Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« US Talking To The Insurgents | Main | The Power Behind Jeff Gannon »

February 25, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e200d83458578b69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference We Would Like To Help Ted Rall...:

» The Rall Challenge: Another Gauntlet is Thrown from Decision '08
JustOneMinute, in typically forward-thinking fashion, issues a counterchallenge: find examples of positive, uplifting statements about our country being unified in the goal of a better tomorrow. I'll take the opportunity to answer this latest challen... [Read More]

» Quick Hits from QandO
Such language will likely earn a fellow a paycheck -- reference: Michael Savage and Ann Coulter -- but it remains a part of the problem, and not the solution. Tom Maguire, on the other hand, points to the solution... [Read More]

Comments

Gerry

Can we tattle on ourselves? I am about as conservative as they come.

Let's see, here are some kind words for Barney Frank. here, here, here, and here.

I compliment Hillary here, saying that the country would be better off if more Democrats tried to follow her lead. I also give her credit (although I do qualify it with "amazingly enough") for her doing some of the 'hard work' needed to overcome the rabid, reflexive anti-religious bigotry of the left here. And here I compliment her in a brief one liner, but the context was lost (the article linked is no longer up at the NY Post; dumb rookie blogger didn't ever think about that. I think it was about Schumer and other NY Dems kissing the ring of Lenora Fulani, but Hillary basically calling her a fanatic).

Now, I ain't the biggest dog in the hunt, but I do ok (especially around election time), but it is not all that hard to tip one's hat to a political foe when they do well. Heck, some polite golf applause won't kill anyone, either.


GT

I think there is a level of hate in parts of the Right, in particular with respect to Iraq where any dissent is equated with treason, not just saying the other guy is wrong but that he is a traitor, that has, AFAIK, no real counterpart on the Left today.

You've seen that in many of the commentsright here in your blog.

TM

Gerry, shameless self-promotion is the life's blood of blogging (my kind, anyway). Good job.

GT: no real counterpart on the Left today.

Obviously, opinions differ. And, paraphrasing one fellow who responded to you, most righties have been able to go to any (OK, many) lefty sites on the blog and be welcomed as a racist, homophobic, greedy, uncaring, hypocritical, warmongering SOBs.

Possibly you have not had that experience, or noticed it happening to others.

GT

Oh, I've seen that. I think there are insults and ad hominems on both sides. No doubt.

But is there an equivalent on the Left of Glenn Reynolds, a law professor for God's sake!, saying that Ted Kennedy may be a traitor?

Gerry

I take offense to that! I have shame! I have much shame! OK, maybe not much, but some! A little...

"Mindles H. Dreck"

"But is there an equivalent on the Left of Glenn Reynolds, a law professor for God's sake!, saying that Ted Kennedy may be a traitor?"

Fish in a barrel. Courtesy of Polipundit, there's Dick Gephardt, a Congressperson, for God's sake:

“[Bush has] declared war on the American people.”

GT

I was asking about bloggers, not politicians. I know politicians say all kinds of outrageous things, on both sides. But, supposedly, bloggers, especially the top name bloggers, are dedicated to a more rational discourse.

Buster

It all depends on whose cat is doing the cracking. If I say "Ted Kennedy is a bloated sow" those on the left probably take that as an ad hominem attack, however I see it as fact. Ted Rall is simply something that dropped out of Kennedy's corrupt ass.

That may or may not be factual, but the smell is the same.

"Mindles H. Dreck"

GT - your moving goalposts. However, how about Kos' infamous "Screw 'em" comment? He is THE top-name blogger by some accounts. Oh - I'm sure you'll find some way to disqualify that as well. After all, he was a paid campaign flack blah blah blah.

You of all people should know that this "it's worse on the left/right" crap is just that. Ideologies change, definitions of left/right change but human nature is constant.

Brian Jones

Guys, it obviously takes only one troll to hijack the conversation away from the topic at hand.

