In order to preserve this nation, we must stop giving in to the Republicans and their hatred of America’s diversity of race, thought, ideology, and values.
The Republican party is guilty of moral bankruptcy. Guilty of the sin of being on the wrong side of freedom, decency, and American values. Anyone who continues to stand by their side deserves the appropriate eternal damnation.
I have to laugh when Oliver complains of smears, hate and divisiveness from the Right. It's not that he's always wrong—too often, unfortunately, he's not. It's that he's become what he professes to hate. Instead of fixing the problem, Oliver has chosen to become the problem.
Because of unserious, anti-intellectual people like that (on both sides), we're all a little bit worse off.
When I find myself puzzled and even vexed by the opinions and beliefs of other people, I invite them to have lunch. Multiple experiments have supported what we will call, in Jeff's honor, the Limerick Hypothesis: in the bitter contests of values and political rhetoric that characterize our times, 90 percent of the uproar is noise, and 10 percent is what the scientists call "signal," or solid, substantive information that will reward study and interpretation. If we could eliminate much of the noise, we might find that the actual, meaningful disagreements are on a scale we can manage.
You really shouldn’t be so hard on Oliver....what can you expect from the guy? He writes what Soros tells him to write. He can’t get that Soros money if he ever has an independent thought.
As someone who makes his living communicating, I’d say your conclusion that we need a better signal-to-noise ratio is spot on. But I strongly contend that we are way past the days of "managing" the disagreement with the majority of those on the other side of many issues. That’s because many of those folks have taken to simply denying reality, and it’s impossible to argue or discuss with someone who does so.
If a liberal tells me that socialized medicine is the only way to get people coverage, and that it will work just fine if we put it in, that’s not just a matter of opinion. There are plenty of examples to look at - our own VA, Canada’s Medicare, TennCare in Tennessee, and the National Health Service in Britain, among others. They are all variations on the socialized medicine theme, in which government takes responsibility for healthcare of some or all the people in a political entity. And they are all growing out of control on costs. The ones that dominate their political entity all have effective rationing ("access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare", as the Canadian judge said). All of them impose bureaucracies that stifle innovation and encourage fraud. All of them drive providers out of the market with the price controls, thereby causing shortages.
If a liberal says to me, "Well, a six month wait for an MRI is worth it so that everybody is eligible for one", then perhaps I could "manage" the disagreement (by agreeing to disagree, mostly). But in the conversations I’ve had on the subject, they simply deny that this will be the result. It’s always "Oh, we can organize a system that doesn’t have those problems." Or even, "Canada isn’t really as bad as you say." This, despite the fact that the Canada has a safety valve that keeps it from getting even worse, because people with means can come to the US and buy care. They think that’s an opinion - I consider it denial of reality. If you can’t point to any example that supports your position, and I can point to many that contradict it, then sticking to your guns is based on faith, not reality.
That brings up the only way I’ve found to successfully get my points across. If I understand the world better than they do, then that means I should be better at predicting events than they are. So I put my money where my mouth is. When they say anything that I consider reality denial, and in which there is an objective means to contradict that denial in the future, I offer to make a bet. I’ve made many of them, and not lost one yet (several are still pending).
The most profitable example was lefties insisting that Bush would reinstitute the draft soon after the election. This was obvious hogwash to anyone with a grasp of reality. But I met plenty of leftists who, because of their reality dispersion field I guess, were just sure that Bush was going to do it, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
As Rumsfeld put it so well, "I think the only people who could conceivably be talking about a draft are people who are speaking from pinnacles of near-perfect ignorance." That’s just another way of saying that they are out of touch with reality. Such people can’t be swayed by logical argument. They can’t usually be swayed by losing a bet either, but I’ve noticed some becoming a bit more respectful of my opinions afterwards.
Yes, I totally agree with the sentiment and I’ve marvelled at it for years. I read liberal blogs now and then or see liberal’s comments in other blogs and it’s a consistent theme: We liberals are nice and tolerant, but those conservatives, Republicans, etc. are hateful, evil, selfish, racist, greedy, mean, divisive, like to kick puppies, etc. Oh, and anytime a Democratic pol or liberal polemcist engages in this kind of name-calling and the right howls—well, that’s just the "right-wing" noise machine making a bogus issue of it.
I agree that it’s fine to point out hateful or divisive rhetoric on the right. But Jesus, do these people suffer from cognitive dissonance or something? Do they have any kind of intellectual honesty at all? Or is just, "my side right or wrong?"
