Warning: Racism Is Bad for Your Health
By Elizabeth Page-Gould, Greater Good
Posted on August 11, 2010, Printed on August 13, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/147814/
When we think about the victims of racism, we typically think of the immediate targets of racial prejudice: Those who have suffered at the hand of discrimination and oppression. But new research has identified another, unlikely group of victims: the racists themselves.
In the urban metropolises of the United States and Canada, it is almost impossible to avoid talking to someone of another race. So imagine the toll it would take if every time you did, your body responded with an acute stress reaction: You experience a surge in stress hormones, and your heart pumps harder while your blood vessels constrict, inhibiting the flow of blood to your limbs and brain.
These types of bodily reactions are helpful in truly dangerous situations, but a number of recent studies have found that racially prejudiced people experience them even during benign social interactions with people of different races. This means that just navigating the supermarket, coffee shop, or modern workplace can be stressful for them. And if the racist person then has to go through this every single day, the repeated stress can become a chronic problem, which places them at heightened risk for disease in later life.
Harboring prejudice, it seems, may be bad for your health.
Challenge vs. threat
The human body is incredibly adaptive to stressful situations. But our nervous system reacts very differently to stressful situations we perceive as challenges than to those we see as threats. It’s a distinction that, in the long run, could mean the difference between life and death for people with racial prejudices.
Challenges incite a sequence of physiological responses that send more blood to our muscles and brains, enhancing our physical and cognitive performance. Threats, on the other hand, set off a physiological response that restricts our blood flow and releases the hormone cortisol, which breaks down muscle tissue and halts digestive processes so that the body can quickly muster the energy it needs to confront the threat. Over time, these responses wear down muscles, including the heart, and damage the immune system.
In other words, facing challenges is good for you; facing threats is not. And whether you perceive interracial interactions as a challenge or a threat may be the key to thriving in a multicultural society.
In one study, Wendy Berry Mendes, Jim Blascovich, and their colleagues invited European-American men into the laboratory to engage in social interactions with African-American men or with men of the same race as themselves. The participants were hooked up to equipment that measured the responses of their autonomic nervous system while they played the game Boggle with their white or black partners.
More on Are We Born Racist?
Read more about the book, or order your copy Read Susan Fiske's essay on the new science of racism Read Allison Briscoe-Smith's essay on teaching tolerance to kids
When interacting with African-American partners, the white men tended to respond as to a physiological threat, marked by diminished blood pumped through the heart and constriction of the circulatory system. However, European Americans who had positive experiences with African Americans in the past responded as though the game posed a challenge—increased blood pumped by the heart and dilation of the circulatory system.
This is not an isolated result. In a study with Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton and Linda Tropp, I randomly paired European-American and Latino participants into same-race and cross-race pairs and had them disclose personal information to each other. At the beginning and end of the social interaction, participants provided saliva samples so we could measure their cortisol responses to the social interactions.
Both Latino and European American participants who scored high on a measure of automatic prejudice—the degree to which you associate certain ethnic groups with the concepts of “bad” and “good”—had increases in cortisol during the friendly interaction with a cross-race partner, but produced less cortisol when interacting with a same-race partner. By comparison, participants who were low in prejudice were not stressed during either cross-race or same-race interactions.
In other words, prejudiced individuals perceived partners of a different race as a physical threat, even though they were in a safe laboratory setting and engaging in a task that was structured to build closeness between the participant pairs. This was true for both Latino and European-American participants who were prejudiced. Imagine these same individuals trying to negotiate a racially diverse street scene or meeting at work.
In another study, Wendy Berry Mendes and her colleagues invited European Americans to take a survey over the Internet, measuring their levels of automatic prejudice against African Americans. These white participants were then invited to a laboratory where either European Americans or African Americans evaluated participants, as if in a job interview.
Again, as in the study I did with my colleagues, cortisol spiked in the relatively racist participants—and at the same time, their bodies released low levels of DHEA-S, a hormone that helps repair tissue damage caused by the taxing “flight or fight” response. In contrast, the more egalitarian participants—those who scored low in automatic prejudice—responded to the interracial interaction with greater increases in DHEA-S than cortisol, which suggests that they saw the evaluation more as a healthy challenge than as a threat.
A healthy society?
