Elevating the discourse, looking down on idiots, watching over everything, and seeing what’s up
Who do you have to blow to get a White House press pass?
That’s the real question, isn’t it?
32 thoughts on “Who do you have to blow to get a White House press pass?”
Unable to make the Jeff Gannon story into anything much, some members of the left are becoming increasingly crude in their seeming homophobia.
I mean, had Gannon/Guckert been straight I doubt that there would have been any question about him sleeping with Condi Rice to get his pass…but gays, you know, those folks just can’t help themselves…
I don’t think this horse is breathing Glenn, but feel free to give him a few more hard whacks.
I think that hypocrisy is a perfectly legitimate charge to level at the Republicans in this case. It reminds me of how much Henry Hyde, Helen Chynoweth, James Carville, and Dan Burton screamed to the high heavens over Clinton having an affair right before their own affairs came to public attention.
Keep it up Glenn, let’s see fans of this administration continue to make cheap excuses and cheap dodges.
“I think that hypocrisy is a perfectly legitimate charge to level at the Republicans in this case. It reminds me of how much Henry Hyde, Helen Chynoweth, James Carville, and Dan Burton screamed to the high heavens over Clinton having an affair right before their own affairs came to public attention.”
Putting aside the puzzling inclusion of James Carville as a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, how exactly does the Gannon story expose republican hypocricy?
Seems like it’s mostly the left that outs gays these days. As if there were something wrong with it…
But I do agree that liberals should focus much attention on this. Right wing bloggers have Dan Rather and Easton Jordon on their trophy walls. Left wing bloggers have Jeff Gannon. Sounds about even.
“Putting aside the puzzling inclusion of James Carville as a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,
Ack! I was confusing James Carville with Bob Livingston. My mistake.
“how exactly does the Gannon story expose republican hypocricy?”
Let’s see, homphobic party with homosexual members? Party that has repeatedly run on the idea that gays are a threat to America (Jesse Helms et al?)and running on a huge moral high horse having a prostitute member? Party that accuses the press of being biased and inaccurate repeatedly running fake newscasts, bribing newscasters to shill, and, oh yeah, creating their own fake journalist? Maybe just a tad hypocritical? Oh but wait, this was the president that was going to “restore the dignity of the White House.” My mistake.
“Let’s see, homphobic party with homosexual members?”
Maybe you need to reexamine your assumptions. There are many gay republicans. That fact seems only to surprise those who assume that the party is homophobic.
Now there are certainly homophobic members of the party but that should not be used to tar the entire membership.Tthe fact that the supposedly pro-African Amercian democrats have former Ku Klux Klanner Robert Burd as a member does not make them hypocrites when they support affirmitive action. Using a few members of a group to represent the entire group is lazy at best and the basis for most bigotries at worst.
“Party that has repeatedly run on the idea that gays are a threat to America (Jesse Helms et al?)and running on a huge moral high horse having a prostitute member?”
See above. And are you serious in being shocked that a national party of tens of millions has “a prostitute member”? Wow, you hold Republican to a very high standard indeed, I am humbled.
I don’t think that the party has run on the “gays as a threat to America” platform, though some members certainly have. If opposing gay marriage makes one homophobic, meet John Kerry, homophobe.
“Party that accuses the press of being biased and inaccurate repeatedly running fake newscasts, bribing newscasters to shill, and, oh yeah, creating their own fake journalist?”
Actually it would be MORE hyprocritical if they claimed that journalists were NOT whores and then turned out to be paying them.
“Oh but wait, this was the president that was going to “restore the dignity of the White House.”
He didn’t say he would restore the dignity of the White House Press Corp. A man can only do so much.
“Using a few members of a group to represent the entire group is lazy at best and the basis for most bigotries at worst.”
Fair enough. I think, however, that it is fair to use the leadership of a group as an indicator of a groups priorities. The Republican party used fear of gay marraige as a major issue in the most recent campaign. Jesse helms was elected to an important government post (leader of the committee on foreign relations, if my memory isn’
t pulling another “James Carville” on me) by the Republicans in Congress, and used his position to deny William Weld a fair hearing. That, to me, are good examples of the party’s priorities.