OK, I'll start. I don't have a link, but I saw a commenter on a DemocraticUnderground post actually call for a delay in judging the Vatican to be complete amoral liars for not coming out and saying that the Pope is going to die within the next week.

Or something. It's hard to tell what those folks are angry about sometimes.

MONEYRUNNER

The use of the term "traitor" has fallen out of use during my lifetime. We knew and identified traitors in World War 2. We even hung some. But sometime around Viet Nam we lost the ability to identify traitors, even those who provided aid and comfort to the enemy.

Why is that?

I submit, that in a war for the minds and hearts of the American people (which is a vital component of the War on Terror) those who knowingly and maliciously aid our enemies and destroy our will to persevere should be called traitors.

Out of curiosity, is anyone here willing to name any public figure, blogger or otherwise, as a traitor?

capt joe

GT, thanks for hijacking Tom's thread, your statement obviously shows that you agree with Rall's statement that it is only the right engaged in such a puerile activity. Rall is wrong, left and right have their shouting, fulminating masses knashing their teeth on real or imagined wrongs suffered by their real or imagined heros.

To add to Tom's statement, "The world is too full of short angry men chasing floating pieces excrement through the sewer, don't emulate them!"

So, positive statements, the higher road, the better road, onwards ho.

As to continued thrashing around by those seeking floating excrement, better to let them follow thier quest elsewhere where cheap deoderants cant be purchased.

Just Passing Through

The left blogs self promote themselves as the smarter segment of society at large and also the internet society. This is a constant refrain in any comment thread at dKos or atrios. This doesn't gibe with the siege mentality that the same left blogs, more mainstream supporters, (Rall) display. If they are under assault from the right and losing the battle to ad hominem and are as helpless in defending themselves against it, then either they are not the intellectual superiors they say they are or they are losing the great debates of our time because of a larger rejection of their dogmas from society at large.

All that aside, there is a certain and unmistakable undercurrent of glee and self-satisfaction on the left over any news report of any kind that can be spun into evidence of a setback for the US. Whether this is treasonous is debatable, but it is no indication of patriotism no matter how it's spun. I believe it's more in the nature of ankle biting.

BTW: The kneejerk response to accusations of fellow traveling with America's enemies from the right is quite often the similarly specious accusations of chickenhawk from the left. Perhaps TM or Mr Rall should give some scrutiny to that particular ad hominem.

Just Passing Through

Cut myself off.

Kennedy is not being a traitor when he issues pronouncements that could and should be taken as supporting our enemies. It's not about America winning to the left. It's about the left winning. Kennedy is simply anti-bush and a high visibility example of the 'intellectually superior' left losing the debate. The treason is secondary to the anti-bush sentiments and from the point of view of the losers, a reasonable risk if they can wrest back control of the debate as a result. They see this effort as justified by any means that they think will work, and as they don't think that patriotism will, it's not part of their equation.

Rob Mandel

Part of the reason why this will be hard is that leftism is in general, based on hate. hatred of wealth, hatred of class, hatred of somebody who has something you don't. and the only way to promote more leftism is to promote more hate. (1 million disenfranchised, anyone?) and battle lines have been drawn squarely along a groupthink mentality. follow any thread at kos, atrios, et al. I know, it's hard. 40 years ago, the right was in the wilderness, but went to work sharpening their skills. the reason the left is flailing is that for decades they were given free passes on anything they said, and still are (trent lott vs. chris dodd), and their ability to think atrophied. any meme would do. the problem in looking for positive comments from the left is that the left are about conspiracies and tin-foil hats. that is what draws the viewers. it's just the axiom "sex sells", instead this time, hate sells.

Everyman

Brand new to this blogging business, but my heart's in the right place. Rall's isn't.