The bottom line is clear: Harboring racist feelings in a multicultural society causes daily stress; this kind of stress can lead to chronic problems like cancer, hypertension, and Type II diabetes. But interracial interactions are not inherently stressful. Low-prejudice people show markedly different physiological responses during interracial interactions. In all three of these studies, people who had positive attitudes about people of other races responded to interracial interactions in ways that were happy, healthy, and adaptive.
These positive attitudes can be learned; prejudiced people are not doomed to be that way forever. In my own study with Latino and European-American participants, we randomly assigned racist participants—those who were measurably stressed out by simple cross-race conversations—to complete a series of friendship-building tasks over several weeks with people of a different race. Over the next several weeks, we watched cortisol levels diminish in prejudiced participants, a trend that lasted throughout the friendship meetings. Furthermore, in the 10 days following their final friendship meeting, prejudiced participants who had made a cross-race friend in the lab sought out more daily interracial interactions afterward.
It’s that simple: Building friendships with people of other races seems to eliminate unhealthy stress responses, so that each new interaction can be greeted as a challenge instead of a threat. In a racially diverse society, those who feel comfortable with people of other races are at an advantage over those who do not.
These results have profound implications for the way we design our neighborhoods and institutions; indeed, they suggest that race-mixing policies like affirmative action might be just as good for white people as for people of color. The future health of racist people is not set in stone. If they’re willing to take the first step and reach out to people of other groups in a friendly way, they may learn to thrive in a society that is increasingly diverse.
Elizabeth Page-Gould, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. Her essay is featured in the new Greater Good anthology, Are We Born Racist? New Insights from Neuroscience and Positive Psychology, published by Beacon Press.
© 2010 Greater Good All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/147814/
Friday, August 13, 2010
Ramping Up the Birthright Battle
Ramping up the birthright battle
By Michael Gerson
Friday, August 13, 2010; A19
The final state to ratify the 14th Amendment was Ohio -- in September 2003. The Ohio Legislature had passed the amendment in 1867 but rescinded its approval a year later, claiming it was "contrary to the best interests of the white race." When Ohio finally rectified this embarrassing bit of history, just one legislator -- Republican state Rep. Tom Brinkman from Cincinnati -- voted against it. His opposition was viewed as an isolated curiosity.
Now another Ohio politician, Rep. John Boehner, the House minority leader, questions the centerpiece commitment of the 14th Amendment: birthright citizenship. He is joined by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), along with Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
The amendment reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This is not the only place in the Constitution where birth is decisive. Any "natural born citizen" who meets age and residency requirements can be elected president.
Critics of birthright citizenship are in revolt against the plain meaning of words. They sometimes assert that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" must exclude illegal immigrants. It doesn't. Undocumented immigrants and their children are fully subject to American laws. The idea of "jurisdiction" had a specific meaning in the congressional debate surrounding approval of the 14th Amendment. "The language was designed," says historian Garrett Epps, "to exclude two and only two groups: (1) children of diplomats accredited to the United States and (2) members of Indian tribes who maintained quasi-sovereign status under federal Indian law."
Advocates for bloodline citizenship respond: How could the authors of the 14th Amendment have intended to extend citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants when, in 1868, America had no laws restricting immigration and thus no illegal immigrants? This betrays a thin knowledge of history. In 1868, there were a variety of federal laws that restricted naturalization to whites and established waiting periods for citizenship.
Civil War America did not lack for unpopular immigrants. The 1860 Census found that 13.2 percent of the U.S. population was foreign-born. The figure today is 12.3 percent. During the debate over the 14th Amendment, Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania complained that birthright citizenship would include Gypsies, "who pay no taxes; who never perform military service; who do nothing, in fact, which becomes the citizen." Others objected that the children of Chinese laborers would be covered. Supporters of the 14th Amendment conceded both cases -- and defended them. Said Sen. John Conness of California: "We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others."
The Radical Republicans who wrote the 14th Amendment were, in fact, quite radical. They were critical not just of the Confederacy's view of citizenship but also of the Constitution's original silence on the issue, which, in their view, betrayed the promise of the Declaration of Independence. Their main goal was expressed in birthright citizenship: to prevent a future majority from stealing the rights of children of any background, as long as they were born in America.
Today's dispute over birthright citizenship reveals the immigration debate in its starkest form. Usually, opponents of illegal immigration speak of giving lawbreakers what they deserve. But this does not apply in the case of an infant. Consider two newborn babies at, say, Parkland Hospital in Dallas. One is the child of citizens, the other of illegal immigrants. Critics of birthright citizenship look at the child of immigrants and feel . . . disturbed? Outraged? But why? Do they see a child somehow tainted by illegality? That hardly seems fair. A burden on resources? No more than any other poor child. An alien lacking allegiance? How could they possibly know? Why not a soldier, or an entrepreneur, or, as the Constitution specifically permits, a president?