“See above. And are you serious in being shocked that a national party of tens of millions has “a prostitute member”? Wow, you hold Republican to a very high standard indeed, I am humbled.”
I think that when a party uses a member for a very important function (creating a fake identity, etc.) that they should check a candidates backgroud to see if the member practices the qualites they claim are important.
“I don’t think that the party has run on the “gays as a threat to America” platform, though some members certainly have. If opposing gay marriage makes one homophobic, meet John Kerry, homophobe.”
I believe that in the last election, they have. George Bush put his opposition to gay marraige in his state of the union speech, marking it as a priority. I’ll aagree that I’m ticked that Clinton and Kerry have supported such legislation.
“Actually it would be MORE hyprocritical if they claimed that journalists were NOT whores and then turned out to be paying them.”
If one is going to criticize a behavior, it makes sense not to indulge in that behavior.
“Oh but wait, this was the president that was going to “restore the dignity of the White House.”
“He didn’t say he would restore the dignity of the White House Press Corp. A man can only do so much.”
Personally, I long for the days when a president put, “The Buck Stops Here’ on their desk and meant it and when a president took responisibility for their staff, instead of passing info that they knew was false and then blaming their staff, not even holding teir staff accountable, and then giving them a medal for doing a poor job.
“Fair enough. I think, however, that it is fair to use the leadership of a group as an indicator of a groups priorities. The Republican party used fear of gay marraige as a major issue in the most recent campaign. Jesse helms was elected to an important government post (leader of the committee on foreign relations, if my memory isn’
t pulling another “James Carville” on me) by the Republicans in Congress, and used his position to deny William Weld a fair hearing. That, to me, are good examples of the party’s priorities.”
I agree that the party put too much emphasis on gay marriage but since it is wildly unpopular it would be foolish to expect otherwise. Not a few Democrats have expressed opposition to it as well. One CAN be against gay marriage and not be anti-gay (personally,I see no reason to deny gay people this right but I know that I am in the minority.
Helms had seniority and was a tremendous pain in the ass to both parties. I guess there is something to admire in that, though I shed no tears at his retirement. What William Weld has to do with opposition to gays is beyond me. Similarly, Byrd has been around almost as long as dirt has, so he can’t help but be a leader of the Democrats. That said, a smarter party would probably ask a former kleagle to not be so prominant in voting against the first black Secretary of state.
Is Ted Kennedy’s leadership an indication of the Democrat’s hypocrisy on women’s issues? No, he’s just been around long enough to gain a high degree of influence and power, at least more than most people who should be in jail for manslaughter could hope for.
“I think that when a party uses a member for a very important function (creating a fake identity, etc.) that they should check a candidates backgroud to see if the member practices the qualites they claim are important.”
You and Jeff Gannon’s mom may be the only one’s who thought he had a “very important function”. I assume you have proof that the White House did indeed “creating a fake identity, etc” or are you getting info from Maurice Hinchey? (In fairness, I wouldn’t put it past them to have engaged in numerous etc.).
Why people think it’s a big deal that Jeff Gannon isn’t his real name is beyond me, unless they get a similar case of the willies whenever they see Larry King or Geraldo Rivera. On second thought, that at least would make sense…
It was one thing when Gannon was accused of involvement in the Plame case but that seems to have been completely made up. I think the real issue is in Glenn’s headline–he was gay. That’s been the focus. I think it’s indicative of a far greater degree of intolerance than the left likes to admit to but only they can know what is in their hearts. me, if I found out that Helen Thomas worked nights as a stripper, it wouldn’t change my opinion of her at all. I might tear out my eyes in a vain attempt to erase the mental image but my opinion wouldn’t be changed.
“What William Weld has to do with opposition to gays is beyond me.”
If I recall correctly, that was the major sticking point when Clinton tried to get him an ambassadorship. Helms wouldn’t even let the man get a fair hearing.
