Free Markets, Free People

Quote of the Day – Joe Klein sedition edition

Joe Klein joins Joan Walsh as charter members of “history began on Jan. 2oth 2009″ club:

On the Chris Mathews Show Sunday, I said that some of the right-wing infotainment gasbags–people like Glenn Beck etc.–were nudging up close to the edge of sedition. This has caused a bit of a self-righteous ruckus on the right. Let me be clear: dissent isn’t sedition. Questioning an Administration’s policies isn’t sedition. But questioning an Administration’s legitimacy in a manner intended to undermine or overthrow it certainly is.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

31 Responses to Quote of the Day – Joe Klein sedition edition

  • “Let me be clear”. Heh. What a jackass.

  • By the way, I get criticized when I point out that Bush and the GOP did things that anger people about Obama, people accusing me of making a “mommy he did it too argument.”   But that argument gets made consistently in this blog about people like Klein.   It is proper to point out such inconsistencies, it shows that both sides tend to dismiss bad behavior by people on their side while condemning it when it comes from the other side.   That’s why I find BDS and ODS to be very, very similar complexes.

    • Um….no.  You use your little trick (your 1 trick actually) to try to make 2 things morally equivilant because one of them you need to have glossed over.

      You have zero interest in pointing out inconssistancies.

      • I do see BDS and ODS as “morally equivalent.”   I oppose both sides demonizing the other and treating politics like ideological jihad — that’s a path towards weakening our democratic Republic.   Democracy requires people listening to each other and not fearing that the other side wants to ‘destroy the country.’  That kind of rhetoric is the stuff of Goebbels (whether it’s directed at Bush or Obama).

        • And thus you prove my point

        • “Um….no.  You use your little trick (your 1 trick actually) to try to make 2 things morally equivalent because one of them you need to have glossed over.”
          Ding!  Shark wins the point.
          “That kind of rhetoric is the stuff of Goebbels (whether it’s directed at Bush or Obama).”
          No, actually your rhetoric is the stuff of Goebbels.  Bruce simply wanted to know how this talk of sedition escaped Klein’s notice for the 8 years prior to Obama.  From “Selected not Elected” on down to “War Criminal”.

    • I notice you have a bad case of verbal diarrhea lately. You just can’t help commenting on things, even when you have nothing of note to say, and just have to repeat trite stuff you’ve said a hundred times before.

      You should see your pharmacist. Maybe he has something to take for it.

      • Verbal?   Nah, I just got sucked into a few conversations so I’m checking the website more than usual.  There are many people who comment more than I do.

    • I’m sick and tired of people who say that  if you debate and disagree with this
      administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say
      we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.
      – Hillary Clinton  April 28, 2003

    • By the way, I get criticized when I point out…. erk. Sproing, pop. Psssssssssss. Gaaahaaaahaaaahaaaaahaaaaahaaaaa…..

      “Oh, damn, the ERB-5 posting robot has started spewing totally incoherent nonsense again, and it looks like the grammar module is completely broken. I thought you fixed the run-on sentence problem! Try a cold start and see if we can at least get it back to spewing trite talking points.”

    • While I understand the point you think you’re trying to make, it just doesn’t hold up.  Your argument was used to defend actions taken by some b/c they were similar to the actions taken by others prior.  Which is a wholly inexcusable argument.
      Nothing is being defended here.  Merely hypocrisy pointed out. It adds nothing substantive to the debate, it is simply a somewhat mean-spirited (and fun, depending on your views) jab.
      Had you stopped your argument short of a defense of the actions taken and left them merely as an attack at the author of the criticism for not bringing it up when it was happening earlier then it wouldn’t have been as offensive.  Of course, it would have also added nothing substantive to the debate.

      • Hey, I’m having fun! Yep, after a refreshing cold start, I’m ready yet again to engage Qando commenters with in-depth analysis. That’s what I give. Analysis, analysis, analysis. Rich, creamy analysis. Not opinion! Analysis! And if you disagree, you doth protest too much! LOL! {chuckle}

        Yes {giggle}, I’m having fun, and it’s not either because I come here to talk down to dense righties and irritate them into responding to me in order to feed my narcissism and give meaning to my empty, dull life up here on this isolated cow college campus. So stop saying that.

        And you really, really ought not point out that having fun by irritating other people is psychologically sick. Because it’s not. By post-modern holy writ, it can’t be. You have to be a bully and stuff to be mentally sick. Having fun by irritating dense righties can’t possibly fall in the same category. {giggle}

  • He’s not lying. He’s just falling back on the normal post-modern tendencies of today’s left. 

    I’ll stop there, since  we’ve been over this territory before. More than once, in fact. 

    • What’s this fetish with post-modernism?   That seems to be the new label of choice, yet I see the right now acting more “post-modern” (the guy talking about the ‘liberal narrative’ for example) than the left.    I certainly don’t buy post-modern philosophy.   Oh well, I guess you have to label…

      • You’re like a soccer ball that kicked itself into the poison ivy.

        “Come get me!”

