Powered by TypePad

« Tell Me About Duke Lacrosse | Main | Ah, It Was A Bad Leak »

April 15, 2006



TT, the swamps are mucky on either side of the high ground you and many others keep to. What do you think of this apparently tidal shift at the Post? The port side waterfront is convinced it's Rove's doing.


And while we're at it, let's beat Tom to commentary on the NYT editorial responding to the post's. Now there is a fever swamp of delusion. What a contrast to the Post's. I see lines being drwn in the sand, and I think the Post is going with the flow.


First, as to the notion advanced by the Tejano Charkid that righties are better at hiding their hate, well, as Fitzgerald noted in a different context, I can't conceive of the evidence that would disprove it. That is the beauty of thattype of theory.

But even if it is true (which I doubt) - doesn;t that still sho wthe the right has better judgment and message discipline? We, at least, don't encourage our top blogs to compete for the crazies by writing crazy stuff.

As a side note - my impression is that Glenn linkes to Charles Johnson just about never. In my recollection, I have linked to Johnson about once - on thet Borders book thing a few weeks back.

That said, Johnson was big on the Rathergate story, so that may be wrong.


That blinking overlay of Mape's memos and Microsoft Word was the first sign of intelligent life detected on earth. It is thought he is our prophet, and his bike rides are overseen to keep him from harm.


LGF did bust memogate wide open. Anybody with document layout experience, even just tech manual stuff like me, instantly knew they wer fake. No expert belief necessary.

Paul Zrimsek

If you're trying to prove that conservatives are more rhetorically extreme than liberals, quoting Dave "Godwin's Outlaw" Neiwert is perhaps not the very best way to go about it.

JM Hanes


Seems to me, you're the one making most of the assumptions here, flinging around most of the accusations and sounding wilder by the minute. Should we assume that you think the McVeigh slam is fair?

A whole lot of folks on the left smugly reassure themselves that they may be getting nasty, but they'll never be as bad as the vicious right; in fact, more than a couple Dem pundits have claimed they lose elections because they're just too darn nice. You're welcome to disagree, but I think they passed right over that tipping point quite awhile back.

If you can rebut Malkin on the intellectual underpinnings of reqconquista, then give it a shot, but please don't pretend that calling it a smear because you just know she's a bigot actually qualifies as an argument.


Watch for Les Futbolers Petits Verts vs the Madrassah League All-Stars.

No referees hired because both sides think it's war. The crowd is packed with gamblers.


TT - LOL....nice try. But really, you told us that you would give us tons of quotes today on the same level as "get cancer - die horrible death." So? Is that all you got? And notice I did this whole post without a singe swear word.


Real liberals don't need to cuss. Saner precincts of the polity appreciate the civil presentation.

This group rawks.


JM Hanes


As a matter of fact, I was commenting just the other day on how the smut factor skyrockets every time we have a rash of drop-ins from the left.


Rock Chalk Dover Hawk.



If it's more than just lip service to "Look everybody we're not as crazy as we act !!!" I'll be surprised.

We reject the double standards with which much self-proclaimed progressive opinion now operates, finding lesser (though all too real) violations of human rights which are closer to home, or are the responsibility of certain disfavoured governments, more deplorable than other violations that are flagrantly worse. We reject, also, the cultural relativist view according to which these basic human rights are not appropriate for certain nations or peoples.

Believe it when I see it ...


Another credibility challange ...

We reject without qualification the anti-Americanism now infecting so much left-liberal (and some conservative) thinking. This is not a case of seeing the US as a model society. We are aware of its problems and failings. But these are shared in some degree with all of the developed world. The United States of America is a great country and nation. It is the home of a strong democracy with a noble tradition behind it and lasting constitutional and social achievements to its name. Its peoples have produced a vibrant culture that is the pleasure, the source-book and the envy of millions.

boris, it's metaliberals meeting neoconservatives on the great plain truth.



Let's Keep Hope Alive.


Nothing on global warming ...

Common sense on that point would be way too much.


The great thing about mistakenly trying to tell the left the truth and how to improve their appeal, is that they are certain not to take it.
Now, everyone, shhhhhhhh. Better they shoudln't know.


Clarice is right. A Reasonable Dem adopting much of that manifesto takes the '08 election. Period.


maryscott..Kudos, brava, keep it up..otherwise a DINO like Evan Bayh might get the nomination....


Watch Dennis Kucinich be the first to jump on it. I toyed with supporting Gephart/Kucinich just over two years ago. They'd have taken Missouri and Ohio and not lost a blue state. Instead we got Vietnam deja vu all over again. And they want Iraq to be Vietnam presque vu. Soon toujours vu.

Of course that was before the Swifties, and Mary Mapes, and al-kaka, and the Jordan crossing at Davos.

richard mcenroe

boris, kim, et al — The problem is, of course, even if the Democrats embrace that platform, how do you know trust them to tell the truth? The history of that soiled party is replete with candidates who talked center to get elected and voted left once in.


Here's the real agenda ...

... We support radical reform of the major institutions of global economic governance
... Global development must be pursued in a manner consistent with environmentally sustainable growth.

Socialism in a candy wrapper.

richard mcenroe

Texas Toast — I pointed out to you a major Los Angeles leftwing publication that covered the Aztlan movement and took it very seriously. Are you suggesting I shouldn't take the leftwing media seriously?

richard mcenroe

I've just seen the photo of Maryscott that ran with the WAPO article. I've seen that face ranked three deep at every protest I've ever countermarched. Sorry, but I think the WAPO played fair painting as the face of the leftwing chattering classes.


richard, of course you can't trust them. The first appointees will be the usual dreck--Holbrook, Albright, Berger, Clarke, et al.

OT: China, knowing we need there help with Iran is rattling Taiwan's cage again. (Just in case you think there are no international implications for this smear to regain power movement)
And the ever blinered Editer and Publisher does take notice of the Good Leak/Bad Leak was between the editors of the NYT and WaPo.


There's oil between Formosa and the mainland, too.

And yes, boris, you're right. It's socialism, still, sadly enough. When will they ever learn? When will they eeeeeeeever learn?


Clarice, you mean the usual suspects?



In a bit of embarrassment, the Post, on the very day the editorial appeared, had pretty much proved in its news pages that the leak was really meant to punish Wilson, and most of the information in the leak was obviously, and knowingly, false.

Blinkered is too kind. We learned this week that the Fitz filing was "obviously, and knowingly, false" and that the NIE disclosure was factual. That was the pre-war intel consensus used by the admin to evaluate national security policy. If editorandpublisher imply that disclosing pre-war intel that didn't prove out is somehow deceitful, they're the ones being dishonest.