I think that Oliver is right on one point but not in the way he thinks. There is no moral equivalency between liberal and conservative demagoguery. Jon and others are constantly trying to establish their "moderate" bona fides by claiming that both sides are equally culpable of demagoguery. It’s true that there are demagogues on both sides of the political spectrum but the ratio is about 90/10 liberals to conservatives (in number and degree) not 50/50. The other problem with claiming moral equivalency between the two sides is that most of what the left has claimed is false while statements like Rove’s happen to be almost entirely correct.
The NY Times writer is correct however. Almost everyone I know on the left side of the political spectrum actually agrees with me on about 80%-90% of the big political issues of the day. They just buy into the BS about Jerry Falwell and the Christian right having complete control over the Republican Party, Bush lied to the Country to go to war in order to enrich his oil cronies, the Bush Adminitration has abused our civil liberties by searching library records, the war in Iraq is a complete failure, etc. The left is entirely responsible for dissemination of those falsehoods and they are the basis for most of the polarization of our country. Face it, Democrats will do almost anything to regain power. It isn’t that Democrats explicitly intend to hurt the country, it’s just that they don’t care about collateral damage in their war to regain the power that they feel they deserve.
OW’s style is combative and, yes, at times it is caustic. I find it fascinating, however, that no one here has produced one example of Oliver Willis writing a falsehood. Jon Henke’s examples are, well, rather empty and flaccid. Just becasue Oliver is angry, it doesn’t mean he is wrong. If Henke was trying to make that point, then perhaps he should have chosen better examples. Likewise, it seems this strangely weak mischaracterization of OW has led into a general chiding of liberal angry talk, as if there is some equivalency to that and the Right Wing Noise Machine.
Well, if one considers oneself a progressive or a liberal in this country today, one should be angry. It will likely mean, as I’m certain it has on occasion, that angry liberals will often say things that aren’t accurate or true. However, it is important to remember that it wasn’t liberals and progressives who sat on the sidelines cheering the Bush administration into its illegal and unnecessary war in Iraq. It wasn’t liberals and progressives who tried to run Social Security into the ground.
Anyway, Jon Henke and the rest of you need to remember that liberal anger isn’t the problem, nor are the occasional progressive’s bad manners. The Right has invested several decades and billions of dollars into dragging our public political discourse into the violent ignorance of the intellectual back alley. Unfortunately, they seem to have taken a significant portion of the electorate with them.
While it is important for those of us who are willing to think on a higher plane to continue doing so, it is also important to remember that we who label ourselves liberal and progressive don’t control the megaphones of public discourse. Unfortunately, in order to get the attention we’ll need to swing things back, we’re going to have to learn to shout angrily more often. I think Oliver Willis understands this, and maybe even Howard Dean might have bought a clue.
What Jon Henke tries to misrepresent, however, is that usually Oliver is angrily screaming out the truth. The corporate-owned and -run mass media have adopted a pattern of setting up a false moral equivalency between the lying demagogues of the Right and people like Oliver. Henke seems to be following that pattern to a tee, and that is a fool’s errand. Liberal screaming didn’t lead to Iraq or our massive budget deficit. Ignoring, discounting, or downplaying liberal anger and its frequent expression may have helped pave the way, however.
Oh, and by the way: quoting gleeful serial prevaricators like Donald Rumsfeld places one’s argument squarely on thin, melting ice. So does dragging out crude, slanderous cut-outs like the George-Soros-as-liberal-puppetmaster canard. Are we sure this place isn’t a civilized adjunct to Free Republic?
Churchie, thanks for proving the comparative existence of the left wing noise machine. Not very much signal.
Oh, you forgot to add the requisite statements Israel, neocons and joooossss in you post. George Soros will be offset that you aren’t getting the talking points correct.
I hate to break it to Ms. Limerick, but many of the problems besetting political discourse in this country have arisen not because the "signals" of the extremists are getting lost in noise, but because those signals are getting through loud and clear, thank you.
Those signals often involve lies and prevarications, but they are signals nonetheless. What is new is that countersignals calling out the lies and prevarications on all sides are also getting through.
Frankly, I am contemptuous of the Oliver Willises of the world because I can receive their signals, not because I can’t.
Well, if one considers oneself a progressive or a liberal in this country today, one should be angry. It will likely mean, as I’m certain it has on occasion, that angry liberals will often say things that aren’t accurate or true. However, it is important to remember that it wasn’t liberals and progressives who sat on the sidelines cheering the Bush administration into its illegal and unnecessary war in Iraq. It wasn’t liberals and progressives who tried to run Social Security into the ground
I get it - and that explains Oliver’s m.o. as well! It’s okay to do it if you’re a liberal, because they’re the good guys, while it’s not okay if conservatives do it, because they’re the bad guys.