Beto Ochoa

Is anyone besides me tired of provocateurs like Rall? He fattens himself on the same teat that Ward Churchill fattens himself on. To our great embarrassment, this is an industry that well rewards its minions. I would say this to Ted Rall, "You are an unfortunate by-product of our socio-political system. You are the exact opposite of egalitarianism and justice. If this were 1863 you would be a slave owner north of the Mason-Dixon and beat your chattel when they displeased you yet, print invectives of those citizens who resided below it and did not own such. It is to our collective misfortune that citizens of your ilk are elevated to a position where you are able to inflict your inexorable vituperation on us all, even those who promote you. That those promoters are too obtuse to recognize the detriment you are to the collective is no excuse for their behavior. Your moral compass is defective and you relish in your pathetic bent. You are one of those who when your family is in a fight would only throw stones from the rear ranks not caring who gets hit."

Beto Ochoa

PS
This entire exercise is a grand waste of time and bandwidth!

big dirigible

Treason's a tough charge to make stick.

The dead white guys who founded the country knew their English history, and memories of Elizabeth - you know, the famous one - at Traitor's Gate, the execution of the teenaged Lady Jane Gray - guilty of no greater crimes than being queen of England for a week, and having unfortunate relatives - and other notorious incidents and abuses, inspired them to put very specific restraints on treason charges. Even Aaron Burr was acquitted of treason for the very real (if still somewhat mysterious) Burr Conspiracy - after a full trial, with Chief Justice John Marshall presiding.

"Aid and comfort to the enemy" is a pretty loose standard. We have had a few cases of bona fide treason, mainly involving Stalinist espionage in the 1950s, and some unfortunates prone to poor travel plans, like Iva D'Aquino ("Tokyo Rose" - later pardoned by Gerald Ford), in the 1940s. I can't think of any public figures who might be working down to even those mild levels today.

Rob Crocker

GT,

The reason that some people who "oppose the war" are labelled traitors is because they provide such thoughtful commentary as this:

And the first thing is that we need to support the resistance of Iraqis in Iraq. These are people who are risking their lives to get the United States out of their country. And we have to see them as our allies. We have to see them as our main allies.

Info here

The point made usually was to complain about the people who aren't against the war. It's the people who seem to be actively working for the other side.

If you think this is too obscure a person who doesn't represent the Left then we can discuss Mr. Moore's "Minute Men" too.

Gerry

"Out of curiosity, is anyone here willing to name any public figure, blogger or otherwise, as a traitor?"

Sure. I will name Ramsey Clark and Scott Ritter.

And I will say that back in the 60s, I think that John Kerry's actions fit the bill too.

MisterPundit

GT :

"I think there is a level of hate in parts of the Right, in particular with respect to Iraq where any dissent is equated with treason, not just saying the other guy is wrong but that he is a traitor, that has, AFAIK, no real counterpart on the Left today."

No real counterpart? Are you blind? Does "Bush = Nazi" and "Bush = No.1 Terrorist" ring a bell? And you're upset about some of your guys being called "traitors". Suck it up and get over it.

Matt Crandall

I have impeccable wingnut creditionals, and I defend Hilary Clinton in http://mattcrandall.com/blog/archives/000045.html>this post. C'mon folks, lets keep the ball rolling!

russ

Gerry asks the question: "Out of curiosity, is anyone here willing to name any public figure, blogger or otherwise, as a traitor?""

I offer up the following:

Rep. Jim "I love wetbacks" McDermott of Washington

Sen. Patty "Osama Mama" Murray

Senator Ted "lady killer" Kennedy

Senator John "feces filled" Kerry

Patrick R. Sullivan

Obviously John Kerry's meeting with the Vietnamese Communists in Paris was treason. The left was willing to tolerate that, and GT even voted for him last November.

Gerry

Russ, I didn't ask the question-- Moneyrunner did. I was answering the question.

Gerry

Matt Crandall,

I hadn't seen that before (never seen your blog before, I'll have to add it to my rotation). I'll join you in saying "good for her".

TM

Look, I probably threw folks off the trail by responding to GT at all - he is a semi-regular, and desrves a hearing, but it has hijcaked the thread a bit.

SO far we have Hillary and Barney Frank. Chris Dodd came up in the Eason Jordan thing, so I bet we can find good things said about him.