And they won't feel the least bit embarrassed to be so blind-sided.


Editer and Publisher is ALWAYS full of it. One of those publications that is true only if you carat in a NO ( or NOT) in front of every single assertion.An especially good example of writers who are not very smart and very partisan.


From Dr. Sanity's Bloget email today:

My inbox is filled with people asking me to comment on this article, and I can certainly understand why. It is rare to have such a perfect example of severe and malignant narcissism written up in such detail outside the medical literature. I think the article speaks for itself. It is almost impossible to read what some of the people quoted in it have to say without being completely stunned by the self-absorbed, self-deluded rage expressed at the world for daring to be different from what it ought to be. These people have more in common with the arrogant imam I discussed here; who said with complete sincerity, " Reality is a mistake, we must rectify it." How dare reality not conform to their feelings! This is pure, unadulterated narcissistic rage. One quote is quite telling:

"Rage, rage against the Lying of the Right" is the subtitle of O'Connor's Web site. "If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution" is how she signs her comments, in the place other people might write "Sincerely." "I was not like this before," she says. "I was riddled with empathy for everyone suffering in the world. Classic bleeding-heart liberal."

Or, how about this gem: "I feel like I'm being molested everytime I hear his voice," one person writes on the Daily Kos Web site while watching a Bush news conference.

At any rate, to say more would be a waste of time. The left uses the blogsphere as therapy, but they might be better off if they went to a professional to try and understand the hate inside--and what it means about them. If you want to explore the issue of narcissism and society--discussing both the "rage" and "awe" variants--you can check out my previous series which is here. Our lady of the riddled empathy is a perfect example of someone who likely for a very long time convinced herself into believing that she was a loving, tolerant, and compassionate person. Of course, she blames Bush because she's become a raving lunatic. I submit she was likely always what she is now; but her ideology helped her to hide it from the world under the mask of wanting to help people (for their own good, of course). When thwarted, the mask slips and the hidden tyrant rushes out.

The writer believes that the left was "comparatively polite" BEFORE
"When thwarted, the mask slips and the hidden tyrant rushes out."
...little gets by Pat Santy.



It is one of the reasons that I shudder when I read lefty blogs. If they can't make a point - they swear. If they have a point to make - they swear. Makes it very hard to take them seriously.


Wow that was lame TT. You didn't provide even one single comparable example.


As it happens, I was over at firedoglake this morning, reading a post by Jane on Chris Matthews. I'm not sure how I made it over there, I followed a trail of breadcrumbs from this post I think.

Anyway, its a good example. I'll stipulate that she has a point that Matthews interview of Delay was pretty weird. You can run over and read it if you want, but my point is, look at the language she uses:

It’s nice that Chris Matthews has dropped all pretense to being an unmitigated GOP whore. Not only did he allow possibly the biggest crime boss in modern history onto his show to babble a bunch of bullshit completely unchecked, once the cameras were off he couldn’t get DeLay’s knob in his mouth fast enough...


...I’m sure it was hard for Matthews to talk with his mouth full at that point [in case you miss it, this a reference to a sex act], but really, couldn’t he just have worked DeLay’s joint with his hand for a few minutes...


I guess not. Matthews is the one who consistently has Ole 60 Grit O’Beirne on to smear and reproach women...


I notice in the exchange that DeLay is not a very generous partner. I guess reciprocating is not much fun when Matthews’ limp lil’ pecker is already coated with heavyweight abrasive...

You get the idea. Keep in mind this is Jane Hamsher, not exactly some obscure person in a cellar in DC or something.

That's why I don't read the blogs of the left. Although I am quite interested politically there is no left leaning site of which I am aware where one can read reasoned, thoughtful opinion without running into this stuff, and I've looked.


Amazing that TT can say no relationship between "rapes" & Islam. Even the LSM had to report on the Afghani girl ordered to be GANG RAPED for a misdeed of her brother. She has since gotten some justice when Afghans forced to try some of the men.
Amputations - don't you know that that still do that BY LAW in Saudi Land!
Need to expand your sources. Or I just haven't heard of GW's RAPE squads. But I sure have heard of Saddams'. And those "youths" in Euroland raping the natives - "it is their right" under Islam.



~ I'm feeling 7Up ...~



Forays into the swamps of CNN,MSNBC and CSPAN'S booknotes is about my limit. I am constantly saying "Did they hear what they just said?" Verbalizing under time constraints is one thing - but for someone to actually sit down and write what you've brought back to us - is just beyond my comprehension WHEN THEIR PRETENSE IF INTELLIGENT COMMENTARY!

there is no left leaning site of which I am aware where one can read reasoned, thoughtful opinion without running into this stuff, and I've looked.

Taking on my "Crazy Aunt in the Attic" persona, I will ask again if any see any connection between what we are seeing and the storied drug use by their 60's/70's parents? And the hip/glossy coat the LEFT gave to "BLOW" during the GO-GO 90'S?

It would be easier for me to accept that my fellow Americans are just a bit brain damaged than that they are evil. (brain damage cause of stupidity and useful idiot status etc. Having been fed history by also drug enhanced LEFT, straight line from Anti-War to tenure, this brain damage allows their mis-education)
It is also easier for me to just back away from trying to banging my own head against the wall, trying to get them to grasp any point. Cambodia?? Stalin?? Clinton and the gangs own statements in 97/98???? Rape & Islam????

A real LOL for one of the LEFT to use a graphic description of that act - only created visions of the "blue dress" - but that is what the LEFT to normalize "lifestyles".

See the OSU professors "threatened" by a submitted reading list by a librarian.

They have to still be smoking and snorting - or there is parallel universe to ours.

CAITA signing off.


Housing Works Used Book Cafe,NYC

(and from the reverse universe)

"When News Lies - Media Complicity and the Iraq War"
by Danny Schechter

Read title?
Intellectual interviewer, just asked Was the media complicit? Rory O'Conner, Globalvision.

Also has written "Death of the Media".

Their retailer venue? Not even worthy of remainder table.

You do have to give their meme machine credit tho. As soon as they set a strategy that is dishonest they grab some grams and head over to the likes of
Schechter to accuse us of there tactics.

They are now celebrating being hailed as "Heroes of downward mobility for sacrificing their ?????fortunes for the "good of humanity" That was actual quote!

I reach for remote! Yuck!

Seven Machos

This is from up the thread a bit, but what in the world makes anyone think Timothy McVeigh and his partners were/are conservatives? Is it their belief in free trade? Is it their opposition to abortion? Is it their opposition to McCain/Feingold? Is it their stance against federal-government regualation?

I think it is tremendously faulty to assume that these sickos read too many issues of National Review.