For nearly a century and a half, Americans have taken the view that these two children at Parkland start their lives as equals. They acquire their rights not because of their parentage or their bloodline or the permission of politicians but because they are born in the United States.
The radical, humane vision of the 14th Amendment can be put another way: No child born in America can be judged unworthy by John Boehner, because each is his equal.
michaelgerson@washpost.com
By Michael Gerson
Friday, August 13, 2010; A19
The final state to ratify the 14th Amendment was Ohio -- in September 2003. The Ohio Legislature had passed the amendment in 1867 but rescinded its approval a year later, claiming it was "contrary to the best interests of the white race." When Ohio finally rectified this embarrassing bit of history, just one legislator -- Republican state Rep. Tom Brinkman from Cincinnati -- voted against it. His opposition was viewed as an isolated curiosity.
Now another Ohio politician, Rep. John Boehner, the House minority leader, questions the centerpiece commitment of the 14th Amendment: birthright citizenship. He is joined by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), along with Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
The amendment reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This is not the only place in the Constitution where birth is decisive. Any "natural born citizen" who meets age and residency requirements can be elected president.
Critics of birthright citizenship are in revolt against the plain meaning of words. They sometimes assert that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" must exclude illegal immigrants. It doesn't. Undocumented immigrants and their children are fully subject to American laws. The idea of "jurisdiction" had a specific meaning in the congressional debate surrounding approval of the 14th Amendment. "The language was designed," says historian Garrett Epps, "to exclude two and only two groups: (1) children of diplomats accredited to the United States and (2) members of Indian tribes who maintained quasi-sovereign status under federal Indian law."
Advocates for bloodline citizenship respond: How could the authors of the 14th Amendment have intended to extend citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants when, in 1868, America had no laws restricting immigration and thus no illegal immigrants? This betrays a thin knowledge of history. In 1868, there were a variety of federal laws that restricted naturalization to whites and established waiting periods for citizenship.
Civil War America did not lack for unpopular immigrants. The 1860 Census found that 13.2 percent of the U.S. population was foreign-born. The figure today is 12.3 percent. During the debate over the 14th Amendment, Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania complained that birthright citizenship would include Gypsies, "who pay no taxes; who never perform military service; who do nothing, in fact, which becomes the citizen." Others objected that the children of Chinese laborers would be covered. Supporters of the 14th Amendment conceded both cases -- and defended them. Said Sen. John Conness of California: "We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others."
The Radical Republicans who wrote the 14th Amendment were, in fact, quite radical. They were critical not just of the Confederacy's view of citizenship but also of the Constitution's original silence on the issue, which, in their view, betrayed the promise of the Declaration of Independence. Their main goal was expressed in birthright citizenship: to prevent a future majority from stealing the rights of children of any background, as long as they were born in America.
Today's dispute over birthright citizenship reveals the immigration debate in its starkest form. Usually, opponents of illegal immigration speak of giving lawbreakers what they deserve. But this does not apply in the case of an infant. Consider two newborn babies at, say, Parkland Hospital in Dallas. One is the child of citizens, the other of illegal immigrants. Critics of birthright citizenship look at the child of immigrants and feel . . . disturbed? Outraged? But why? Do they see a child somehow tainted by illegality? That hardly seems fair. A burden on resources? No more than any other poor child. An alien lacking allegiance? How could they possibly know? Why not a soldier, or an entrepreneur, or, as the Constitution specifically permits, a president?
For nearly a century and a half, Americans have taken the view that these two children at Parkland start their lives as equals. They acquire their rights not because of their parentage or their bloodline or the permission of politicians but because they are born in the United States.
The radical, humane vision of the 14th Amendment can be put another way: No child born in America can be judged unworthy by John Boehner, because each is his equal.
michaelgerson@washpost.com
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Groupthink - A Conservative, Neo-Republican Hallnark
When you try to surround yourself with people who believe what you believe, you end up with groupthink, which is how Bush and his neoconservative handlers managed to get the country into two unnecessary wars and nation building projects. They were so right and so smart that there wasn't any way that things could go really wrong. Now, a trillion or so dollars later, the lid is still off these Pandora's boxes. The following negative outcomes of groupthnk pretty much sum up Bush's administrations and would be the hallmark of any neo-Republican (see: Beck and Palin) administration.