OK, it’s time to ease up. I took a moment and checked out The Church Secretary’s web site. Believe me, "elite liberal snob" does not do it justice. Maybe it is a caricature of said els, but I couldn’t stop the smile when I read of rhapsodising in Scotland and dancing on the Great Wall of China, before settling in San Francisco... well, how does one do a parody of a parody? Put this guy in a jar and bring him out when an els is needed (I know, I know, but pretend such a need could exist). You won’t wonder why he has such a challenge in dealing with reality. Getting into the liberal cocoon would be a mind-expanding experience for him. A new voice from a rare perspective. Unfortunately, he admits to being intellectually lazy and simply repeating the liberal cant that he reads. Candor is good.
I had interesting conversations about the Kelo case.
These are the initial reactions:
Two left wing friends saw it as a victory of the right and hated it.
One moderate friend thought he was becoming a ’rightie’ because the liberal court approved it.
I was flabbergasted at the case, and thought it would be roundly hated by left and right. I was correct, and it was interesting to see some suprise from all sides that left and right EASILY AGREED that the ruling sucked.
Jon and others are constantly trying to establish their "moderate" bona fides by claiming that both sides are equally culpable of demagoguery.
I’m not a moderate, and I could give a shit about my "bona fides". Blogging doesn’t pay enough for me to write something other than what I think, and what I think is that both sides are equally culpable of demagoguery.
I find it fascinating, however, that no one here has produced one example of Oliver Willis writing a falsehood.
Well, I thought it was obvious, but perhaps I should have been more explicit: this post was about intellectual dishonesty, not factual dishonesty. Oliver bitches constantly about the "Republican Noise Machine", but he’s also openly claimed that Democrats should have a "vicious offense" with a noise machine like that of the Republicans.
I hate to break it to Ms. Limerick, but many of the problems besetting political discourse in this country have arisen not because the "signals" of the extremists are getting lost in noise, but because those signals are getting through loud and clear, thank you.
Nowhere is that situation shown more clearly than the leadership of the DNC. Howard Dean’s problem isn’t that his message isn’t getting out. It’s that it IS getting out.
Meanwhile, the DNC’s problem is not that Dean does not perfectly represent the Democrats of today, but that he does.
Until the Democrats figure out that their message itself, and not it’s delivery is the issue, they will continue to lose in the elections. Their positions on the issues are the wrong ones. The voters have repeatedly shown this. Instead of changing their position, they have been trying since Reagan, getting nastier. It’s rather like several drunks in a car, headed for a cliff. The one behind the wheel has decided he’s gonna have to slam ONE of those pedals on the floor as hard as he can. Instead of the brakes, he hits the gas.
Willis is one of those who, having gone over the cliff after the Democrat leadership, sees the canyon floor coming up in the windscreen really fast, but can’t figure out WHY. Or possibly he can’t admit it to himself, much less the rest of us. Either way, you’d think the rest of the American people not following him over the cliff might have given him a point of concern about his own course.
"When you’re the minority, you need to fight. When you’re the governing majority, you need to produce."
- Newt Gingrich
I just don’t see what the party in power has produced, in tangible terms. And based on the popularity poles, neither do many of the electorate.
The current administration—and neocons—have been off the mark in so many (all) of their assertions/predictions.
Bush lauded that he would be a uniter. I believe this country is more divided along party lines since he took office.
Mission accomplished? Being greeted as liberators? Less than $100 billion?!
I cannot think of anything that this administration has been spot-on about.
I understand the philosophical differences of party. And I can respect that. But, really, there is a performance issue here.
Only now (with 2006 elections looming) will we perhaps see GOP members question this administration on its leadership and goals.
Thank God not everyone is a lemming, and at least demands some explanation and accountability from this most radical (conservative?) administration. And Rove is wrong. Patriotism is challenging authority. That is what the seperation of powers is all about, and the reason this Nation was founded as a republic and not a monarchy.
Perhaps if ANY of the initial predictions made by this adminstration came to fruition, there would be more support from the "other" party!
I just don’t see what the party in power has produced, in tangible terms. And based on the popularity poles, neither do many of the electorate.
Domestically we agree. Growing government and spending money like drunken sailors does not constitute accomplishment in my parlence. It certainly makes it hard to distinguish this administration from any Democrat administration of the past, that’s for sure.
Thank God not everyone is a lemming, and at least demands some explanation and accountability from this most radical (conservative?) administration.
Heh ... well part of the problem is most on the right don’t see this as either a radical or conservative administration, at least domestically.