And I want to dust off the archives and find some kind words about Joe Biden. A long piece is here; he is an amusing footnote in one of my personal faves here.

Look, GT, if you think your complaint can wait until another day, that would be great.

Tim

Moneyrunner:

"Out of curiosity, is anyone here willing to name any public figure, blogger or otherwise, as a traitor?"

Michael Moore. Consider:

"If someone did this [the 9/11 attack] to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California -- these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!" - Michael Moore, September 12, 2001

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush?" - Michael Moore, Wednesday, April 14th, 2004

"President Bush was preoccupied by talking to children. He was talking to children how to treat their goats and sheep and animals at the same time that 50,000 people, American people were in danger, and this gave us three times the time we needed to attack the towers." - Osama bin Laden, Video tape, released Friday, October 29, 2004

There are more examples, but I think these will suffice for now.

Gerry

Hey, if we can call Althouse as one of ours, (and why not? At least one of her readers calls her a right wing whore), then you can find lots of examples of her being very positive about Russ Feingold.

inkling

Let's refocus on the task at hand people...

1) "In brief, I'm being a worrywart about the journalistic implications of the Gannon affair, and I note that two key aspects of the story--that Gannon is a gay GOP hypocrite and that Gannon was handed classified information regarding the Wilson leak investigation--are not fully supported by the known facts."
-- David Corn, The Nation, http://www.davidcorn.com/2005/02/problems_with_g.php

2) "What if Bush was right?"
-- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show, after the Iraqi elections

3) Michael Kinsley standing his ground against the neofeminist assault of Susan Estrich. Also, allowing hardcore LA Times critics like Patterico space on his Op-Ed page.

4) Barney Frank and Chris Dodd standing up for our troops against Eason Jordan's Davos allegations.

Old Grouch

Iain Murray (now back after hiatus): Three cheers for the [Scottish] Greens..."

Bill Hedrick

I wish I knew who said this:
"Treason never prospers, because if it prospers none dare call it treason."

TallDave

Hedrick:

I remember that from S.M. Stirling's Nantucketers-in-the-Bronze-Age books, but nowhere else.

TallDave

Sounds Machiavellian though.

richard mcenroe

Tom — I think you miss Rall's point. He was just trolling for free script ideas. These won't do him any good.

DJ

Back to the OP... A very generous biparisan comment from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Sen. HRC (D-NY)(as printed in New York magazine):

"Some people would work morning, noon, and night to beat her,” he says. “And some people would sell their firstborn for her to win. But I think there’s also a sizable part in the middle that’d sit and listen to what she has to say. People are fair. I think she could win every state John Kerry won. And she’d probably be a better candidate in the swing states.”

GaryLee

This is an interseting discussion containing lots of hateful leftwing thoughts.

Michelle Dulak Thomson

Here's one, just posted by Kevin Drum:

The devil is in the details, of course, and this [Mubarak's call for an amendment to the Egyptian Constitution to allow for direct, multiparty elections] might turn out to be mostly window dressing in the end. But as a frequent critic of the administration's sincerity about democracy promotion, let me say that their conduct over the past couple of months has been better than I imagined it would be. Baby steps, to be sure, but hopeful ones. I hope they keep it up.

Ajax Pickering

Sir John Harrington (1561–1612)

Treason doth never prosper: what ’s the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
Epigrams, Book iv. Ep. 5.

http://www.bartleby.com/100/134.html

Brainster

How about Kerry Haters sticking up for Kerry on the crucial Eddie Yost story?