Also, I would note that Pat Buchanan is reviled in the conservative circles I run in, and that he got an absolutely minimal number of votes every time he ran for president. Attacking Buchanan when you want to attack conservatives is a bit like attacking Cynthia McKinney when you want attack the Left. It's fun, but misguided and pointless.


This is from up the thread a bit, but what in the world makes anyone think Timothy McVeigh and his partners were/are conservatives?

Anti-government kooks that bomb, assasinate, murder and lynch themselves into history books mostly transcend Republican-Democrat politics. I believe it's fair to say the majority of them that voted, voted Democrat.

Foo Bar

This is from up the thread a bit, but what in the world makes anyone think Timothy McVeigh and his partners were/are conservatives?

Certainly there are bad people all along the political spectrum, and using the affiliation of an extremist kook to try to tar the reputation of an entire party is not something I would endorse, but since you asked, there's this from a CNN profile of McVeigh:

His only known affiliations are as a registered Republican in his New York days, and as a member of the National Rifle Association while he was in the Army.
Seven Machos

If CNN is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt it (I mean, it's not like it's CBS), I stand corrected.

I do stand by my contention that McVeigh and his cronies read too little National Review.


Since I threw down the challenge to TT to find outrages from right blogs comparable to the documented excesses from the left bloggers, I think it's only fair to acknowledge that both sides enjoy grabbing the most outrageous comment or action by someone and then claim that it's representative of the behavior or rhetoric of that entire group.

Who's not guilty of that pleasure? "Look at what this nut Zuniga said"! Or "Look at what knucklehead Maguire wrote!" (ahem, okay, you get the point).

So we play a game of low stakes poker where each side believes it has the best hand and is always upping the ante with the latest outrage (real or exagerrated) by those on the other side. I say low stakes because frankly, what does one win? Check out that pot. Ugh.

It does seem to me, Toast, that the excesses of the Left outdo those on the Right predominantly because (obviously) the Right is in power politically (nationally), they essentially run things (using the term "running" very loosely) and are subject to greater scrutiny and criticism then those out of power. Not exactly a Woodward scoop there.

To paraphrase Getrude Stein, there's no there there on the Left to go after. Which is why the conservative targets tend to be Hollywood or academia and not Washington.

And stylistically, if you will, the liberal use of the lockeroom language on the Left just makes their criticisms sound so much uglier and harsh.

Anyway, if nothing else if greatly highlights, unfortunately, how far we've fallen since 9/11 when we were united.

Not any longer.


"Conservative" and "Liberal" don't mean what they used to mean nowadays though.

TT calls TM a right winger upthread, but TM is hardly what I would call a far right type.

Reynolds is a great example. The guy is pro gay rights, pro abortion, pro stem cell research, the list goes on. But he's hated as a right winger by the left. He's hardly an example of a far right conservative.

And is Michael Moore a liberal? Not in my book. I don't see much traditional liberal thought among the left of today.

Which is why I make a distinction between 'liberal' and 'leftist'. Totally different animal.


Lee Harvey Oswald was a pro-Castro leftist, and sad to say the modern left has less in common with JFK and more with his assasin.

Lucky for the country that the modern left, unlike Lee Harvey and McVeigh, disdains military training.

richard mcenroe

Dwilkers — I just fall back on a simple guideline: "liberals" aren't and "progressives" don't.


I'll help TT:

That &^%$ idiot never &&^%$## said that. What he (*&*&*&^ said was that he didn'T ^%$#%&* give a &^$$^%% so that is why he is &^%$#E%^&*( wrong.

richard mcenroe

Steve — Ah, but there's plenty to go after on the left. Check out the book Donkey Cons.

And I would point out the fevered ranters on the right do not include:

Every major fundraiser for our party

The party chairman

A former Vice President

Abundant Congressdrones (really, who does the right have to compare with Pelosi, Bonior, Kennedy, Reid, McKinney and so on so on so forth...)

The editorials boards of major national newspapers, CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN

Pretty much all of the Motion Picture Academy

In short, we have no reason for us, whether we are tagged as the "right," "conservatives" or "Burekian liberals," to accept any sort of moral or practical equivalency with the foul, festering cauldron that passes for leadership on the left.


Expressions of disapproval are on a level of vulgarity that cannot be tolerated. The way to express disapproval is to do without applause. - Rudolf Bing

Will minus intellect constitutes vulgarity. - Arthur Schopenhauer

richard mcenroe

Here's some more of that stuff we're supposed to be morally equivalent to. I mean, I'm sure conservative fascists do this stuff all the time...


This is the face of the modern left As opposed to the old left,Stalin,Hitler,Mao,Pol Pot et al,they just don't make lefties like they used to.


Where are ya TT? Been waitin all day....

JM Hanes


You dismiss Euston as "Socialism in a candy wrapper," and over on the other side Martin Bright pronounces it DOA by association with Bush/Blair. So much for engagement, intellectual or otherwise, on the merits.


If Texas is still looking for a similar example of repugnant behavior from the right, I suggest he simply regurgitate a well publicized MSM story from a few months back.
Remember when President Bush, addressing a conservative audience, mentioned that former President Clinton had just undergone heart surgery. Remember the Press running with the false story that the conservative audience laughed and hooted and applauded, in effect wishing for Clinton's death.
I'll agree with Texas that that reported behavior on the right is as egregious as the behavior highlighted in the Post article. The difference however, is that the MSM story was totally false, total B.S. yet the MSM ran with it anyway, unchecked, because they knew that such dispicable behavior, attached like slime to conservatives, would damage conservatives in the public arena, as well as be almost impossible to refute. That false story was so delicious that the MSM had to run it, true or not, because it fit in with the stereotype of what they want conservatives to be like.
That's the kind of story I'm holding my breath for Texas to dump on us, not Michelle Malkin with a toilet brush.



The fact is that TT would have to dig very deep to find such statements - and probably only in comments sections on blog sites. We may use angry wording and deride opposite points of view, but I do not recall the outright nasty language and wishes that the popular left has sunk into.


JMH, and over on the other side Martin Bright pronounces it DOA

Earlier posts my show skepticism about the left accepting the pretty wrapper. Don't expect many would have a problem with the socialism.

Unless they're willing to give up on the socialism, I hope they choke on the wrapper. How they can call that tired old reject "progressive" is just lame.

Rick Ballard

Am I the only one who notes this as a 'sit down and shut up' note to Mowlett's Ass? Are we supposed to think that the WaPo doesn't purchase polling that they don't publish? Polling that shows that the 'Seditionists R Us' wing isn't exactly setting the electorate on fire?

