replied that "we've been a little bit lazy" about actively trying to attract private foreign investors to U.S. soil -- referring broadly to American government and business sectors, not the American people themselves. [ABCNews.com, Political Punch, 11/16/11]
In other words, Obama is highlighting a serious problem. Perhaps the phrase "lazy" is a bit overheated, but it clear from the context of Obama's remarks that he is not saying Americans are lazy. He's talking about a trend over a two-decade period that indicates a certain complacency in trying to win business and investment. [The Washington Post,11/21/11]
... But Right-Wing Media Routinely Attack Americans As "Lazy" Or "Having Poor Work Habits"
LOW-INCOME AMERICANS
PAYNE: Krystal [Ball], there's no doubt that these are good programs. I think the real narrative here, though, is that people aren't embarrassed by it. People aren't ashamed by it. In other words, the there was a time when people were embarrassed to be on food stamps; there was a time when people were embarrassed to be on unemployment for six months, let alone demanding to be on it for more than two years. I think that's what Stu is trying to say, is that, when the president says Wall Street is at fault, so, you are entitled to get anything that you want from the government, because it's not really your fault. No longer is the man being told to look in the mirror and cast down a judgment on himself; it's someone else's fault. So food stamps, unemployment, all of this stuff, is something that they probably earned in some indirect way. [Fox Business, Varney & Co., 5/19/11, via Media Matters]
UNEMPLOYED AMERICANS
The people who have been laid off and cannot find work are generally people with poor work habits and poor personalities. I say "generally" because there are exceptions. But in general, as I survey the ranks of those who are unemployed, I see people who have overbearing and unpleasant personalities and/or who do not know how to do a day's work. They are people who create either little utility or negative utility on the job.
UNION WORKERS
OCCUPY WALL STREET PROTESTERS
It is interesting to note that according to the Bible, one of the criteria for receiving aid was a willingness to work. Entitlement was not an option. The Apostle Paul wrote, "For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat."Paul is not being cruel or heartless in this passage. He is expressing a truth that those who are able but unwilling to work should be disqualified from receiving charitable help, thereby allowing their natural need for food to drive their effort to work. This is a profound and often overlooked financial principle.[...]Attitudes toward poverty, debt and entitlement make reaching common ground with those in the Occupy Wall Street movement difficult. Compared to many around the world, they live in relative comfort, with access to food, shelter and liberty. But rather than embracing equal opportunity, they seem to clamor for equal outcomes.[...]Perhaps it is time for the Occupy Wall Street movement to reflect on the words of Paul: "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat."
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION EMPLOYEES
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Glenn Beck's not an anti-Semite -- he's lazy and irresponsible
by Simon Maloy
On June 7, self-styled historian Glenn Beck offered his take on why so many professional historians are speaking out against his own peculiar brand of historical revisionism: "You have to have the letters to be able to say these things. You have to have a PhD. You're not qualified to talk about history. I'm sorry -- really? When did we give this to a bunch of eggheads?" It's classic Beck -- playing the victim against an ill-defined cast of elites conspiring to take him down. It's also classic Beck in that he completely ignored the truth behind the matter -- historians criticize Beck because he's a really bad historian. And Beck lent much credence to their complaints last week when he endorsed one of the anti-communism movement's great anti-Semites.
To recap, Beck got really excited last Friday telling his listeners about this book from the 1930s he was reading called The Red Network, saying that it was the Depression-era version of what he's trying to accomplish today -- namely, the public exposure of all the secret communists supposedly inhabiting the Democratic administration. Unmentioned by Beck was that the author of the book, Elizabeth Dilling, was a wildly anti-Semitic supporter of Germany's Nazi regime, and that The Red Network itself contains more than its share of racist and anti-Jewish invective.
But that's clearly not what attracted Beck to the book. What prompted him to talk it up and wave it around for all to see was its staunch and frequently hysterical anti-communism. Indeed, The Red Network boasts fire-breathing attacks on the "progressives" in the Roosevelt White House and claims a "Communist-Socialist world conspiracy ... is boring within our churches, schools and government and is undermining America like a cancerous growth." That kind of stuff is right in Beck's nutty wheelhouse, though he'd be hard-pressed to explain how he managed to read the book and somehow not notice its attacks on Judaism as a "cult," or its several attempts to blame Russian Jews for Nazi Germany's anti-Semitism.
And that gets to the nub of things -- did Beck even read the book before promoting it on the air? He clearly knew of and approved of its stance on communism (he was impressed by its attacks on the "radical" NEA, in particular) and based on that he blessed it with his imprimatur. One would like to think that a real historian (or really anyone interested in an accurate retelling of the past) would read a book all the way through before promoting it as an important historical document, or at least do a little background research to make sure that the author isn't, for example, a Nazi.
But that's not how Beck operates. Instead, he finds material that reinforces his worldview, adopts its ideas as his own, and then gleefully foists it onto his audience. We saw the same thing happen with W. Cleon Skousen's The 5,000-Year Leap and R.J. Pestritto's Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism. Beck read those books and suddenly he started spouting off on the divinity of the Founding Fathers and the evils of the Wilson administration. He doesn't think; he regurgitates. And in this instance he got burned.
What's more, Beck knows he got burned, but he isn't about to admit it or apologize. On Monday he tried to weasel his way out of it by saying that it's ridiculous for "the left" to call him an "anti-Semite" when they also, allegedly, call him a "Jew lover." Once again, classic Beck -- ignoring what actually got him into trouble and instead playing the victim.
Make no mistake, Beck is deserving of all the criticism he gets. But calling him an anti-Semite misses the point: Beck wasn't espousing anti-Semitism, he was being his typically lazy and incurious self, and that irresponsibility resulted in an accidental endorsement of anti-Semitism. And for that he owes all of us an apology.