        The flatness, when you fold yourself into your wall of mendacity, the two-dimensionality, the poison ivy of the flat shallow affect, it really is like some kind of postmodern event, a personality that would require draining all the charming parts out of Iago and filling in the pourous gaps with Elmer’s glue.

        I think that you belong at a nudist colony, Scott, where you can talk about how natural you are.

      • I certainly don’t buy post-modern philosophy. 

        Earlier Erb, from one of the links noted above:

        The post-modernist argument is essentially that using enlightenment ideas and methods, the enlightenment ideals are inherently contradictory and have no central meaning. They, in essence, destroy enlightenment ideology by taking enlightenment arguments seriously. In that they have done a service: they show that reason itself does not give us truth because reason is a tool, and lacks a center. Thus all can be rationalized. It is not that there is no truth, only that reason and rational thought, when taken seriously, can be used to support multiple truth claims, with no clear way to distinguish them. While I respect the way that post-modernists have shown how enlightenment thought is limited… {snip}

        I think ’postmodernism’ is a term thrown around a lot by people with a caricatured understanding of what it is. It’s also really not en vogue right now, though the critique on enlightenment thought that it provides is generally accepted.

        Thank you for demonstrating once again that you are a lying, pathetic weasel.

      • I certainly don’t buy postmodernism. Well, I don’t! Stop laughing! And I’m not saying that just to get some jollies by irritating people around here! Stop saying that!

        Yes, I know that I have defended postmodernism in the past. But you see, there’s the multiple truths thing. I get to whip one up whenever I need to so that I can irritate dense righties convince people of the glory and wisdom of wise, pragmatic leftism.

        Sometimes that means I have to overcome people’s erroneous preconceptions about the glories of leftism. You thick righties have managed to make a fetish out of postmodernism, and use it to explain the actions of we wise leftists, and one of the holy principles of postmodernism is that dense righties are not allowed to use it for anything that furthers their ends. Only leftists get to do that. So now that you’ve started pointing out our postmodern principles parroting some caricatures about postmodernism, I need on occasion to pretend I don’t believe in it. Just to take the wind out of your sails as it were.

        But that’s not lying! It’s just using the principles of holy postmodernism to further our march to glorious leftist salvation. Which you dense righties are constantly getting in the way of. So I have to use whatever techniques are needed – multiple truths, moral equivalence, and so forth – to fight back.

        And if that irritates you, well, I’m just having fun. But that doesn’t make me mentally sick because I get pleasure that way! Stop saying that! There’s nothing wrong with me! It’s perfectly acceptable to come here and irritate you to have fun! But if you do it at my blog, I’ll ban you in a heartbeat. And there’s no contradiction in that! Stop pointing out contradictions in what I say! They’re not contradictions, they’re just multiple truths!

        Besides, you guys insult me all the time! You’re the sick ones! I decree it. Besides, I’m rubber and you’re glue, so what you say bounces off me and sticks on you. I decree that too. If you disagree, you doth protest too much. Don’t be surprised if I suspect that you are the ones who are mentally ill, not me.

  • I guess dissent isn’t the highest form of patriotism any more, eh?

    • Don’t worry, as soon as the GOP takes power again, it will be

    • That slogan is too simplistic.  The anti-Bush folk were wrong in 2000 when they tried to claim Bush “stole” the Presidency and was illegitimate, etc.    Both sides can go too far and turn dissent into claims that the other side is evil, caricaturing them and refusing to engage on substance.   That kind of dissent — like that in the late Weimar Germany era — is toxic to democracy.

      • “The anti-Bush folk were wrong in 2000 when they tried to claim Bush “stole” the Presidency and was illegitimate, etc.   ”
        AND…..where was Klein.  Can you see the difference yet?

  • It’s funny watching this known liar try to walk back his sedition nonsense. But he still can’t quite do it:

    “… questioning an Administration’s legitimacy in a manner intended to undermine or overthrow it certainly is.”

    That’s quite the charge he’s throwing at Beck, Rush, et. al. So (1) is it really “sedition” if one wants to “undermine” a particular administration? If that’s the case, the opposition party in Congress would be regularly jailed. And (2) it is not remotely the same thing to “undermine” an administration and “overthrow” an administration. Not even close. It’s like the difference, say, between pointing “dagger eyes” toward someone you’re angry with … and actually stabbing them them.
    So, we’re now left with just two conclusions about Klein. He’s either an idiot who doesn’t know the difference between those two words (undermine and overthrow), or he’s a sleazy polemicist who is trying to conflate the two words to suggest Beck and Rush et. al. advocate violent revolution to upend the government of Obama and the Democrats.
    Neither option makes Klein look good or honorable.
    As a side note, McQ wonders where Klein was for the eight years of the Bush administration. He was “undermining” it, of course. But, again, for Klein to only now decry those who would publicly question the very legitimacy of a presidency — when his fellow liberals peddled the “selected, not elected” nonsense about Bush for years — is a little bit too much to take. At least the right recognizes Obama won the election.

  • The only group on the right that I see questioning this administrations legitimacy is the birthers. And they have a specific reason for doing so that’s grounded in the Constitution, so if they were correct on O’s birth they would in fact have a point.