Examining few alternatives
Not being critical of each other's ideas
Not examining early alternatives
Not seeking expert opinion
Being highly selective in gathering information
Not having contingency plans
Examining few alternatives
Not being critical of each other's ideas
Not examining early alternatives
Not seeking expert opinion
Being highly selective in gathering information
Not having contingency plans
Friday, February 19, 2010
From Twitter - Just In
When Ron Paul rhetorically asked at CPAC 10 what the Republican Party should stand for, someone yelled out, "White power!"
CPAC = Conservative Political Action Committee.
WOW just WOW. The negative karma rolls on.
CPAC = Conservative Political Action Committee.
WOW just WOW. The negative karma rolls on.
True Store - Debbie Taylor Cooke
True Story by Debbie Taylor Cooke
Someone who I am honored to call a friend
The other day I was out walking when I was approached by a familiar face. His mom, brother and a friend where in the distance. I had seen and spoken to all of them many times. I knew he looked annoyed, but I figured I would ignore it. He started voicing his unhappiness until he sounded violent. His family and friend heard him and they ran over and started getting really mad and violent also. His mother is usually the nicest lady, but she figured if her son was upset that she should be upset also. I did not understand their anger and I tried to walk on. They all started grabbing at me to get my attention and I slipped. They got even angrier and grabbed at by coat and legs, ripping my coat. I am a person that doesn't believe in fighting, but knew I had to get up and away. I had a bag with a box in my hand and started swinging it at them to get them to leave me alone and called for help. They backed off ......when their owner my friend came out and they all calmed down immediately . They are dogs. How many times do we do the same thing? Getting upset without even knowing why, following a crowd or friends. Getting caught up in others fear, to the point we could do and say what is not in our human nature. Think before we lash out at others whether it is a political party, or someone else's drama. I am lucky that it only took a kind voice to shift the situation I was in, and bring everyone back to the moment. The next time you hear someone in anger, maybe your voice is the voice to bring them back into the moment. The moment to feel compassion.
Someone who I am honored to call a friend
The other day I was out walking when I was approached by a familiar face. His mom, brother and a friend where in the distance. I had seen and spoken to all of them many times. I knew he looked annoyed, but I figured I would ignore it. He started voicing his unhappiness until he sounded violent. His family and friend heard him and they ran over and started getting really mad and violent also. His mother is usually the nicest lady, but she figured if her son was upset that she should be upset also. I did not understand their anger and I tried to walk on. They all started grabbing at me to get my attention and I slipped. They got even angrier and grabbed at by coat and legs, ripping my coat. I am a person that doesn't believe in fighting, but knew I had to get up and away. I had a bag with a box in my hand and started swinging it at them to get them to leave me alone and called for help. They backed off ......when their owner my friend came out and they all calmed down immediately . They are dogs. How many times do we do the same thing? Getting upset without even knowing why, following a crowd or friends. Getting caught up in others fear, to the point we could do and say what is not in our human nature. Think before we lash out at others whether it is a political party, or someone else's drama. I am lucky that it only took a kind voice to shift the situation I was in, and bring everyone back to the moment. The next time you hear someone in anger, maybe your voice is the voice to bring them back into the moment. The moment to feel compassion.
The anti-Crist comes to CPA-- info taken from, Washington Post
Do not elect this man, please.
When will there be a progressive, liberal, Cuban in politics?
These conservative Cubans are ruled by fear & anger. Being a Cuban myself this makes me sad, but I continue to work at making more people aware that fear & anger produce only negativity and despair. The hatred stated by this young person below is a reflection of this and you can palpate it as you read his quotes.
- Margarita
Republican Marco Rubio is anti-Crist challenging Florida governor in Senate The anti-Crist came to Washington on Thursday.
In the ballroom of the Marriott Wardman Park, they acted as if he were the Messiah. His name: Marco Rubio, the far-right challenger to Florida Gov. Charlie Crist in that state's Republican Senate primary. He was the kickoff speaker at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, and he delivered just the message they wanted to hear: anti-taxes, pro Gitmo, anti-Obama, pro-waterboarding.
The 38-year-old Cuban American vowed to fight "every step of the way" against President Obama and Democrats who want to "abandon America's free enterprise economy" and "convert America into a submissive member of the international community."