When was the last time we heard Dean say something truly stupid? That's a relatively good indicator that the 'Republicans Barbecue Babies' theme isn't working out exactly to script. That and the fact that his ROI in fundraising isn't setting the world on fire. When 'Reid's Revolting Generals' peters out in the next week or so, we may see a change in the playbook.

For one thing ol' Harry has to be looking at Daschles current status and wondering about '08. Nevada isn't exactly Massachuesetts.

"There's something happening here

What it is ain't exactly clear

I wonder if the lefties are bright enough to "look what's going down"?


BTW ... choke as in "not accept". Not suggesting my metaphor should actually cause anybody to suffer.


Maybe, Rick. Maybe Mowletts' Ass Army has been irritating the WaPo every time they step off the media train about the was about Wilson, etc..In other words, they, too, have become a target.(According to Somerby so is--believe it or not--Chris Matthews). The thing about these left blogsites is that its habitues expect the same level of dialgoue in the press.


I can't go to left blog sites because I find them gross and disgusting.
Rick: You are right on the money in your analysis but I am uncertain of what Mowlett's ass refers to.

Rick Ballard

Mowlett's Ass is the head donkey braying at Dkos. Sophmoric humor at it's worst. My specialty, when I'm not composing sonnets, which I don't do much anymore, alas.


Rasmussen is a real pro at burying a lede - his current report notes (to paraphrase) 'the Reps had a 3.5% registration deficeincy to overcome in March '04 going into the election. Today the deficiency is 2.5%.' That's what the WaPo internals probably show too.

Personally, I think that the lefties just need a bigger megaphone. Nobody will change their minds unless the Kossacks yell a little louder.

Jeff G

Since TT took this occasion to cite some of my posts as supposed examples of...uh, I'm not sure what, let me just chime in here real quick.

First, he takes exception to an ongoing series (the "Chimpy Mchitlerburton" stuff, which is meant to poke fun at the ridiculous names Bush gets called by many bloggers on the left. He says no one actually calls Bush these things -- it's a wingnut cartoon of a leftist trope -- but were he to read my comments, or do a simple Google search, he'd find plenty of examples, though of late, "Dear Leader" has replaced the Smirking Chimp(y) as the oft-used characterization of choice).

He then cites a Flannery O'Connor quote in order to suggest that I believe I'm a political centrist. This is totally false. I don't do "centrism." I call myself a classical liberal. And the title of that post was an allusion to Yeats' "Slouching Toward Bethlehem" and has to do with an epistemological -- not a political -- center that I see as breaking down, a recurrent them on my site. O'Connor was talking about the effects of nihilism on a generation of thinkers. O'Connor being religious, her metaphysical center was a moral one. My complaint is that for many who have embraced the linguistic turn, there is no center at all -- just the will to power and competing narratives. Contingency, irony, solidarity, etc.

Meanwhile, I have been doing a series of posts on the President's assertion of universal rights, and how important that assertion is to our waging the ideological part of the war on terror. And it was in this context that the O'Connor quote appeared. "Universal rights," even if you don't believe in the concept from a metaphysical perspective, is still one of number of competing worlviews. And it is one worth pushing against the identity-driven collectivism and theocatic bigotry of our enemies.

Plus, I'm a fan of O'Connor's short stories and just kind of liked the metaphor.

Third -- I defy you to point out this supposed "question their patriotism" meme of mine. When you do, make sure you add all the qualifiers I do.

I have said again and again that good faith criticism is patriotic; what I find unpatriotic is this end-justify-the-means posture that some on the left have publicly embraced -- one in which they say, outright, that to repeat debunked lies is perfectly okay if it helps bring down the evil that is Bush.

This is not patriotism. It is frustrated whining about political powerlessness attempting to dress itself in the clothing of legitimate dissent. It is distrusting of democracy. And it is illiberal.

If you are going to quote me here, TT, at least try to do my posts justice. For instance, if you'd have provided links to them, perhaps people would have taken the opportunity to decide for themselves if your framing of my posts was in any way accurate.


"Donkey Cons"
Sex, Crime and Corruption in the Democratic Party.

Richard M, mention this book - watched the CSPAN BOOKNOTES earlier


Very funny - and he's got it all
down - Dem vs Pubs - it is 6 to 1


A proud grandma hopes that you'll check out the email from my grandson that I just posted in the Duke thread.

I'd asked if there was any discussion about it at his school.
He said a bit - but that he's up to his ears in work and didn't pay attention - so I sent him a few link and some of the comment thread. The post is his reply.
Might change TM's mind.



Sorry, it's late, I got busy with other things (again).

I apologize that I misinterpreted and thus mischaracterized what you were saying!!!

Sheesh. Been a wild 24 hours for us, no? LOL


oh sheesh. I meant larwyn, not maryrose!





Jeff G

To steal SMG's metaphor - its high class low stakes poker?

I'll see your Yeats, and raise you Eliot

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!

Firstly, in praise of Dr. Seuss, I should not, would not, could not, place you in the same box with LGF. The impression that your posts, or your site, is comparable to LGF was an unintended insult for which I will apologize. (As regular readers of Tom's site know, I'm not afraid to apologize).

That said......

The post was in response to a challenge to find right wing parallels to the posts (and comments) cited in the WaPo article that starred Maryscott O'Connor. She is pilloried on right wing sites and you, I'm afraid, are pilloried on left wing sites. I didn't say it was fair - it just is.

The Chimpy bit strikes me as cheap semiotics - i.e., labeling. Lets dismiss all left leaning folks by tarring them with the brush of the name-caller. Yes - there are left leaning folks who stoop to name calling - but that is not an affliction found only in those who lean left. There are many such monikers - one poster on this site has a particular affection for the term "copperheads" to describe war opponents. This is actually the reason I picked on your site - the "Chimpy" series strikes me as nothing more than an example of pejorative labeling of all opponents as childish because some are. It seems that anyone who might oppose the president is quickly labeled as having "BDS". That is equally non-serious - and a way to close debate by slogan.

The Yeats and O'Connor quotations struck me - the casual reader - as I described them - an attempt to label yourself as the reasonable center and your opponents as a lunatic fringe with no morality. But you say you mean something even more sinister (latin for left, by the way) - you mean that your opponents are not centered - in other words, thy are soulless hollow men -the men who cannot hear the falconer - loosing anarchy upon the world. Frankly, that is quite a bit more troubling. I would find it quite difficult to believe that one can determine the state of another's soul base upon mere political positions. Its rather high class demonization - or do you mean something different?