Tim Worstallt

I realise that this is from England, thus doesn’t really meet the rules of the challenge. But I think it’s a bit of a winner. I write at Techcentralstation amongst other places, as Tom knows, and I spend a lot of time and effort lampooning the bunny hugger eco warriors. Georges Monbiot in the Guardian is always good for copy, he rarely writes a column without making at least three errors one can jeer at.
However, last week he stunned me, so much that I was forced to not only be polite about him but also agree with him.
Yes, the original Moonbat wrote something that a libertarian could agree with. Link here for proof:
http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2005/02/monbiot_civil_l.html

rastajenk

Wasn't it John Kerry who expressed to Rolling Stone that he wished voters would tap into their inner hate as they make their decisions, or something like that? Can't recall a similar notion being articulated by anyone with a similar high profile on the right side of the discussion.

Josephus LaCroix

'I was asking about bloggers, not politicians. I know politicians say all kinds of outrageous things, on both sides. But, supposedly, bloggers, especially the top name bloggers, are dedicated to a more rational discourse.'

Got here a little late, but why are the bloggers supposed to the the more rational ones? Doesn't it say something about the political divide that moderation and reason MUST come from the public instead of our leaders?

I sincerely think that the reason why our country is so hatefully divided resides in Washington D.C.. Our politicians are trying to out-do each other by saying increasingly ridiculous things and we eat it up. Sadly, 100 influential bloggers will not be able to change our national mentality. Because of the war, people want a scapegoat. They blame their representative, who blames a different one, who then blames a senator, who then sticks it to the SecDef etc. This goes on ad nauseum. No wonder why so many people have adopted the politics of hate. Can anybody say Weimar?

jag

GT "feels" there is a lot of "hate" on the right.
My "feeling" is that I hate the ideas of the left and their means of trying to attain power.
As "Just Passing Through" pointed out about Kennedy, Teddy's goal isn't to "better" anything, it is simply to bring down Bush. If Kennedy could put together a set of reasons and logic for his "demand" we get out of Iraq I'd listen. Might not agree but I'd listen.
But Kennedy doesn't. His goal is simply to smear and lessen Bush in the eyes of the electorate.
That may not be "treason" but its certainly not productive or as liberals like to say "progressive".
You cannot "progress" rationally without offering a set of reasons based on fact and logic.
Kennedy, Rall and Moore have only one, selfish, goal to attain and it has nothing to do with what is best for American, Iraq or world interests. They want their side in power. They are either too stupid, too lazy or too corrupt to bother making a persuasive case for doing things their way so they default to any crude smear they think will diminish their oppenents.
Sadly, its often an effective tactic but for now it isn't succeeding with 51% of the public (thank God).
Its the shameless tactics I "hate" in these instances because the endless smears give aid, comfort and support to murderers and tyrants whether one wants to call it "treason" or not.

Julie

I've tried to read, say, Kos, and I just can't. I last through about a dozen comments and decide that it's just to depressing to wallow in the ignorance. There's enough of it that comes to call at the "conservative" blogs I read. And I *can* have a conversation with and appreciate a left-political viewpoint, so it's not that. It's hearing someone rip into Lieberman as a traitor to all that is right and good and CNN as a tool wholly owned by Bushilter.

And *maybe* it's a bit easier for me to ignore some of the off-the-wall ranting on the right because the rants aren't aimed at me.

Still, it seems to me that the 'right' of blogdom is often critical of the Bush administration. I know I didn't hear the phrase "I'm going to vote for Bush but I'll be holding my nose while I do it" on a 'lefty' blog! In fact, many of the blogs on the 'right' strike me as decidedly libertarian. Oh, and then there is Althouse, who doesn't seem like much of a righty at all. Or Glenn, the godfather of all right-wing bloggerdom, who just *isn't* very.

It might have even been on this blog, but I saw a comment lately that right-wing blogs had given Armstrong Williams a free pass, and I wonder in which alternate reality this was true. The condemnation was across the board.

I see generally good things said about Obama if anything at all (I think that the 'right' wishes he was ours.) And Hillary has gotten some decent blog-press on the right lately. Sure, it's usually something like, "I could live with that." People are talking about Condi for pres (I don't think she'd run, but that's another story) has anyone on the left said, "I could live with that?"

antiphone

The world is too full of short angry men chasing floating pieces excrement through the sewer...

You guys really know how to take the high road.