The audience erupted in cheers of "Marco! Marco!"
"That 'Marco' cheer always worries me, because I'm always afraid that someone is going to starting screaming, 'Polo,' " he joked, referring to the swimming-pool game.
Moments later, he was talking about the need to kill terrorists and capture survivors.
"Waterboard them!" an audience member shouted.
The anti-Crist smiled. "Remember the Marco Polo thing I told you?" His audience howled. "We will get useful information from them," Rubio went on, to more cheers, "and then we will bring them to justice in front of a military tribunal in Guantanamo!"
The house went wild.
Celebrating the infamous military prison once would have been extraordinary -- even President George W. Bush said he wanted to close it -- but the delight about waterboarding and Gitmo served as a reminder of where the conservative movement has gone.
Rubio and the other CPAC speakers positioned themselves as outsiders to the political establishment -- Rubio derided the "political class," while others condemned the "Washington establishment" and the "political establishment" -- but in reality conservatives have become the political establishment, or at least the Republican establishment.
The chairman of the Republican National Committee describes himself as a "tea partier." Republican lawmakers in both houses of Congress have voted with near unanimity against every item Obama has proposed, and even the few moderates remaining have been forced to march in unison out of fear of a conservative primary challenger. The Republican Party has quit the country club for CPAC.
"I've been criticized by some of my Republican colleagues for saying I'd rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who believe in the principles of freedom than 60 who don't believe in anything," Sen. Jim DeMint (S.C.) boasted to Thursday's crowd. "Let me make myself even clearer: I'd rather have 30 Marco Rubios in the Senate than 60 Arlen Specters."
As the huge crowd was still streaming in, Cleta Mitchell of the American Conservative Union Foundation opened the conference with the words, "Welcome to the vast right-wing conspiracy." Later, former vice president Dick Cheney made a surprise appearance, joining his daughter Liz and delivering his forecast that Obama will be "a one-term president." Mitt Romney pronounced the Democrats "liberal neo-monarchists."
DeMint treated the assembly to accusations that the Democrats are sponsoring "discredited socialist policies that have been the enemy of freedom for centuries." He warned that the nation is "teetering toward tyranny," made reference to his famous quote that Obama would meet his "Waterloo," and said of the president: "Just because you are good on TV doesn't mean you can sell socialism to freedom-loving Americans."
But the real star was the Florida Senate candidate. Even before Rubio took the stage, the crowd booed Crist's name when DeMint mentioned it in his introduction. The devil may wear Prada, but the anti-Crist wore a flag pin on his lapel, a Bush-blue tie and a boyish smile. He flashed a victory sign and then began a speech that had so much red meat it was raw.
The blizzards in Washington may have been "the best thing to happen to the American economy in 12 months," Rubio said, because "Congress couldn't meet to vote," the "regulatory agencies couldn't meet to set any regulations" and Obama "couldn't find anywhere to set up a teleprompter to announce new taxes."
He described Obama and the Democrats' worldview: opposing capitalism, blaming the United States for terrorists, and using "a severe recession as an excuse to implement the statist policies that they have longed for."
But no more. "From tea parties to the election in Massachusetts, we are witnessing the single greatest political pushback in American history," he exulted, adding that "2010 is a referendum on the very identity of our nation."
The anti-Crist took a shot at his rival and the shrinking band of Republican moderates. "America already has a Democrat party; it doesn't need two Democrat parties," he said. Rubio's agenda: across-the-board tax cuts, lower corporate tax rates, and abolishing taxes on capital gains, dividends, interest and inheritance. Oh, and reducing the debt, too.
The crowd reacted as if the anti-Crist had preached the gospel. A man wearing a tricorn hat and carrying a Don't Tread On Me flag repeatedly shouted "Amen!" A woman yelled "Praise God!" And the others leapt to their feet in waves of ovations.
"I was standing backstage with tears," DeMint told the crowd after Rubio's speech. "What a treasure."
When will there be a progressive, liberal, Cuban in politics?
These conservative Cubans are ruled by fear & anger. Being a Cuban myself this makes me sad, but I continue to work at making more people aware that fear & anger produce only negativity and despair. The hatred stated by this young person below is a reflection of this and you can palpate it as you read his quotes.
- Margarita
Republican Marco Rubio is anti-Crist challenging Florida governor in Senate The anti-Crist came to Washington on Thursday.