“Not a few Democrats have expressed opposition to it as well.”
Agreed. This is one of the many things I hold against the Democrats, and why I plan to work from within to change this (I may be getting an internship working in their offices in California.)
“You and Jeff Gannon’s mom may be the only one’s who thought he had a “very important function”. I assume you have proof that the White House did indeed “creating a fake identity, etc” or are you getting info from Maurice Hinchey? (In fairness, I wouldn’t put it past them to have engaged in numerous etc.).”
Point taken. Next time I’ll do more research to back up my opinion before spouting off, and I’ll try to cite my sources.
“It was one thing when Gannon was accused of involvement in the Plame case but that seems to have been completely made up. I think the real issue is in Glenn’s headline–he was gay. That’s been the focus. I think it’s indicative of a far greater degree of intolerance than the left likes to admit to but only they can know what is in their hearts. me, if I found out that Helen Thomas worked nights as a stripper, it wouldn’t change my opinion of her at all. I might tear out my eyes in a vain attempt to erase the mental image but my opinion wouldn’t be changed.”
I think the deception is more important than him being gay. That said, I find it confusing that gay people join a party which (in my opinion) has worked very hard to demonize them, and deny them equal rights. I understand the concept of trying to reform a group from the inside (as with my example above) but there are limits, and I think that this would be one of them.
In all fairness Bill, though I am a massive liberal and you sometimes describe yourself as conservative (if I recall correctly) I’ve always admired the way you treat those that disagree with you (respectfully)and and that you hold all groups accountable. Though I discussed this issue with several, I was always hosnetly confused by your support for Bush. I can understand not liking Kerry, but I believe that an honest look at the past four years shows the Bush administration as incredibly corrupt, dishonest, and untrustworthy.
“”What William Weld has to do with opposition to gays is beyond me.”
If I recall correctly, that was the major sticking point when Clinton tried to get him an ambassadorship. Helms wouldn’t even let the man get a fair hearing.”
As far as I know or care, Mr Weld is straight. I believe Helm’s objectin was officially that he was not strict enough on illegal drugs–more likely, it was Weld’s dislike for Helms.
“In all fairness Bill, though I am a massive liberal and you sometimes describe yourself as conservative (if I recall correctly) I’ve always admired the way you treat those that disagree with you (respectfully)and and that you hold all groups accountable. Though I discussed this issue with several, I was always hosnetly confused by your support for Bush. I can understand not liking Kerry, but I believe that an honest look at the past four years shows the Bush administration as incredibly corrupt, dishonest, and untrustworthy.”
You’re a good guy, Jon, and I say that not only because you said something nice about me. 🙂 I take a fairly utilitarian approach to politics–there are a few issues I feel are of primary importance and I choose the one I think will be most likely to get us there. Obviously, we can disagree on both which issues are important, what the correct outcome should be, and which candidate will be most likely to get to that outcome. Given all those variables, it should be no surprise that reasonable people will come to opposing opinions; in fact, it would be crazy to think otherwise.
My big problem with the left in general these days is that all to often its members seem stunned to find someone of above average intelligence who doesn’t see things their way, causing them to turn to nutty conspiricy theories, claims that their opposition must be craven, evil, corrupt or dumber than they look, or other self indulgent fantasies. Oh, lots of righties do it too, I know that. But most of the people I hang with are to the left of me, so that’s what I see. I went to college a liberal and 4 years of political correctness and institutional liberal cruelty burned it out of me. It still amazes me that any fair minded person could see the treatment that anyone who did not toe the political line received and not want to fight back.
So maybe if I’d gone to Brigham Young University I’d be writing for MoveOn.org. Who knows? We are all the products of our lives. But I will never be surprised by the fact that some who I like and respect come to 180 degree different conclusions. There but for the grace of God…I only ask that they try to show me some of the same courtesy.