If I say "Ted Kennedy is a bloated sow" those on the left probably take that as an ad hominem attack, however I see it as fact. - Buster

Part of the reason why this will be hard is that leftism is in general, based on hate. - Rob Mandel

Beto Ochoa reveals Ted Rall as a --retroactive-- slave owner.

If this were 1863 you would be a slave owner north of the Mason-Dixon and beat your chattel when they displeased you...

Traitors one and all:

Rep. Jim "I love wetbacks" McDermott of Washington
Sen. Patty "Osama Mama" Murray
Senator Ted "lady killer" Kennedy
Senator John "feces filled" Kerry
- You're a master of subtlety *russ*.

Wasn't it John Kerry who expressed to Rolling Stone that he wished voters would tap into their inner hate as they make their decisions, or something like that? - Asks the cluless rastajenk, no rastajenk, it wasn’t.

antiphone

Jag said:
Kennedy, Rall and Moore have only one, selfish, goal to attain and it has nothing to do with what is best for American, Iraq or world interests. They want their side in power. They are either too stupid, too lazy or too corrupt to bother making a persuasive case for doing things their way...

There is an ongoing line of argument that tries to equate everyone who disagrees with the Bush administration as part of a single cohesive “side”. While they may have opposition to Bush in common, many of these people disagree with each other almost as much as they do with Bush. Michael Moore campaigned against Gore. Obviously his political values are more specific than simple Democratic partisanship.

A critique that treats Kennedy, Rall and Moore as identical and then starts adding Ward Churchill or any other random person plucked from obscurity to be “the face of the left” may appeal to some of you on an emotional level but eventually this kind of oversimplification results in a mind set for which the party can do no wrong and all those who challenge the party are part of an inscrutable conspiracy motivated only by hatred of all that is good. So who the hell is Rall anyway? I only see references to him in places like this.

Julie

"So who the hell is Rall anyway? I only see references to him in places like this."

Most likely you've seen some of his political cartoons. Probably you're like me and don't keep track of artists names. Many people feel that he went far over the line into racism more than once, but because he's not a "conservative" political cartoonist, he got a free ride.

(It's the HYPOCRACY dang it!)

antiphone

because he's not a "conservative" political cartoonist, he got a free ride

I see, and the list of "conservative" political cartoonists who have been attacked by liberals must be long. Can you name one?

antiphone

Many people feel that he went far over the line into racism more than once

Any examples with links?

rastajenk

Kerry said, "Because not enough people connect the things they hate, or feel or want, to the power of their vote." You can look it up: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/6562106?rnd=1109469166890&has-player=unknown

antiphone

Well rastajenk I suppose I do owe you an apology for calling you clueless, sorry. However I do think what he said was a bit different than your description:

“he wished voters would tap into their inner hate as they make their decisions’

What he said was not about hating people. It’s a general comment about people connecting the things they feel strongly about with voting.

not enough people connect the things they hate, or feel or want, to the power of their vote

I don’t think it’s that controversial, do you?

Kman

Well, antiphone, since you are either too lazy or too ignorant to take the 5 seconds to type "Ted Rall racism" into Google, I did it for you.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000160.htm

inkling

Antiphone, one of the themes of this contest is to find lefties praising righties, or righties praising lefties. Anyone can bitterly complain about those on the other side of the aisle. And you can find that nearly everywhere else on the blogosphere. But the question is, can you find ANY positve things about the left that the right has said? It's a rare opportunity to step up to the plate with a compliment for the other side, rather than invective. I praised several lefties in my earlier comments. Can you find any glimmer of humanity on the right? Any sign that "we're all in this together?" Thanks.

antiphone

Well thanks Kman. You can’t actually see the cartoon there, the link Malkin has goes to some other cartoon but the text does sound offensive. I don’t think I’ve seen any of Ted Rall's cartoons in an actual news paper but I don’t read those pages very often. Whatever he does seems to have gotten him far more attention on the right than on the left.

inkling, the contest didn’t really seem to be working out, with insults to the left and justification for them instead. But to answer your questions:

Can you find any glimmer of humanity on the right?