In the ballroom of the Marriott Wardman Park, they acted as if he were the Messiah. His name: Marco Rubio, the far-right challenger to Florida Gov. Charlie Crist in that state's Republican Senate primary. He was the kickoff speaker at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, and he delivered just the message they wanted to hear: anti-taxes, pro Gitmo, anti-Obama, pro-waterboarding.
The 38-year-old Cuban American vowed to fight "every step of the way" against President Obama and Democrats who want to "abandon America's free enterprise economy" and "convert America into a submissive member of the international community."
The audience erupted in cheers of "Marco! Marco!"
"That 'Marco' cheer always worries me, because I'm always afraid that someone is going to starting screaming, 'Polo,' " he joked, referring to the swimming-pool game.
Moments later, he was talking about the need to kill terrorists and capture survivors.
"Waterboard them!" an audience member shouted.
The anti-Crist smiled. "Remember the Marco Polo thing I told you?" His audience howled. "We will get useful information from them," Rubio went on, to more cheers, "and then we will bring them to justice in front of a military tribunal in Guantanamo!"
The house went wild.
Celebrating the infamous military prison once would have been extraordinary -- even President George W. Bush said he wanted to close it -- but the delight about waterboarding and Gitmo served as a reminder of where the conservative movement has gone.
Rubio and the other CPAC speakers positioned themselves as outsiders to the political establishment -- Rubio derided the "political class," while others condemned the "Washington establishment" and the "political establishment" -- but in reality conservatives have become the political establishment, or at least the Republican establishment.
The chairman of the Republican National Committee describes himself as a "tea partier." Republican lawmakers in both houses of Congress have voted with near unanimity against every item Obama has proposed, and even the few moderates remaining have been forced to march in unison out of fear of a conservative primary challenger. The Republican Party has quit the country club for CPAC.
"I've been criticized by some of my Republican colleagues for saying I'd rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who believe in the principles of freedom than 60 who don't believe in anything," Sen. Jim DeMint (S.C.) boasted to Thursday's crowd. "Let me make myself even clearer: I'd rather have 30 Marco Rubios in the Senate than 60 Arlen Specters."
As the huge crowd was still streaming in, Cleta Mitchell of the American Conservative Union Foundation opened the conference with the words, "Welcome to the vast right-wing conspiracy." Later, former vice president Dick Cheney made a surprise appearance, joining his daughter Liz and delivering his forecast that Obama will be "a one-term president." Mitt Romney pronounced the Democrats "liberal neo-monarchists."
DeMint treated the assembly to accusations that the Democrats are sponsoring "discredited socialist policies that have been the enemy of freedom for centuries." He warned that the nation is "teetering toward tyranny," made reference to his famous quote that Obama would meet his "Waterloo," and said of the president: "Just because you are good on TV doesn't mean you can sell socialism to freedom-loving Americans."
But the real star was the Florida Senate candidate. Even before Rubio took the stage, the crowd booed Crist's name when DeMint mentioned it in his introduction. The devil may wear Prada, but the anti-Crist wore a flag pin on his lapel, a Bush-blue tie and a boyish smile. He flashed a victory sign and then began a speech that had so much red meat it was raw.
The blizzards in Washington may have been "the best thing to happen to the American economy in 12 months," Rubio said, because "Congress couldn't meet to vote," the "regulatory agencies couldn't meet to set any regulations" and Obama "couldn't find anywhere to set up a teleprompter to announce new taxes."
He described Obama and the Democrats' worldview: opposing capitalism, blaming the United States for terrorists, and using "a severe recession as an excuse to implement the statist policies that they have longed for."
But no more. "From tea parties to the election in Massachusetts, we are witnessing the single greatest political pushback in American history," he exulted, adding that "2010 is a referendum on the very identity of our nation."
The anti-Crist took a shot at his rival and the shrinking band of Republican moderates. "America already has a Democrat party; it doesn't need two Democrat parties," he said. Rubio's agenda: across-the-board tax cuts, lower corporate tax rates, and abolishing taxes on capital gains, dividends, interest and inheritance. Oh, and reducing the debt, too.
The crowd reacted as if the anti-Crist had preached the gospel. A man wearing a tricorn hat and carrying a Don't Tread On Me flag repeatedly shouted "Amen!" A woman yelled "Praise God!" And the others leapt to their feet in waves of ovations.
"I was standing backstage with tears," DeMint told the crowd after Rubio's speech. "What a treasure."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)