Regretably, this seems to be getting more and more difficult to do. I don’t know if I’ve ever lost a friend to political differences but there are certainly some who I avoid the subject with–my being on the “dark side” would upset them and I know I won’t change their minds so why cause a fuss? People like you and Tim Lynch and several others on this board are doing a far better job of fighting for liberal ideas than the moonbats at the Soros funded blogs could ever do. But their voices are loud and are dangerously close to becomeing the public face of the left, which would be a disaster for both parties.
Anyway, take care.
“As far as I know or care, Mr Weld is straight. I believe Helm’s objectin was officially that he was not strict enough on illegal drugs–more likely, it was Weld’s dislike for Helms.”
Dammit, looks like I was wrong again. I googled looking for info on this (I was POSITIVE that I remembered hearing about that in the news at the time) and most of the article focused on the drug issue (they also mentioned conservative opposition to Weld because he is pro-gay rights, not gay) and that Helms opposed him for a number of reasons. Dammit! I’m only 29! I’m not supposed to be going senile yet!
“My big problem with the left in general these days is that all to often its members seem stunned to find someone of above average intelligence who doesn’t see things their way, causing them to turn to nutty conspiricy theories, claims that their opposition must be craven, evil, corrupt or dumber than they look, or other self indulgent fantasies. Oh, lots of righties do it too, I know that. But most of the people I hang with are to the left of me, so that’s what I see. I went to college a liberal and 4 years of political correctness and institutional liberal cruelty burned it out of me. It still amazes me that any fair minded person could see the treatment that anyone who did not toe the political line received and not want to fight back.”
Being a leftist myself, I can see some of that. I’ve been reading the blog and essays at Davidbrin.com and he makes a good point abot misleading and destructive left/right classifications work.
For me it comes down to this. Yes, reasonable people disagree and a person has a right and a responsibility to air their own views. I’ve had roommates that were libertarian, some that were very conservative and homophobics, etc. and we found some common ground. I also had some that voted Republican, considered themselves finacially conservative and socially liberal. I want to see a pluralisatic system with Greens, Libertarians, and The Reform party on a more equal footing with the Republicans and Democrats, but I’m rambling.
This administration specifically (and the Republican Party in my lifetime) are why I can not respect those that support their views. I can’t respect George Bush’s administration’s pattern of deception, outright lies, manipulation, and flat-out bigotry. I cannot respect a party that treated Jesse Helms with such respect. I cannot respect a party with Ralph Reed using “astroturf” (faux-grass roots misrepresentation) and I can’t respect its supporters. Reasonable people can disagree on many things, but not always. I know that this is going too far with analogies, but with this administration off-shoring (rendering) torture, rounding up people and denying them fair trials, this level of press manipulation, I hate to say that with this president America has come closer to (yes, I know this is a loaded word which is why I shied away from it for so long) neofascism. I’ve had huge arguments with other leftists over the definition of this word and I’ve done my own independent research, and I have to say, they are right. My country is not Nzai Germany, but it is closer to it than I would have ever have believed it could come. I know the old statements about how once a discussion goes back to Worlds War 2 it is effectively over, but I feel as though we’ve all gone down the rabbit hole and our current events are a mix of Vietnam, McCarthy, Korea, and The 1940’s redux.
More than enough rambling. What I meant is that there are some issues on which people can not disagree and remain friends. For me, I know some homophobes (and borderline Anti-Semites) and while I am trying to slowly convince them to reexamine their views and check out the facts, I can’t hold a friendship with people who treat other people that way. There are some friendships that have to be broken up, because when people care about an issue to abolitionist/slavery levels, well, in the words of They Might Be Giants, “You can’t shake the Devil’s Hand and say you’re only kidding.” My Dad was a registered Republicann. My step-dad is one. I just can’t can’t respect a party that uses such secrecy, deception and flat-out hate. I can’t respect those who do. Sorry if this comes at a personal slam, but I’ll never understand how you can support Bush with all of the evidence we have avaialable, and “reasonable people can disagree” doesn’t work for me in this case.