Yes

Any sign that "we're all in this together?"

And no, because the people I agree with on the right (that come to mind) are critical of the Bush administration on the subjects we agree on. I don't think you get an accurate description of the political spectrum by dividing people into pro-Bush vs anti-Bush and then calling that the left and right. I also don’t think handing out gold stars certain liberals who demonstrate cooperation with Bush’s agenda is a convincing counterweight to the dishonesty of calling Ward Churchill and Ted Rall the true face of the left or the vilification of liberals that’s been going on in major media outlets for many years, and yes on blogs too.

inkling

In my experience, the vast majority of the left, right and middle agree on the desired outcomes. The disagreement comes on how we achieve those ends. Unfortunately, most political "dialogue" pretends that the other side wants different ends, thus setting up strawmen. Rightward blowhards allege that the Left seeks to destroy America by not being committed to victory in the War on Terror. Lefty blowhards claim that the Right seeks to destroy America by undermining democracy and civil liberties.

The fact is, 95+ percent of Americans are trying to do what's best for this country -- we simply disagree (usually only slightly) on how to get there. I appreciate this contest in that it points to our common ground that is too often covered in the heated rhetoric of us all.

antiphone

Yes but if want to find common ground it might help to think about the obstacles. There are good reasons for the lack of trust, we know each side will try to use “bipartisanship” for advantage. People who think things are going their way have no incentive to reform a system that’s working for them, do they?

The professional political class is invested in the stability of the marketplace they work in, perhaps even more than in winning elections. Structural change is perceived, whether consciously or not, as a threat to their livelihood.

Can anyone name an area where either party has an interest in reforming the system to favor integrity over the influence of money? It’s not going to happen unless voters from both parties demand it. Where do you see that kind of independent voice? Too many blogs have become extensions of the party machinery, pushing scandal and opposition talking points.

Julie

"I see, and the list of "conservative" political cartoonists who have been attacked by liberals must be long. Can you name one?"

Not at all. I don't tend to pay attention and have a terrible time remembering names. It could be, though, that "conservative" political cartoonists, if they don't want to limit their livelihood to what David Duke (is that guy even still alive?) can pay them, they have to avoid obviously racist imagery and references. That's assuming that the good ones would even consider it in the first place, of course.

I've heard people accuse Rall of being a poor artist. I think that is probably an unfair accusation.

Julie

"...the dishonesty of calling Ward Churchill and Ted Rall the true face of the left..."

I wouldn't even call Barbara Boxer the true face of the left. Egad!

"Too many blogs have become extensions of the party machinery, pushing scandal and opposition talking points."

I really am not sure which blogs you're talking about here. Michelle Malkin tears Bush about immegration policy like a broken record. Althouse seems firmly independatly moderate despite the fact that she voted for Bush. Glenn, the blog-daddy himself, fails to toe the line on social issues. Other blogs I read strike me as leaning libertarian and some proclaim themselves libertarian. Social Security blogging (which I can take for about 20 seconds before my eye lids droop, sorry guys) is usually supportive of privatization but from my quick skimming, not at all a mindless rubber-stamping. I didn't notice a single blog that gave Bush a pass on the payola "thing." (And several that defended Kos.) The milblogs I read condemned Abu Gharib.

I can't think of any blog I read that is following some supposed Republican talking points.

antiphone

Glenn Reynolds:

Various lefty readers email to say that Ward Churchill is not the authentic face of the Left.

I wish I agreed with that. But, sadly, he is its very image today.

When Ted Kennedy can make an absurd and borderline-traitorous speech on the war, when Michael Moore shares a VIP box with the last Democratic President but one, when Barbara Boxer endorses a Democratic consultant/blogger whose view of American casualties in Iraq is "screw 'em," well, this is the authentic face of the Left. Or what remains of it.

