Bannon's doc explores her life and history as a politician, painting her as a warrior who went up against special interests and corruption as she rose from Alaska to the national stage. Interviewing something like 40 Democrats and Independents, the movie finds people who never got the Hope and Change they were promised.
Bannon wrote and directed this one, working with conservative watch dog group Judicial Watch. Check out the trailer here. The movie portrays Occupy as radical, uncontrollable, and dangerous. After that, Rickover became an entrepreneur and nuclear pioneer, building the first commercial nuclear power plant. The documentary, produced by Bannon, appeared on PBS, of all places. One day in while sitting in my LA home, I received a call from a familiar voice who said Bill could meet us at the Polo Lounge on Friday after his show.
As we waited for Maher to arrive, I already felt a rush of excitement from the robust conversation I knew we would have. And robust it was. If you could have been a fly on the wall and heard this conversation, you may have been shocked to learn how reasonable Maher is on some issues.
After all, this is the guy who has made a career of beating up on Republicans weekly, not to mention questioning values like faith in God. Recently Maher spoke out against those who allege America has made no progress toward racial reconciliation.
Maher is absolutely correct. America has the best record of any country as far as assimilating Muslims. American Muslims can leave the religion if they want, come out of the closet if they are gay, marry outside of their religion. You can argue with your husband. Forty countries in the world have some version of Sharia law. Apartheid was only in one. I am not anti-Muslim and never have been: I am anti-bad ideas.
Killing cartoonists and apostates, these are terrible ideas and practices, and it would be lovely to think that they were confined only to terrorists. They unfortunately are not. There are 20, or 30, of them. The countries surrounding ISIS have armies totaling 5 million people. So why do we have to be the ones leading the fight? Or be in the fight at all?
I had to pay legal bills to fight this thing, and lawyers are not cheap. Now President Obama is a different story. It was February — the first election since the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United paved the way for super PACs — and I thought the liberals had absolutely not gotten the memo that the game had changed.
It was really a method to shame the richer liberals. So Silicon Valley billionaires, where are you? Donald Trump can be talked to. The issue that bothers me the most with him is the environment. One White House dinner with Leonardo DiCaprio, the big celebrity environmentalist, is all it would take.
The two supermodel chicks can bond, and Melania will talk to Don that night. Maybe you should listen to him. He does it all the time, and no one seems to care. All of this probably would not have been possible without Sarah Palin. She got the country used to someone on the level of a car show spokesmodel being presidential timber.
John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out. She is beyond parody and beneath contempt.
I was that guy a couple of times. You can find this dispute erupting everywhere. A recent poll found a nearly point partisan gap on the question of whether 12 Years a Slave deserved Best Picture. In it, Atwater described the process by which the conservative message evolved from explicitly racist appeals to implicitly racialized appeals to white economic self-interest:.
Atwater went on to run George H. A long line of social-science research bears out the general point that Atwater made. People have an elemental awareness of race, and we relentlessly process political appeals, even those that do not mention race, in racial terms. The political power of cracking down on crack, or exposing welfare queens, lay in its explosive racial subtext. Once you start looking for racial subtexts embedded within the Republican agenda, they turn up everywhere.
And not always as subtexts. In response to their defeats in and , Republican governors and state legislators in a host of swing states have enacted laws, ostensibly designed to prevent voter fraud, whose actual impact will be to reduce the proportion of votes cast by minorities. A paper found that states were far more likely to enact restrictive voting laws if minority turnout in their state had recently increased. It is likewise hard to imagine the mostly southern states that have refused free federal money to cover the uninsured in their states doing so outside of the racial context—nearly all-white Republican governments are willing and even eager to deny medical care to disproportionately black constituents.
Yet here is the point where, for all its breadth and analytic power, the liberal racial analysis collapses onto itself. It may be true that, at the level of electoral campaign messaging, conservatism and white racial resentment are functionally identical.
It would follow that any conservative argument is an appeal to white racism. That is, indeed, the all-but-explicit conclusion of the ubiquitous Atwater Rosetta-stone confession: Republican politics is fundamentally racist, and even its use of the most abstract economic appeal is a sinister, coded missive. Impressive though the historical, sociological, and psychological evidence undergirding this analysis may be, it also happens to be completely insane.
Whatever Lee Atwater said, or meant to say, advocating tax cuts is not in any meaningful sense racist. One of the greatest triumphs of liberal politics over the past 50 years has been to completely stigmatize open racial discrimination in public life, a lesson that has been driven home over decades by everybody from Jimmy the Greek to Paula Deen.
This achievement has run headlong into an increasing liberal tendency to define conservatism as a form of covert racial discrimination. If conservatism is inextricably entangled with racism, and racism must be extinguished, then the scope for legitimate opposition to Obama shrinks to an uncomfortably small space.
It defies rational resolution in part because it is about secret motives and concealed evil. On September 9, , the president delivered a State of the Union—style speech on health care before Congress.
After a summer of angry tea-party town-hall meetings, Republicans had whipped themselves into a feisty mood. At one point, Obama assured the audience that his health-care law would not cover illegal immigrants. This was true. Over the next few days, several liberals stated what many more believed. It is certainly true that screaming a rebuke to a black president is the sort of thing a racist Republican would do.
One way to isolate the independent variable, and thus to separate out the racism in the outburst, is to compare the treatment of Obama with that of the last Democratic president. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. And also impeached. How easy would it be to argue that Republicans would never do such things to a white president? Yet many, many liberals believe that only race can explain the ferocity of Republican opposition to Obama.
It thus follows that anything Republicans say about Obama that could be explained by racism is probably racism.
0コメント