    The left had an absolute temper tantrum starting with the 2000 election. The “selected not elected” mantra was childish, and exceeds the birthers in logical failure. Not only that, “selected not elected” was a mainstream left/Democrat view from what I could tell, my Democrat mother-in-law bought in on that (and refused to pay up on a $20 bet she lost when Bush was elected).

    The birthers are on the margins of the right. Most on the right are upset about Obama’s policies, which are insane (or intentionally destructive).

  • Hmmm.  As usual, I see new developments first through the prism of the LN.
    In order to head off the groundswell of support for electing Republicans, the think tankers have earned this month’s pay by coming up with the great idea of characterizing any criticism of the Obama Administration from the right as violence-inducing sedition.
    Since the Tea Partiers cannot be smeared successfully as rubes, perhaps they can be cast as seditionists.  The urban liberals who don’t know any Tea Partiers won’t react negatively to the cynical change of tactics – just tell them this new aspect has been there all along.  They’ll eat it.  Now if only there is some violent action by someone (who is, for a change, not a leftist or a jihadist) Bingo!  We cash the check.  We’ll have to keep beating the drum while we hope for such an act, however.  Get the Times front page ready so we can strike quickly.  You know, keep a running track of winger statements so they can be tied into the story when it breaks.
    Let’s see, Bill Clinton can lead off by tying into Okalahoma City…Joe Klein can up the ante, then Mahr, Oh yeh, get Klein to do it on Mathews;  Chris has been begging for a chance to help and as you know, he‘ll do anything.  And we owe him one for sticking him with that damned “tingle up the leg“ thing.  Jeez.  Yep, I think we’ve got something.  Let’s do it.  Get Bill on the phone.

  • I won’t accept Joe Klein’s apology.
    The boy (and his 4th grade editors at Time) is not responsible for his own actions after he underwent a “progressive lobotomy” which led him to hang out with the other Progressives Kidz at JournoList.

    My interest was piqued when Professor Erb denied being post modernist.  Past experience indicates that (like most things he says) this is, at its bottom, a lie.    Therefore, he probably is post modern.  So I did some quick Google research to confirm this theorem and guess what?  He is definitely post modern!
 (egghead alert)
    “…postmodernism seems to offer some alternatives to joining the global culture… where forms of knowledge are offered by forces far beyond any individual’s control… By discarding “grand narratives” (like the liberation of the entire working class) and focusing on specific local goals … postmodernist politics offers a way to theorize local situations as fluid and unpredictable, though influenced by global trends. Hence the motto for postmodern politics might well be “think globally, act locally”–and don’t worry about any grand scheme or master plan. [my emphasis]
    …is this movement …something good or something bad? There are various answers to that; in our contemporary society, however, the desire to return to the pre-postmodern era  tends to get associated with conservative political [groups]… This association between the rejection of postmodernism and conservatism …may explain in part why the postmodern avowal of fragmentation and multiplicity tends to attract liberals and radicals.”
    “”Fragmentation”- as opposed to one grand design  ( I quote Professor Erb from memory:  “…there are a thousand narratives…”)
    “Multiplicity”- Postmodernism …is the critique of grand narratives…Postmodernism, in rejecting grand narratives, favors “mini-narratives,” stories that explain small practices, local events, rather than large-scale universal or global concepts. Postmodern “mini-narratives” are always situational, provisional, contingent, and temporary, making no claim to universality, truth [my emphasis], reason, or stability.”
    Thus the professor’s embrace of the LN.

    • So, to sum up, my dear friend Scott Erb is a turbo-charged vat of swirling green jello, where if you take away the turbo, the charge, the vat, the swirl, the green, and the jellow, you have a pretty reliable Erb finished product: nothing.

      Add some nausea, chatty nausea, a dash of Ott Scerb, and it’s back to square one and another day.

      Take it away, Scott!


    Glenn Reynolds linked this on his blog and noted that this story is not being reported in the media because “it doesn’t fit the narrative”.
    What does this mean?  It means that editors, committed to supporting the current LN effort to set up the right for possibly, in the future, maybe inciting political violence, cannot bring themselves to print this story of right now actual (alleged) political violence.  Yes, these thugs didn’t burn a swatiska into anyone’s forehead so we cannot be really, absolutely, incontrovertibly certain that this beating was politically inspired….
    Ask yourself this:  if one were really concerned about political violence, whether committed by the right or the left, how could one not consider this story timely?  Fits right into the narrative of possible political violence…Oh wait, wrong political party.  Move along, nothing to see here.
    Give me a cogent reason for ignoring this story other than the existence of the LN and its support by the media.

    • This story is part of the taunting by the media.  They are spoiling for some violence, so they are priming the pump to do one of those “I told you so” stories.
      Meanwhile, the veiled attributions to Tim McVeigh are bring up the old stories of Ruby Ridge and Waco .. casting Bill Clinton and Janet Reno as the thugs who plotted to use CS gas to torture the children so the crazies at Waco would give up.  The only problem was … they were crazy.  The tortured the children for nothing .. except to torture.