Finally, your position regarding war critics follows this theme, ISTM. Caveats? In a blog post? You describe those of us who oppose (and opposed) the war as nihilists - people who " ... have embraced the linguistic turn, there is no center at all -- just the will to power and competing narratives. Contingency, irony, solidarity, etc." - your words. I am surprised that you are surprised that people might be offended by that attitude. Leftists are not merely gauche - they are sinister.


JM Hanes


Folks might take your critique more seriously if you had managed to come up with some actual examples that support your original assertion and had resisted the urge to tar the right as bigots when you're complaining about labels.

Soylent Red

In my neverending adventures in rounding up sacrificial virgins, I have of late taken inadvertant spelunking tours of the grottoes of the Left. To the point of the original post, I have been reflecting on these experiences and have some thoughts. Bear in mind, my travels have taken me into the presence of college educated professional types ranging from late twenties to early forties, and the weirdie beardie overly ironic early twenties crowd. So I've seen a pretty good cross section of what the future of the opposition looks like and gotten to plumb the full three inches of their political depth. Here is what my abjectly non-scientific field study has found to date:

1. Drugs. Having been there and done that in my libertine past, it doesn't particularly shock me, but it does still tend to amuse me when I see both its short term and long term effects on rational thought. The Left is universally grounded in drug culture, either by current use, previous use, or sympathetic leanings. It serves as a sort of Communion-like sacrament in some cases, or as a reference point for the untrammeling of their previously uptight and repressive thought patterns. At minimum, and in all cases, it is linkage to general paranoia and the sense that society is generally held down.

2. Factual ignorance. Following closely on the heels of drugs, and perhaps resulting from them, is a simplistic or nonexistant understanding of the bases for political thought. Not only an ignorance of historical fact (causes and effects of the Cold War was a recurring one), but basic economics, civics and poltical science. In one instance, I had to actually defend some poor college professor who had the temerity to posit that communism fell to the left of liberalism on the political spectrum, and that the further you go to the left, the closer you get to state control. The most lucid rationale for disputing this, you might be asking? "Well communists were totalitarians, like Bush, and Bush is a rightwinger so..." Also, nearly every Leftie was ignorant of local and state politics, or how certain esoterica like how Election Day is determined.

3. Ideological ignorance. Similar to the previous, but on a more theoretical track. One example is that Lefties seem to be able to bring up talking point issues like abortion or gun control, but cannot tell you the underpinnings for their arguments (as in where in statute or the Constitution such an argument is to be derived). Another good example is the "If totalitarianism is bad, why don't we have the right to stop it in places like Iraq or Afghanistan?" To summarize this point, they argue what's been fed to them without knowing why they're arguing. They lack depth in understanding why they think they way they scream.

4. Single track thought. This is a two pronged one. Lefties see flawed connections between issues. In one case you get "War is bad, abortion is good, Bush is bad." There is not cause and effect, everything exists in the present tense. The immigration issue was a good trap on this one, as in "Reducing immigration is good for labor. But reducing immigration will cause prices to rise, thus hurting the poor. Labor is composed mostly of the poor. Reducing immigration is bad for labor." There was much stoney head scratching on that one.

Conversely, all roads tend to lead to either Iraq or abortion, no matter how tenous the connection or how many stations you had to pass through to get to one of these terminals. It would be too difficult to describe the conversations, but you all know what I'm talking about.

5. When in doubt, become strident. Issues for Lefties take on a life and death role, and every issue is an important issue. Therefore it is customary to ignore similarities in position between political parties and cast every issue as a conflict of extremes. That in turn gives justification to turning a discussion into a debate, and a debate into a contest of vocal volume and interuption.

6. Kill the messenger. Like #5, as a Leftie you must eventually regress into attacking the motives of your adversary. In the last four weeks, I've been called a "fascist" more times than I care to count, but have never once raised my voice in refuting Leftist arguments.

7. All things are political in nature. Even the simplest subjects will eventually veer into political discussions. I don't know how it happened, but somehow the topics relative hand strengths in Texas Hold 'Em, hybrid fuel cell technology, the pleasant atmosphere of The Ballpark in Arlington, Texas, and Britney Spears dropping her baby on its head became launching points for heated arguments. In other words, when around Lefties, you don't have to go looking for trouble. It's comes to you.

The conclusion I take away from all of this is this: Lefties wallow in a chaotic soup of ignorance and emotion that follows no discernable pattern. Not to go Kung Fu, but it is unmoving formlessness. It is the definitive known unknown. I will continue to observe it and comment upon it, but I'm beginning to realize that it is counterproductive to directly oppose it.

Needless to say I came away skunked for virgins.


Soylent, my hero!
I have asked and asked in many comment threads, just based on my own personal intersecting circles of friends, friends of friends, and friends of my grown children, if anyone out there also felt drugs
was that elephant in the room here.

Here they want to put people in jail for smoking while pregnant - damage to fetus - but don't talk about damage that drugs do. And many of those we are dealing with were those fetuses in the wombs of cool ANTI WAR FREE LOVE WOMEN!

People just passed on remarking on my question. It is just that I have noticed that those who are Far Left, have history all screwed up and get loud abusive and hysterical when challenged are the same ones who think that a little weed and a little blow is just fine - on weekends.
So I thank you for verifying that you see what I have seen.

Copperheads (Peace Democrats)

Although the Democratic party had broken apart in 1860, during the secession crisis Democrats in the North were generally more conciliatory toward the South than were Republicans. They called themselves Peace Democrats; their opponents called them Copperheads because some wore copper pennies as identifying badges.

And follow the links in this:
Gallantry: What Liberals can Learn from George W. Bush by Vasko Kohlmayer
January 28th, 2006

The other day, the American people saw George W. Bush once again addressing his critics in connection with the NSA’s surveillance program . Despite the fact that he has been accused of the worst of possible motives – of willfully and deliberately breaking the law to spy on his fellow citizens – the President tackled this and other gratuitous charges without a trace of anger or bitterness.

A relative few presidents in this country’s history have endured the kind of vicious and spurious attacks that have been leveled against George Bush. Completely abandoning any sense of decorum or statesmanship, some of the highest officials in the Democratic Party have repeatedly called him a liar, a loser, an election-thief, an airhead, and a fraud. Regularly likened to Hitler, there have been books discussing his assassination. Recently he was even dubbed the world’s greatest terrorist by one of America’s once-prominent entertainers . There are just a few of examples. Sadly, such views are increasingly becoming part of the mainstream liberal outlook.

Read it all.
Hope this helps you.


I post this excerpt from the BelmontClub knowing that Texas will attempt to equate this instances of books "banned" at private colleges endowed by individual religions.
Please read the last paragraph carefully and bring back word that the ALA is being pressed by the Left to express outrage.