There was a time when the Left opposed fascism and supported democracy, when it wasn't a seething-yet-shrinking mass of self-hatred and idiocy. That day is long past, and the moral and intellectual decay of the Left is far gone.

He knows the drill and so do we.

antiphone

Oops, forgot to link thatReynolds quote.

Julie

I may just be better at wishful thinking than Glenn is. ;-)

Ted Kennedy is the obnoxious relative that can't be excluded from family gatherings. I don't know who sat Moore next to Carter but I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time. (I'm not even certain that Moore is a Democrat. His statements tend to be all over the map. I think he's primarily an opportunist.) And Boxer was pretty lonely with her inaguration shenanigans.

I wonder if Glenn would modify his view, now, in lights of what Hillary Clinton has been up to.

Joe Mealyus

Is this contest to find leaders, bloggers and commentators mainly being upbeat and positive (which seems to be JOM's idea) or to find leaders, bloggers and commentators praising the opposition (which seems to be the commenters' idea)?

If it's the latter, then I would submit the essay "The Underestimation of Dwight D. Eisenhower" by Murray Kempton, fresh as a 1967 daisy.

If it's the former then I would nominate Bill Clinton's appearance on Letterman a couple of years ago - very "positive" towards Bush and Iraq at the time. (I think one of Clinton's ambitions now is not to be like Jimmy Carter).

One of the problems with this whole exercise is that anyone who dissents too much from orthodoxy is no longer a decent member of the tribe, are they? E.g. the scorn Hitchens, Hentoff, Kinsley, Roger L. Simon, Kaus (et al) draw from the left. Andrew Sullivan gets similar treatment from the right.

(I think when right-wingers move left, they tend, like Garry Wills or Joan Didion (supposedly she was RW once, though I'm not sure I really believe it), to fall off the wagon completely, whereas lefties who move right seem to keep more of their old views - hence Sullivan is my best example going the other way, though as something of a RWer myself I probably don't see all of this very clearly).

Beto Ochoa

Antiphone,
Since you are too dishonest to quote me in context I will do it myself.
"You are the exact opposite of egalitarianism and justice. If this were 1863 you would be a slave owner north of the Mason-Dixon and beat your chattel when they displeased you yet, print invectives of those citizens who resided below it and did not own such."

Mr. Rall is a provocateur as are you apparently. The statement is a hyperbolic exercise to illustrate his, and by extension your, hypocrisy.

Beto Ochoa

As well it seems Antiphone, you neglected my post scrip;
"This entire exercise is a grand waste of time and bandwidth!"

Joe

I see that on both the left and the right, there's a good variation among people's feelings and thoughts -- some irrational, some extremist.

But I think on the issue of gay marriage, the right's opposition takes the "irrational extremist" mantle, hands down.

Opposing equal rights is not a good way to be on history's good side.

ObsidianOrder

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x95394#95510

A Dem speaks out strongly against gun control.

(quote)
I remember, me and my (then hardcore democratic uncle) was watching the news about the Brady bill, he got very silent about it, but was still supportive to the Democrats. Then the AW ban came, I remember seeing Feinstein on the news, holding up a semi auto AK up saying that ONLY CRIMINALS would have one. (Between all of us, we had 4 of those rifles) in the next election my uncles and cousins went republican, I did too

It is about MORE than guns, it is about personal responsibility, I was taught at a VERY EARLY age, that it is MY number 1 responsibility to protect myself and family from “folks that have bad intentions” Guns are the BEST means of that, the police are ONLY CALLED AFTER there is a crime committed, if you cannot defend yourself effectively, or rely on OTHERS to protect your family, you have FAILED as a parent/husband.

The Democrats lost us with all the “Hillbilly”, “redneck”, and ”gun nut” talk
(end quote)

Pretty lively discussion follows.

Read the supportive replies by beevul, solinvictus, mosin, hollowdweller...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon

  • Lee Child, Kindle short story
  • Lee Child
  • Gary Taubes

Traffic

Wilson/Plame