I don’t think we’re heading towards a civil war (yet.) I don’t think that Bush’s presidency will be remembered as “Nazi America.” But I can’t disagree as much as I used to with those that do, and one of my biggest fears is that one day I’ll look at an adopted child or grandchild, and try to explain Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. sending innocents abroad to be torutred, and the torture and Death at the prison that I can never remember how to spell (Garib?) without admitting how close they are, to me, to interment/concentration camps.
That’s part of why I view the current situation the way I do.
But you have to see how easily that kind of thinking can be turned right around at you and, since you have engaged in it yourself, leave you in a very poor position to object. I can selectively pick out some of the Democratic Party’s most egregious race baiters– Al Sharpton, Mell Reynolds, etc–and start talking about how it’s impossible to respect anyone who can support a party that would support such people.
Most of the racial bigotry I see comes from Democrats, albeit bigotry that often has the best of intentions (making it suitable material for road to Hell paving). Most of the anti-gay bigotry comes from republicans (though as the Jeff Gannon story shows, there seems to be a awful lot of homophobia lurking within more than a few of our progressive friends). I’m afraid that I have much more faith in the ability to change the Republican party from within than you will in changing the Democrats–they are far less likely to accept diversity of opinion. (Don’t believe me? Compare the status of pro-choice Republicans (Rice, Powell, Guiliani, Shwartzenegger) with that of pro-life Democrats).
At any rate, you and I can trade horror stories all we want. For every Jesse Helms I can toss back a Mel Reynolds (True, Mel never reached the level of power that Jesse did but that may be due to the interruption from his convictions on child molesting and corruption charges). If you compare how Reynolds was treated by the Democrats (A pardon from Bill Clinton) to how the Republicans treated Donald “Buz” Lukens when HE got caught with an underage teen. They threw him out on his ass and as far as I know, no conservative group came to him with a cushy job after he served his jail time (Mell Reynolds now works for Jesse Jackson’s PUSH organizations).
This could be where I get sarcastic and start talking about how I could never respect anyone who supports a party of child molesters and the people who protect them.
To each his own of course. If there is one thing a person should have it’s the right to choose who their friends are, under whatever qualifications they want. I would suggest that by removing all Republicans from the list of potential friends you are needlessly limiting your chances of finding some great folks who will enrich you life. I have friends who are communists and I love them to death. Communism is responsible for the deaths of millions. Somehow I overlook it. But that’s MY choice, obviously your mileage might vary.
“the U.S. sending innocents abroad to be tortured”
I hope it isn’t true that we are sending innocents to be tortured. Not entirely sure why we would do that. Sending terrorists back tot he gentle hands of their Arab brothers, well, that I might understand, if not approve. But lest you think that this is something Bush came up with…Jimmy Carter holds the dubious distinction of being the only president in my lifetime directly responsible for the deaths of innocent people directly linked to my family. And as far as I can see, he did it for craven political gain.
Long story short–when the Shah of Iran fell, the diplomats at the Iranian embassy in Washington started doing everything they could to get people out of the country. While they were “officially” representing the Khomeini regime, they were actually protecting those who would be likely to be targeted by the radicals now controlling the country. They arranged for the kids who would become my brother and sister to leave Iran and end up in America (they were born here so were technically American citizens–reason enough for the crazier elements in Iran to possibly harm them). Carter, in an act of utterly futile political impotence, sent these heroic men and women back to Iran–“expelling” them with a puffed out chest, like this was something that would show that old Ayatollah a durn good lesson.
He knew what would happen to them when they got back. He didn’t care. He got what he wanted; a one day headline.
Keep building those houses for poor people, Jimbo.
“But you have to see how easily that kind of thinking can be turned right around at you and, since you have engaged in it yourself, leave you in a very poor position to object. I can selectively pick out some of the Democratic Party’s most egregious race baiters– Al Sharpton, Mell Reynolds, etc–and start talking about how it’s impossible to respect anyone who can support a party that would support such people.”
