It's an interesting list, and worth repeating:
But we don’t have to wait for the politicians. You and I can start right here by calling bullshit every time someone says:
Obama isn’t a citizen
Obama is a Muslim
Obama is an angry black nationalist
Obama is anti-American
Obama is raising your taxes
Obama wants to confiscate your guns
Obama wants to take your child to reeducation camps
Obama wants to replace US currency
Obama is a terrorist sympathizer
Obama is violating the (x)th Amendment
“They must be stopped”
“We surround them”
If you want to be “center right” you need to earn it.
Two initial comments: (1) I don't aspire to be center/right. If anything I am generally considered a left Libertarian, but Delaware Liberal carries my blog as conservative, but I'm not a Democrat, a liberal, or a progressive, so I guess he's also talking to me. (2) If I, or anyone else, called bullshit every single time somebody raises one of these issues we'd get to write about nothing else. So my standard is to have gone on record consistently against an issue; I don't promise you every time someone says, "Show me the birth certificate" that I'm going to take time to post about it.
Having said that, let's go down the list:
Obama isn’t a citizen: done it; condemned it in several posts, and have even gotten into pissing contests with other Libertarian blogs about it.
Obama is a Muslim: ditto.
Obama is an angry black nationalist: I was the first and to date only Delaware blogger of any political persuasion to run a post (and stand by it) saying that Obama should not dis-own Reverend Wright, and asserting that black liberation theology was a legitimate Christian variant.
Obama is anti-American: rebutted on many occasions, even though I differ with him profoundly on what will be good for America.
Obama is raising your taxes: Sorry, Noman, this is a policy issue--and President Obama is raising my taxes (or, with cap and trade, health care, etc. etc., has plans to do so). To point out that fact is within the bounds of reasonable political discourse.
Obama wants to confiscate your guns: I have covered my disagreements with his gun control policies, but (again) I courted severe criticism from other Libertarians for saying Obama wasn't coming for everybody's guns. There is a fine line here between policy and nuttery with the 2nd Amendment that goes far left and far right.
Obama wants to take your child to reeducation camps: to date I am the only Delaware blogger to run an independently researched debunking of the FEMA camps myth. But that doesn't mean I can't disagree with the Obama/Emmanuel call for mandatory national service.
Obama wants to replace US currency: I've run posts carefully examining the proposed IMF international reserve currency and what it means in geopolitical terms, while taking gleeful swipes at Michelle Bachmann. Good enough for you?
Obama is a terrorist sympathizer: if anything, I have criticized Obama for being too much like Bush when it comes to actual tactics, both legal and military.
Obama is violating the (x)th Amendment: Another policy argument. The telecom positions taken by AG Holder, the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, and the Obama administration's insistence that the judiciary has no right to review its decisions on excluding evidence from Gitmo trials are all at least potential violations of the 4th and 5th Amendments, and I will continue to discuss them. I'm not a 10th Amendment fetishist in the sense that you talk about in other comments, nor do I condone those folks who believe the 14th Amendment was never ratified.
“They must be stopped”: Too vague to really be useful unless accompanied by something more specific.
“We surround them”: I have tried to understand the fears of the people being sucked into this, but I have also ridiculed it extensively.
You want proof? Sorry. Go check the archives; it's all there. If you look and don't find it--ask specifically.
Here's the point: neither I nor Dave Burris nor Mike Matthews nor Dana Garrett need to earn anything from people of different political persuasions. We put our views out there on a daily basis, and to those of you with the everybody who disagrees with us needs to prove their intellectual bonafides attitude it doesn't matter.
It will never matter.
Because deep at heart many (not all) progressive and liberal bloggers in Delaware and across the nation do not accept any other intellectual/political points of view as legitimate--and feel just as free to impugn the patriotism, ethics, or intellect of anybody who refuses to accept an argument on their terms as the worst of the right-wing noise machine.
There is a difference--I am not making an equivalency argument here: in any populist rhetoric there is always the veiled appeal to classism, to prejudice, to implied violence. The original Populist movement, which today is regarded as a pretty leftist phenomenon, was riddled with racism. The original Progressives made all sorts of truly offensive assumptions about certain socio-economic strata of American citizenry, and wanted to take their decision-making powers away from them (for their own good).
Right-wing radical populism, which is what we're seeing now, almost always produces more individual political violence than left-wing radical populism (the sixties were a notable exception).
One of the key elements of paranoia in radical populism is the fear that your opponents are organizing the resources of the State to get you.
The problem: Dubya--himself a radical right-winger--created many of the necessary mechanisms for the State to do so, and the Obama administration shows little or no inclination to dismantle these powers. It has, in fact, gone to court to maintain several of them.
To people who are already disaffected and suspicious, this seems like an overt act in and of itself.
But to many of our liberal and progressive friends it now appears that the best way to advance their agenda is to tar anybody who disagrees with them as part of the disintegrating Old Confederacy and Buffalo Commons (the GOP) as either advocating or tacitly supported violence and prejudice.
Meanwhile, ask yourself: where in the Delaware blogosphere have there been substantive, policy-based criticisms of the Obama foreign policy? Not at DL. Where have there been serious non-Keynesian analyses of Obama's proposed economic policies? Not at DL.
Noman, unfortunately, it doesn't matter whether or how many times Dave Burris denounces Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.
It only pretty much matters that he opposes EFCA. It only matters that he opposes massive stimulus spending. It only matters that he favors following legal strategies to restrict the growth of Federal power. It only matters that he thinks Governor Markell should have gotten rid of about 1,000 State workers hired during the Minner administration. It only matters that he opposes the current prevailing wage policy.
These opinions--and not any real or perceived support for anti-government violence--are what make him the target for individuals who are not happy with countering his policy arguments, but who instead resort to distorting what he writes in order to suggest that anyone who holds those positions is, in fact, dangerous.
Oh, and as for Dave's little comment that it's a good thing the law restricts him from going after jason in some substantive physical way, I love the hypocrisy of the critics.
What Dave essentially said is: You made me so angry that I really want to punch you out, but the law deters me from doing so.
Really, really dangerous stuff that: I get mad but I obey the law.
Obviously the man is out there fomenting revolution.
As am I.