There's a bizarre story about an Ohio State University librarian who is being sued for harassment by faculty members because he recommended books by David Horowitz, Bat Ye’or, Rick Santorum and David Kupelian. Three faculty members complained the list made them feel "unsafe". Legal blogger Eugene Volokh thinks the complaint is technically a "sexual orientation harassment" case and says:

It's quite sad, I think, that these university professors are responding to offensive ideas not just by arguing against them, but by trying to coercively suppress them (apparently, according to the ADF's letter, with considerable support from their colleagues). I expect that the university will promptly dismiss the complaint, since even under the university's own policy such speech is not prohibited -- among other reasons, the speech wasn't "based on a person's protected status," since the statements weren't about the complainants, and weren't targeted towards the complainants because of their sexual orientation. But it reflects badly on the complainants that the complaint is even being filed.

Volokh notes that the librarian will be lucky if the complaint isn't upgraded to a human-rights violation case. That would be interesting.

Oh, and one related item, from a message during this debate written by another professor, Hannibal Hamlin (no, not the Hannibal Hamlin): "On the matter of homophobia, I think you should be rather careful, Scott. OSU's policy on discrimination is not simply a matter of academic orthodoxy, but a matter of human rights." Yes, reference librarians, professors, students, everyone: On matters of certain viewpoints that are prohibited by university policies, we think you should be rather careful.

Tigerhawk thinks "It will be very interesting to see whether the American Library Association, which purports to care a lot about 'intellectual freedom' will have anything to say about this outrage."

What do you think?

Beto Ochoa

Soylent said
"It is the definitive known unknown"
Ahhh. The Known Fact. Basis for near all BDS thought.


5. When in doubt, become strident. Issues for Lefties take on a life and death role, and every issue is an important issue.

This has as it's root simple narcissism, and the narcism of the left is something I have been reading about and mulling for some time now. There is a fundamental dysfunction observable on the left, at least to my eye, and I believe it is classic narcissism on an epidemic scale.

Shrinkwrapped, a blog written by a practising New York Psychoanalyst and Psychiatrist, has penned a 4 part series of posts titled Narcissism, Malignant Narcissism, and Paranoia that does the subject a lot of justice.

Here's part of it:

"Some on the left are overtly anti-American; there have always been non-democratic Americans who believe that their particular brand of Utopian ideology is necessary to save our nation.


While many liberals believe Ward Churchill is a dangerous fool, too many think that his ideas, while perhaps too strongly expressed, have some relative validity....When he argues that the 9/11 attackers are simply retaliating for our numerous misdeeds, it may be noxious to many, but isn't there some truth to his charges? After all, the United States did support tyrants in the Middle East and elsewhere.


In these cases, as in many others, the left and liberal aggrandizement of their own ideological ideas presents a serious danger to our prosecution of the war. The ACLU, people like Ward Churchill, groups like Moveon.org and Human Rights First insist that their motives are pure (while everyone who disagrees with them have motives that are typically corrupt.) They are upholding human rights; the right to be treated with respect; the right to counsel; the right to free speech. As abstractions, these rights are inviolate; as explanations for their behavior (which could appear to be harmful to our nation's interests) they are superficially plausible; yet, reality always supervenes. To be more attached to abstractions than to the welfare of others in one's community is a classic signifier of the Narcissist. It is one step removed from the narcissistic disavowal of the other: my beliefs are more important than your life."

The narcissist doesn't recognize anyone's right to disagree. He is the only thing that matters. His beliefs are his core. When you attempt to engage in debate or engage in discussion with the left on their websites, you are 'attacking' them personally.

Joe Wilson anyone?

These behaviors are on display in this thread, in case anyone missed it. 'The right is just as foul as the left.' It is ubjectively untrue, yet I doubt the belief has been shaken in the least by the failure of proof. Notice the 'well, the right just hides it better' line. 'I believe it. Therefore it must be true, and evidence be damned.'

Anyway, if the subject interests anyone its a good series of posts.


It is so terrific that we have Shrinkwrapped, Dr.Sanity, OneCosmos, NeoNeocon, and Sigmund,Carl & Alfred to provide such insight.

Highly recommend Dr.Sanity's tutorials on "Shame vs Guilt Cultures", and Parts I & II of "Denial".

But today, this is the post that is the must read, it must be read in full.

"Judas:A Saint for Our Seasons" by Vanderleun

"It is no longer sophisticated or fashionable to speak of selfishness as betrayal."

"I betrayed my country because it gave me the freedom to do so. Feel my love for it."



Folks might take your critique more seriously if you had managed to come up with some actual examples that support your original assertion and had resisted the urge to tar the right as bigots when you're complaining about labels.

Lets go back to my original assertion.

Mayhap you folk realize what those of us who tilt left feel when we read LGF, or Redstate, or Hewit, or powerline, or the captain, or any link from Reynolds. I can almost duplicate the posts on any issue.

That's it. SMG challenged me as follows:

Okay, do it. Re-post comments/statements from Powerline that are the equivalent of "wanting Bush to die a painful death." Let's go. The floor is all your's.

I took the challenge as reposting comments/statements on the right that are equivalent of "wanting Bush to die a painful death." These statements are, objectively, not pretty. I was not and am not asserting that they are illustrative of all folks on the right. They are out there, however. They do exist.

The WaPo article does not cite the A-list left wing bloggers. It cites a gag site (Rudepundit) and then repeats ridiculous comments by people like "Dave" on Eschaton as exemplifying the left leaning blogosphere. That struck me as a hitjob - as I so said. I'm sorry you found the bigoted assertions quoted from LGF posts as offensive. I do as well.

The hiding it better meme is not mine - its Tom's. I will point out that the Republican party in the south has adopted wink wink, nudge nudge politics. In fact, Rove is the unchallenged master. Why else would Rove, on behalf of Bush, use pushpolling in South Carolina that asked if the person that answered the telephone was aware that McCain had a black baby? Nuff said.

Call me a narcissist all you want - I've been called worse. But its ridiculous to assert that "objectively", there are no comparisons on the right to the worst excesses of the left. I merely proved that, objectively, there were.

Gary Maxwell

I then take it that in your own way you are admitting to the inability to come up with the answer to the challenge?



How would you characterize firedoglake? A-list or not?

Barney Frank

"Call me a narcissist all you want - I've been called worse."

TT, I've got a sibling with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. There ain't nothing worse.


"It is no longer sophisticated or fashionable to speak of selfishness as betrayal."

"I betrayed my country because it gave me the freedom to do so. Feel my love for it."

The interesting dichotomy is that these people are collectivist when it ia a matter of economics and politics,but individualists when it comes to matters of conscience.
This is a neat divice allowing them to impose their beliefs on others whilst opting out anything which they disagree with.