And Rove is wrong. Patriotism is challenging authority.
I disagree. There’s a prudent way to challenge authority and there’s a wrong way to do so, and the wrong way can certainly be unpatriotic.
Perhaps if ANY of the initial predictions made by this adminstration came to fruition, there would be more support from the "other" party!
Huh ... I wasn’t aware that administrations were in the prediction business and that we graded them on how well they did on their predicting.
There’s plenty to take the administration to task about, but then, this predicting stuff is pure politics and of little relevance.
I have to wonder how many Democrats viewed the Whitewater business as "patriotic"? After all, it was "challenging authority."
Or, if that’s a little too arcane, how many Democrats viewed opposition to Hilarycare, to Clinton’s apology to Africa for slavery, to intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo and Haiti as "patriotic"? Was there much encouragement of that sort of thing?
I really don’t think it is a case of O-Dub "has become what he professes to hate."
I think he always was the way he is, and tries to rationalize it by accusing all of us of being haters, too.
He argues our "bad faith" as his first proposition. It’s like a lawyer beginning his argument to the jury by stating "I know you’re all a bunch of idiots, but . . . "
this post was about intellectual dishonesty, not factual dishonesty
I’d like to see you define the difference between the two. Until then, I’ll just go with my gut, which tells me that the statement is meaningless. Either you’re honest, or you’re not. Whether you include facts in your lie (a la Satan) or just fashion the lie out of whole cloth (like Donald Rumsfeld), it is still dishonesty. The problem with the "Republican Noise Machine" isn’t that it makes noise, but that it lies incessantly. What OW and many others are suggesting is that progressives and liberals should develop a noise machine that tries to tell the truth. It really isn’t that complicated to figure out, if you’re focusing on substance over style. (In other words, what you say and how you say it should be less important than whether or not what you say is true.)
To Robert Fulton:
If what you wrote about my website were true, I probably wouldn’t be upset, since I wouldn’t be able to see your attempt at humor from my lofty elitist’s perch. On the other hand, your cowardly (and quite catty) attempt to launch a personal attack is so off the mark that I am more amused than offended. I did notice, however, that you did not even attempt to refute any of the facts or observations you found there. You just looked for something personal and lobbed a poorly aimed cheap shot at it. Yeah. Meow. Nice work there, princess. Karl Rove would be proud of you.
Would initially supporting an attack on Iraq and then deleting the post so you can join a group that is anti-war be part of the noise machine that tries to tell the truth?
I’d like to see you define the difference between the two.
Factual dishonesty—and Oliver has been factually, ah, incomplete in the past—involves intentional misrepresentation of facts; intellectual dishonesty involves varying standards based on partisan loyalty.
Would initially supporting an attack on Iraq and then deleting the post so you can join a group that is anti-war be part of the noise machine that tries to tell the truth?
Factual dishonesty—and Oliver has been factually, ah, incomplete in the past—involves intentional misrepresentation of facts; intellectual dishonesty involves varying standards based on partisan loyalty.
That sounds great; now let’s see some examples. The ones you use in your post don’t exactly fit either description (would using them, then, count as ’intellectual dishonesty,’ or ’factual dishonesty’?). The politically correct, warm-and-fuzzy quote from Patricia Nelson Limerick sounds very sweet, but it doesn’t apply to today’s political environment. The Republican leadership, as represented by Frist, DeLay, Rove, and Cheney, aren’t interested in ’going to lunch’ with progressives and liberals. Have you read their statements? They are interested in ramrodding their neo-fascist policies down the throat of the entire electorate, including those of us who haven’t willingly swallowed their poison.
It is important to remember that all the ’great’ totalitarian regimes of the modern era came to power while trampling their more ’moderate’ political foes. ’Moderate’, ’sensible’ people waxed on about the need for civilized discourse and equanimity, while the Nazis and Stalinists were cracking skulls and seizing power. The time to aggressively oppose these people is not after they’ve taken total control. It is isn’t about repeating their pattern of rabidly screaming lies, it is about jumping on top of the table and calling them out for being liars. Even Jesus Christ got pissed off— okay, once. But that counts.
Today all three branches of our federal government are controlled by the Republicans, and they are responsible for burrowing us into a quagmire based on lies in Iraq, and for ensuring that our massive budget deficit will be an even greater burden for our grandchildren. Guess what? They still aren’t satisfied. They want to dilute or discard our constitution by giving greater government access to the barking Pharisees of the Christian Right, and they want to give what is left of our national commons to the planetary rapists in the energy industry. They’re doing all of this right in our faces— labelling us terrorist-loving traitors for even questioning their most egregious and illegal behavior— and you want to invite them to lunch? (Don’t give me any crap about ’moderate Republicans’, either. A moderate Republican is someone who pauses five seconds before rubber-stamping the latest Bush idiocy.)