"comparisons on the right to the worst excesses of the left. I merely proved that, objectively, there were. "

No you didn't.


I feel a bit sorry for this poor woman. Her case of Bush Derangement Syndrome seems pretty severe. But when she starts ranting and scaring her kid, well, that just screams "Get that woman some medication" to me.

Jeff G

TT writes:

You describe those of us who oppose (and opposed) the war as nihilists - people who " ... have embraced the linguistic turn, there is no center at all -- just the will to power and competing narratives. Contingency, irony, solidarity, etc." - your words. I am surprised that you are surprised that people might be offended by that attitude. Leftists are not merely gauche - they are sinister.


Uh, well, no. I described nihilism and its philosophical offspring that way. There was nothing in the O'Connor quote or my post about anyone's political position. Opposing the war doesn't make one an adherent to the kind of linguistic incoherence that has insinuated itself into our culture and public policy. In fact, I criticized both the White House and Bill Kristol on these grounds during the Bill Bennett scandal. And neither or those can easily be called anti-war -- or nihilists, for that matter. It is an easy trap to fall into, because it privileges perception over intent -- and for politicians, this is something of a learned mandate. But that doesn't make it any more correct, logically, and I find it dangerous to classical liberalism for reasons I've spelled out in a series of long and detailed posts on my site.

I also criticized those who were offended by the Flight 93 Memorial who didn't believe it's designers was acting intentionally to make an Islamic crescent. The point being that the conditions for such thinking, which privileges the receiver over the utterer in the communication chain (while then attributing all consequences to the utterer for interpretations conjured up by the receivers), has become institutionalized, so much so that often times we engage in it without thinking in through, and with the "best" of intentions.

So you are right to say my opponents, in the realm of the battle over how language works, are not centered. But that's because their idea of language is relativistic and unmoored from intent. But their political affiliation is incidental to that - though the professors of a postmodernism that is both misread and mistaught often find a home on the political left. But that, I believe, is just a consequence of the breakdown of political affiliation within those who people English Departments.

All of this is substantially separate from my characterization of war critics, though the two conditions often overlap.

The Chimpy bit strikes me as cheap semiotics - i.e., labeling. Lets dismiss all left leaning folks by tarring them with the brush of the name-caller. Yes - there are left leaning folks who stoop to name calling - but that is not an affliction found only in those who lean left. There are many such monikers - one poster on this site has a particular affection for the term "copperheads" to describe war opponents. This is actually the reason I picked on your site - the "Chimpy" series strikes me as nothing more than an example of pejorative labeling of all opponents as childish because some are.
Sure. But certainly I'm not responsible, each time I post, for pointing out how some of those on the other side of the political divide engage in labeling as well, am I? After all, I don't want to steal your keen observational thunder.

And as my readers know, the "Chimpy" series is done ironically, as are any number of the series I run on my site (for instance "in which I try half-heartedly to re-establish my conservative bona fides", etc.) It is YOU who have made the leap from my poking fun at the fact that some people use ridiculous names for the President in order to demonize him to the suggestion that I'm of the opinion (or at least trying to argue implicitly) that all those on the left do it. I make no such claim and never have.

Finally, the way I am pilloried by the left blogs is interesting, wouldn't you say? The latest memes -- that I eat paste, I'm "Mr Mom," I have "dishpan hands," etc (for those who don't know, I decided to quit teaching at a university out west when my son was born in order to stay home with him) -- are an interesting choice coming from "progressives" who are always on about the redefining of gender roles and their support for womyn, etc.

Beyond that, I'm a chickenhawk (once again, peculiar that the left bloggers who use this argument are interested in a country whose foreign policy must necessarily be run by the military), a failed academic (presumably for quitting teaching), and a Bush Kultist (this last for not taking the Greenwald side of the NSA "domestic spy" story).

In short, criticisms of me are meant to try to diminish my credibility. But I just keep plodding along trying to make substantive arguments in my posts that don't demonize my opponents in such personal terms (unless I'm provoked, in which case I can throw a barb or two myself).

So you'll forgive me if once again I don't find your use of me in this discussion apt, as the way I address my ideological opponents -- though sometimes snarky -- is oftentimes quite direct and makes ever attempt to engage on the level of discourse Tom manages here on a daily basis. I invite you, for instance, to look through my posts on the NSA, or on feminism vs. anti-feminism (in which I invited Feministe, Amanda Marcotte, Alas, A Blog, Cathy Young, and others to participate), or my debates with Greenwald over "patriotism", or my discussions of torture, or "propaganda" (vs Matt Welch). My site has a search button.

JM Hanes


You haven't managed to produce anything that's even in the same universe with O'Connor-style ravings from "LGF, or Redstate, or Hewit, or powerline, or the captain, or any link from Reynolds." That's a pretty poor showing if any link from Reynolds should should suffice. Six year old push polls from South Carolina aren't even on topic, let alone on point. So far all you've "proved" is that you can set up straw men and knock 'em down.


I'm telling you guys you're wasting your time. It is impossible for him to acknowledge he's wrong about this. If he shows up again he'll simply assert that he's right again and take off.

There isn't any proof, the assertion of equivalence doesn't require any, the mere IDEA that it should prove it is incredibly threatening. He said it, he believes it, its true. Period.


Hope you've read the entire brilliant JUDAS essay. The quotes I posted were just to whet yr appetite.

"If he shows up again he'll simply assert that he's right again and take off."

Yes, Dwilkers, once one spends a few hours with our Conservative Psych. blogs, one realizes the futility. FACTS which prove their error are just met with new subject/new connections. By the 3rd? 4th? go round, one should realize who you have on the line.

Dr.Sanity offers a free email alert. There she is, a sane respite in your inbox, between the NYT & WaPo headlines.

JM Hanes


In many ways, I think the real "tired old reject" here may be the idea that socialism is an inherently subversive ideology. Almost every political decision involves some compromise between libertarian and socialist principles, so it's neither as easy to distinguish the socialism from the wrapper in the Euston Manifesto, nor as easy -- or even as desirable -- to "give up on the socialism" as you imply. Here in the States, for example, neither Democratic nor Republican platforms will ever satisfy purists on the socialist/libertarian extremes, so responding as though a choice between the two is what we're being offered seems politically misguided.

I just don't see lipstick on a pig here. Euston is not shy about its objectives. It lays out a comprehensive agenda and it repudiates an all too apparent willingness on the left to prostitute liberal principles in the struggle for political power. Indeed, it acknowledges that accusations of anti-democratic, anti-American sympathies are a well merited response to current leftist rhetoric, not evidence of gratuitous malice on the right. That admission itself is both noteworthy and refreshing all on its own.