I think you are, perhaps, guilty of a type of dishonesty that trumps both the ones you attempted to describe. This one is called self-deception. If you want to start demanding better behavior from Democratic leaders— God knows we need someone in our government to stand up and start doing the right thing— I’m right there with you. But nitpicking the words of people who have the balls to at least point out the danger represented by the current Republican menace is a frivolous exercise in self-defeating cowardice.
That sounds great; now let’s see some examples. The ones you use in your post don’t exactly fit either description
You don’t think it’s hypocritical to suggest that your opponents should apologize, but that your side shouldn’t apologize? Or to suggest that when the other side generalizes about "liberals/the Left", that’s a "smear" that shouldn’t be allowed to stand....and then do precisely the same thing?
Well, that’s just ridiculous.
Or consider Oliver’s ridiculous bitching about Reynolds failure to criticize Santorum until the morning after (!) his "Hitler" comment/ Of course, Oliver was working on his 1300th hour of radio silence on Senator Byrd’s far more odious "nazi" (and far less accurate) comparison. (at least the Allies did bomb Paris in 1942. Suggesting that Hitler abided by the law is unbelievable historical revisionism)
If you want further examples of this behaviour, just do a search on QandO for "Oliver".
Except, Ricky West is lying. I never supported a war on Iraq. I have said I would be supportive of a war on Iraq if the administration could have ever remotely proved a connection to Al Qaeda, I watched the numerous presentations including Colin Powell’s UN kabuki show and was completely unconvinced - that’s why for the first time in my life I protested a war. But Ricky West is obsessed with spreading slanders about me, and the facts are inconvenient for him.
And Jon, my point is this. I believe the Democrats should play hardball, but to date they have yet to. They play on a "fair" playing ground that is anything but.
I guess "hardball" is in the eye of the beholder. Talk to the people working at the Righty institutions, and they’ll swear up and down that the vicious Lefties are just godawful and it’s only the moral forbearance and rectitude of the Republican Party that stops them from stooping to the same level. Switch out a few words, and you’ll get the same thing from the other side.
And they absolutely, sincerely believe it. I think you sincerely believe it.
The problem is that there is just a bevy of evidence - a multitude of data points—to point to any individual conclusion you are predisposed to find. Like Media Matters, MRC works because there is plenty of stuff to bitch about.
At some point, though—for your own health and the health of political discourse—you’ve got to stop steeping yourself in the most tendentious arguments you can make, and admit the genuine sincerity of both sides. You may think the tax cuts, the war in Iraq (etc, etc) are bad policy....but you really ought not get swept up in the uber-partisan notion that "they’re not just wrong....they’re evil".
If I might sweep aside Godwin’s law for a moment, I’d note that Mark Steyn once made a powerful point about this kind of thing: (and I’ll assume that you know I’m referring to the analysis and not comparing anybody to Hitler here...)
As Philip Hensher neatly put it in his review of Roberts’ essay, "Churchill knew very well what Hitler was like, but Hitler had no idea what sort of man Churchill was."
Just so. When you read Hitler’s private assessments of the man who stood between him and world domination, they’re just silly: Churchill was "that puppet of Jewry." OK, that’s fine as a bit of red meat tossed to the crowd when you’re foaming at Nuremberg, but as a serious evaluation of your opponent made in the quiet of your study it’s simply ... inadequate. ... Hitler’s problem was that he was over-invested in ideology. He’d invented a universal theory—the wickedness of the international Jewish conspiracy—and he persisted in fitting every square peg of cold hard reality into that theory’s round hole. Thus, Churchill must be a "puppet of Jewry."
That, I think, is where a lot of the uber-partisans go wrong. They assume malice, where mere incompetence, disagreement, differing premises, or differing goals will do.
You’d have a much more coherent message if you understood your (ideological) enemy, rather than caricaturing him.
Actually, when they aren’t talking to the "msm", righty institutionalists will well admit that half or more of their outrage is bullshit. As John Cole has noted, the right presenting itself as an aggreived party is beyond ludicrous when a conservative blogger can fart and have it covered on FOX within minutes.
I’ve never said that the entire right is a bunch of evil bullshitters, and I do believe that there are some Republicans - however much I disagree with them - who actually believe a lot of the horseswill. But those are not the folks currently in charge and in the pundit class. These folks quite simply know they are making shit up and are pathologically dishonest.
Bithead: Had the Dems played hardball, or even freaking softball, Bush would not have won. Once again, the Dems came to a gunfight with a butter knife.
I’m curious Oliver, in your mind, what would constitute the Dems playing hardball?
I thought holding mock impeachments (and repeatedly calling for Bush’s impeachment), holding up UN appointments, fillibustering judges, repeatedly calling for cabinet level resignations, refusing to even discuss a major reform proposal, equating the military to Nazis, hysterically responding to rather mild philosophical criticisms, and claiming massive electoral fraud were all examples of the Dems playing hardball (and those are just the examples I can think of from this past week).
Yet, this isn’t even softball. So you must be used to playing some far out multi-dimensional hardball that is so advanced, so aggressive, and so partisan that it’s beyond the comprehension of this mere mortal.
Rather than risk having my head explode with a full revelation of what would be Dem hardball politics, I merely ask for a single example. One single example of what would be a Dem hardball tactic that you think they should be doing and that they’ve not already employed in one version or another since Bush has been in office.
While this would add a bit of intellectual rigor to your claim that the Dems aren’t playing hardball (or even softball), I’m more interested in having the example as a sign of impending Dem hardball so I’ll know when it’s time to wrap my head in duct tape.
Of course this administration made predictions. They did so regarding WMD existence and capability in Iraq. They did so with regard to how many troops would be required to complete the task. They did so with regard to how long the troops would be in Iraq and how much money it would take. They’re making predictions now with regard to the insurgency; its strength and sustainability.
Prediction is part of planning, which the Bush-neocon team did and has done very poorly with regard to this war with Iraq.
Now the question is was the intelligence bad, or was the use of the intellegence bad. And was the best intelligence used, or was intelligence that seem to fit the neocon agenda promoted beyond its credibility.
Actually, when they aren’t talking to the "msm", righty institutionalists will well admit that half or more of their outrage is bullshit.
I’m quite certain that there is a calculated "noise" level that politicos believe they must maintain in order to get attention, but that’s hardly a one-sided thing. In fact, it’s precisely what Media Matters exists to do.
when a conservative blogger can fart and have it covered on FOX within minutes.
They can? Of the three cable news outlets, Foxnews seems to be the one that pimps bloggers the least. Hell, we’ve been talked up on MSNBC and CNN probably half a dozen times...only had one mention in a Foxnews.com story, though, and that was non-partisan. I don’t watch Foxnews a hell of a lot, but I don’t hear much blog-pimping from them.
I’ve never said that the entire right is a bunch of evil bullshitters, and I do believe that there are some Republicans - however much I disagree with them - who actually believe a lot of the horseswill. But those are not the folks currently in charge and in the pundit class. These folks quite simply know they are making shit up and are pathologically dishonest.
And we’re back to this again. You probably sincerely believe this stuff—that you’re the Good Guys and you’re fighting Bad Guys. The same mentality is found on both the Left and Right, and it’s equally bad analysis.
The upshot, though, is that you end up playing a "My Side, Right or Wrong" game, which forces you to be fundamentally, intellectually dishonest.
Ok, I have to concede Alex’s point as his community is based in a different reality.
Specifically, I can’t hope to satisfy his definition of political hardball (though I’m really only curious as to what constitutes Oliver’s definition of hardball, but I suspect Alex’s definition will be very similar to his).
If nothing else, I believe Alex is saying that it only counts as hardball if party leadership publicly dirties their hands. Of course that means by Alex’s standards, the swifties weren’t an example of Republican hardball as Bush refused to publicly touch it. However, elsewhere in the same comment, Alex apparently uses the standard of any Senator or member of Congress, so I’m not certain how well defined his community’s reality is so even this comment may be an exercise in futility.
I, however, believe the Swifties were an example of Republican hardball as I believe that it’s fair to attach any hardball tactic to a party when any prominent member or group of the party is doing the deed.
It is interesting to note that there is enough overlap between our apparently divergent worldviews that Alex knew exactly what I was referring to for each item in my list except for Dean’s claim of voter supression (which is technically the word I should’ve used in the context of hardball tactics of the past week, but fraud has been charged repeatedly in the past).
As to Alex’s implicit contention that Durbin didn’t equate the military with Nazis, I’ll borrow an idea from Eric Lindholm and say, sure Alex is right. There was no equation.
However, if I read Alex’s comment to you and didn’t tell you that it was a blogger responding to tactics that are apparently not Democratic hardball tactics (whose tactics are they? who knows?!), you most certainly would believe this must have been posted by a half-baked hack who listens to Michael Bolton records and has no concern for the tenets of logical rhetoric. Sadly, this is not the case.