In an adversarial two party system, no one ultimately benefits when either one of them remains in disarray while the other goes effectively unchallenged for long. I, for one, welcome the return to sanity which Euston advocates and the intentions it expresses with a clarity which might actually allow us to engage in the battle of ideas we should be fighting instead of the political paintball we've been playing.

JM Hanes


"I'm telling you guys you're wasting your time. It is impossible for him to acknowledge he's wrong about this."

If you were witness to the inumerable clashes I've had with my daughter, you'd think she never takes my advice. If, however, you look at decisions she ultimately makes, you'd discover that she often does.

While gratifying, those who look for, or insist upon, admissions of error as a measure of successful argument will almost inevitably be disappointed. I'd even suggest that pressing for such admissions is a counter-productive tactic, and one which is far more likely to stiffen resistance than induce surrender.


What strikes me is that I believe TT doesn't agree with the methods and madness of many on the Left, and simply finds it difficult to admit. The reason being that TT cannot go to one of these places and criticize anyone there without himself being labeled as a right-wing shill and banned.

So he has habituated himself to it and is doomed to defend them and every single position they take. It's that totalitarian mindset of the Left (we have a position on absolutely everything and we must all embrace all these positions) that has sucked him in.

They want their power back and it takes a united front to do so (or so they think. Not taking into account that some of the undisavowed extremist positions and abject hatred of the man, Bush, scares half the country.).

On the other hand the Right is facing a problem of uniting on various issues in order to maintain power. But the difference is that there is dialog among and between different mindsets on the right. And it is open argument with no single faction demanding adherence to one specific POV.

And the Right openly disavows its kooks. (The real ones, not necessarily the ones the Left has labeled so.) Whereas nobody on the Dem side is willing to openly disavow their own.


In an adversarial two party system, no one ultimately benefits when either one of them remains in disarray while the other goes effectively unchallenged for long. I, for one, welcome the return to sanity...

Me too.

Absent competition nothing in this country works correctly. Our system doesn't work without 2 viable parties. That's why one party going insane is so distressing.

As far as pressing for an admission, that's beside the point. He's declared victory a couple of times, and that's an order of magnitude further over the edge than being unable to admit one is wrong. That would seem to me to be the difference between being stubborn and being deranged.

Almost every political decision involves some compromise between libertarian and socialist principles, so it's neither as easy to distinguish the socialism from the wrapper in the Euston Manifesto, nor as easy -- or even as desirable -- to "give up on the socialism" as you imply.

Take the 3 mentioned in my posts ...

  1. Drop the double standard on human rights;
  2. Drop the anti-Americanism;
  3. Replace the economic system.

The symbolic "common sense" just doesn't square with the agenda. Sorry. They're not advocating give and take there. The POV is free markets are bad (even though they work) and fair markets (socialism) are good (even though they don't). It's economic creationism. The ones who understand it the least want to run the whole thing their way on the basis of "good and evil".


Just want to add to Dwilkers excellent answer to your reading that we were those that demanded a surrender.

Note at all, the world and human nature doesn't work that way.
The key was "after 3 or 4 go rounds". Most hate to directly say, "I was wrong". Think that going thru those Confessions every Friday, has rather erased from my own individual MO. But I don't expect it from others.

If they drop it and don't circle back to it continually, I take that as demonstration they got the message.

I agree with you about children - but I've thought of it as their playing "devil's advocate" and really trying to force us to clarify and close all the loopholes for them. Grandson had to represent China at Junior UN, so does Devils' Advocate very well.


**those WHO**** and ***NOT at all**


easy ... to "give up on the socialism" as you imply

JMH, I do not imply that. In fact the socialism would be impossible to "give up", hence my hope that significant number of it's adherents will be unable to accept the candy coating and drop the symbolism.

This manifesto is quite simply a call to Social Democrat ideology. It's neither new, progressive nor liberal in the classical sense. Let viable competition come from elsewhere.


Taranto weights in on the WaPo
piece on O'Conner:

But can anyone imagine an Angry Right figure being treated as respectfully in the mainstream media as O'Connor is in the Post? Don't get us wrong--we have no brief for right-wing moonbats. We're just a bit troubled that the press treats someone like O'Connor so sympathetically.

This double standard actually ought to trouble the left more. By treating crazy right-wingers as disreputable figures, the media give the Republican Party an incentive to distance itself from its fringes. The "mainstreaming" of the Angry Left, by contrast, makes the Democratic Party angrier and crazier--and less likely to win elections.


Anyone that wanders back to this thread will find a reward:
Civil War: The Nation’s Alterman & Vanden Heuvel vs. TIME’s Joe Klein

Posted by Noel Sheppard on April 15, 2006 - 20:44.

You really couldn’t script this any better: Three prominent liberal media members (the third is a player to be named later!) challenging another over what Democrats stand for. And, the beauty is that these folks are actually blogging their disgust with one another for all to read. Go get some popcorn, because this is literally a three ring circus!

Our story begins on Tuesday, April 11 at a breakfast sponsored by HBO and the Council on Foreign Relations. Early the following morning, the Nation’s Eric Alterman posted at his TIME blog his discontent with something TIME’s Joe Klein said at the affair: “It was a useful discussion with many useful tributaries and give and take with the audience and we all felt better for it. That is right up until the very last moment when, after someone brought up the question of the whether the Democrats will be able to present an effective alternative to Bush in the next election, Joe Klein shouted out, ‘Well they won’t if their message is that they hate America—which is what has been the message of the liberal wing of the party for the past twenty years.’”

Seems like a sound and impartial observation by Klein. However, Alterman wasn’t pleased: “Excuse me, but I think this is worth some attention. It’s not about Klein per se, who after all, is best known to most Americans as the guy who lost his job at both Newsweek and CBS News for purposely misleading editors, readers and viewers in order to increase his own personal profit as the allegedly ‘anonymous’ author of ‘Primary Colors.’” Get the sense that this is going to get good? It does:

JM Hanes


LOL! Since Jeff's not here, I'll do the honors and announce that the demonization of Joe Klein has commenced!


Nice little ad anonym there by Alterna Reality Man. Note that Klein said the 'liberal' wing of the Democratic Party.


Note to self.

Avoid becoming emotionally invested. When you get emotional, you get stupid. On the day when Malkin posts and reposts students’ http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2006/04/future_imperfec.html ">private telephone numbers, you manage a ridiculously poor piece of advocacy. Nihilistic demonization? How embarrassing.

Remember, when you are in a hole, stop digging.

That is all.

The comments to this entry are closed.