So see, by Alex’s criteria, I didn’t "equate" Alex with an illogical half-baked hack, but I imagine everyone else would think so. (Note: I am actually quite uncomfortable calling anyone names as it’s not conducive to a productive debate. So my apologies for muddying the debate. However, that particular form of response is just too good at illustrating the intellectual bankruptcy of Alex’s claim that Durbin didn’t equate or call the military Nazis.)
Some minor notes:
On fillibustering - I’m not claiming the Repubs didn’t engage in hardball tactics themselves. Just because A engages in a hardball tactic, it doesn’t mean that when B engages in a similar tactic, it’s not hardball. Rather it tends to imply the opposite.
On SS reform - I’m not saying that the Dems can’t hold to their guns that SS needs no significant reform. However, their approach to the debate (specifically a variant of a grim trigger), is a hardball tactic (it’s not invalid, but it is a hardball tactic).
On Ohio constituting massive fraud - I’ll merely disagree.
On the DSM - that’s currently going on and I could’ve listed it (tis one of the bases of the current calls for impeachment).
On Condi - playing gotcha while failing to note changes in circumstances has been employed in the past (see 9/11 commission).
On bombing - I guess the charge would be illegally starting the war ahead of time or lying about the intention to avoid war. So this would be an example of questioning tactical decisions for partisan gain (which has been done, but not before on something that was a good tactical decision). So I guess this would constitute a new version of hardball. So I’ll have the duct tape at the ready.
Jon, the entry was an approving link to Robert Scoble, quoted:
"Well, I sure despise having blood on my hands, but if I had to go after Hitler, would I? Yes. Will I support going after the Taliban? Yes. Will I support going after Saddam’s regime? Yes. I see these people as so against what I—and most freedom loving people’s everywhere—believe that they must be stopped and removed from the world scene."
It was originally at http://www.oliverwillis.com/2001_09_01_archives.html#5855101 before it became convenient to delete it. And I can produce a scan, as well.
Of course, that’s still not as good as 10/22/01’s entry: "While I’m not a "prominent Democrat", I want it noted for the record that I don’t think Gore would not have done as good a job as Bush with regards to the Current Crisis" (Oliver’s spin was that the double negative, instead of displaying his lack of intelligence, was on purpose and thus was supposed to say that Gore would’ve done better. I know this because he used it about 20 minutes after trying another lame piece of spin that didn’t work. You know, mud against a wall.
The pre-I-need-to-change-for-Brock Oliver is quite different than the one presented today. Busted.
In this post from last fall I quoted a comment Oliver had made in a thread on his blog, on the topic of the Bush National Guard story, that pretty well summarizes his attitude:
Frankly, my major beef with Bush is the dead soldiers in Iraq and the economic stupidity at home. All this other stuff is icing on the cake, if it sticks good, if not oh well. As long as its mud.
I can’t seem to find even the Google cached version any longer (Oliver’s got one big memory hole going). But it sums up his philosophy quite nicely.
You gotta admit, it is kind of funny. Apparently the guy read John’s post and still can’t stop himself from doing exactly what John accuses him of while denying it the entire time.
Self-delusion is easier with an unlimited supply of Filet-O-Fish sandwiches purchased from the sweat of poor Indonesians.
Of course that means by Alex’s standards, the swifties weren’t an example of Republican hardball as Bush refused to publicly touch it. (emphasis mine)
Of course Bush didn’t touch the Swift Boat Liars publicly, because he didn’t have to. However, the ties between Bush and the Liars are quite concrete. Okay, now let’s ask Jon if your statement qualifies as intellectual dishonesty, or factual dishonesty.
As to Alex’s implicit contention that Durbin didn’t equate the military with Nazis, I’ll borrow an idea from Eric Lindholm...
If I were you, I wouldn’t do that anymore. The "Viking Pundit" seems to utilize a rhetorical logic— a logic that you subsequently emulate— that I am generous to call specious. I would attempt to deconstruct this pretzelogic, but I’d have to spend the rest of the afternoon staring at M.C. Escher drawings just to get my sanity back. Case in point: On bombing - I guess the charge would be illegally starting the war ahead of time or lying about the intention to avoid war. So this would be an example of questioning tactical decisions for partisan gain
WTF?! Let’s review: the U.S. and the UK bomb Iraq, hoping to provoke Saddam into retaliating, whereupon Bush and Blair would have pointed their fingers and screamed "SEE?! HE’S A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER!!" Saddam didn’t bite, so Bush had to find another excuse to send in the troops he had massed along every available border with Iraq. Now: you are saying that pointing out the bald-faced Machiavellian nature of this activity— in the face of other damning revelations— is a cheap partisan ploy? Come, now. Your not talking to a Little Green Footballer here.
One more:
On Condi - playing gotcha while failing to note changes in circumstances has been employed in the past (see 9/11 commission).
For the ten thousandth time, for all of you in the cheap seats: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and no evidence was found— before or after the invasion— to suggest that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of the U.S. The only circumstance that changed due to 9/11 was the ability of the Bushies to use that attack (which was due to their own failures; see the 9/11 commission about that) in order to manipulate the cowardly and the weak-minded into supporting his imperial adventure in Iraq.
I change my mind. I’m tired of playing this game. It is like trying to play chess with my wife’s dog, and I’m sorry if the dog is insulted by the simile.
On the Swifties: Note I didn’t say that Republicans weren’t behind the Swifties. In fact, I said the opposite.
I, however, believe the Swifties were an example of Republican hardball
However, I did have some fun with your web of connections argument when it ran in the NYT in this post.
On Durbin, Lindholm and the logic of pretzels: Do explain. Specifically on how keeping the same phrasing while only changing the charges, charger, and chargee means that one statement is not equating while the other is.
On bombing Iraq Here’s a lefty site that also claims as I do that we had been bombing Iraq on a near daily basis since the end of GWI. Specifically it gives the following quote:
As pointed out by Jonathan Power, in a July 6, 2000 article, "the Pentagon says more than 280,000 sorties have been flown in the near decade since no-flight zones were imposed on Saddam in the north and south of the country.
A longer treatment of the virtual state of war that existed between Iraq and the US and UK is given here.
However, it does appear that I largely correctly summarized your argument. So I’m not certain what you’re so stridently objecting to. Perhaps the partisan gain phrase. But here’s a little information for ya: playing hardball implies some sort of partisan gain and you introduced the prewar bombing as an example of a potential hardball tactic.
On Condi and the 9/11 Commission Simply by using the phrase "9/11" in 9/11 Commission, I am not asserting a link between Hussein/Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. Rather I am asserting that this type (or "version" as I said before) of hardball tactic (which I identified as "playing gotcha while failing to note changes in circumstances") had been employed before - specifically during her testimony/questioning at the 9/11 commission.
And none of this even comes close to addressing my contention that the Dems (like the Reps) have indeed been engaging in hardball tactics contra Oliver (though I will say that the Dems tend to do it more, but that’s partly a function of being out of power).
Rather, it appears to be a series of attacks on Republicans in response to my implict claim that Democrats regularly attack Republicans. Bizarre.
Once again, Ricky West lies (he’s made a habit of going around to people’s comments and doing things like this). I made clear for months on end that any support of an attack on Iraq was contingent on a real connection to the 9/11 attack. When I protested against the Iraq war in Harvard Square in March ’03 unless I was clairvoyant there’s no way for me to have known a year later I’d get a job at Media Matters, not that anyone here even cares about one’s position on the Iraq war (heck, even some of the folks here were duped into supporting that action). Yes, I do think Republicans have an edge at going into war dumb and blind, but it’s clear that when the going gets tough they get distracted (can’t find Bin Laden? Let’s attack Iraq!), so even the relative dovishness of Gore vs. Bush would be countered by the relative sense of purpose and attention to the actual task at hand.
With folks like Ricky on your side, do you see know why I consider the right side of the aisle intellectually dishonest?
I’ll stick a few more up before moving on to something at least challenging:
"As I link this, I’m watching a CNN special on Afghanistan. The Taliban have totally raped that country. Reason enough I see to remove them, it’s the right thing to do - and it’s our mess." - Oliver Willis, 10/22/01 (back when raping a country was enough of a reason to take a group out)
Of course, you folks can’t see that via link, as it was deleted.
September 20, 2001 Truth: Bush gave an excellent speech. You’re either with us or against us. Period. + posted @ 8:13 PM http://www.oliverwillis.com/2001_09_01_archives.html#5817083
Ricky, your obsession borders on embarrasing. I did and still do support destroying the Taliban and Al Qaeda - my biggest quarrel with the Bush admin has been their feckless pursuit of those goals. I liked his speech right after 9/11, and its been all downhill since then as he has become more partisan in his pursuit for reelection.
I think its funny you keep hammering me for having a consistent opinion and neglecting your family and kids to make stuff up in online forum after online forum. It’s sad, dude. Get help.