True (although I didn’t know about Mel Reynolds (or remember him) untill you pointed him out); the difference I see is in who the party chooses to lead them versus individual members. If I start a group (say I invented the Boy Scouts) and one member turns out to be an axe murderer/serial killer etc. I wouldn’t expext people to condemn the enire group. However, if the Boy Scouts voted a known pedophile/bigot/lunatic/racist/whatever into a leadership position, then I would judge the group. I don’t judge Al Sharpton to have the kind of influence/support from Democrats that I saw Helms, Reed, Limbaugh, Savage, and the current president get and got from Republicans.
When it comes to a large group, I think that I have to judge them by their representitive leaders. (Though your point about Mel is well taken.)
“Most of the racial bigotry I see comes from Democrats, albeit bigotry that often has the best of intentions (making it suitable material for road to Hell paving). Most of the anti-gay bigotry comes from republicans (though as the Jeff Gannon story shows, there seems to be a awful lot of homophobia lurking within more than a few of our progressive friends).”
I’ll have to say that my observations differ (maybe because most of my life has been based in New York (first few years) and the California Bay Area (most of it).) When I think of recent racial bigotry, I think of what I have read about fraudulent polling practices in the last two elections. When I think of racial bigotry in America In general, I think of “Dixiecrats” who went Republican when the Democrats changed tactics (in the 50′-60’s If I recall correctly.) and I think of Strom Thurmond, and other “New South” courting strategies. (also I look at the current racial makeup of both parties. The Repubs, seem to have the few, the proud, the really conservative minority candidates, the Democrats seem to have everyone else, though this may be changing.)
I don’t see homophobia in the Jeff Ganon story. Most of the references I’ve seen take more of a “how hypocritical is it to be gay in such an anti-gay party?”
“I’m afraid that I have much more faith in the ability to change the Republican party from within than you will in changing the Democrats–they are far less likely to accept diversity of opinion. (Don’t believe me? Compare the status of pro-choice Republicans (Rice, Powell, Guiliani, Shwartzenegger) with that of pro-life Democrats)”.
Point taken. (Although one of the many things that bothers me is that whenever I read a study of what followers of a politician believe, the report says that Kerry voters scored high in knowing both their and Bush’s views on the issues, and that most Bush supporters scored low on what Bush’s positions were. This was attributed to Bush being as vague and misleading as possible, letting people selectively interpret his views as just like theirs. What does this have to do with your point? This. I see many politicians (though mostly Republicans) taking the view, “I will say what I believe whatever gets me power.” Are the Democrats the same? Often, yes, but I see Boxer and Feinsteins stand as principled in the current situation. Shwartzenegger first said he opposed the right to gay marraige, then quickly shifted. I saw this as more of a power grab than a moral epiphany (his other recent actions cause me to doubt his worthiness, but to be honest, I never trusted him to begin with and voted against him.) Anyway, long story short, when Dole ran and some Repubs tried to change the party plaform to be tolerant of those with different opinions, the Repubs Shot it down. You may believe that the Repubs aare more open to change, whereas from what I’ve read (such as one jms post dealing with Jerry Doyle’s Republican California run for office) is that as opposed to letteing their members vote on what issues the party represents, the party leadership takes a top-down approach, “We say what the issues are, and if you disagree we’ll shut you out.” This strikes me as completely antithetical to what Democracy and Republicanism are truly about. For all of their many flaws, I see the Democrats as better than that.
“To each his own of course. If there is one thing a person should have it’s the right to choose who their friends are, under whatever qualifications they want. I would suggest that by removing all Republicans from the list of potential friends you are needlessly limiting your chances of finding some great folks who will enrich you life. I have friends who are communists and I love them to death. Communism is responsible for the deaths of millions. Somehow I overlook it. But that’s MY choice, obviously your mileage might vary.”
For me it’s a moral issue. I’ve had friends who voted Republican (for a large variety of reasons) who can’t support the current administration. I’ve had friends of many political stripes and hope to in the future. I hate drawing lines but my ethics demand it. I couldn’t be friends with someone who supported Botha, and based on all I’ve read about this administration (you may remember that during the election I told people on this board that I checked many different news sources, conservative and liberal and other) I can’t see a rational, legitamite argument for this one. It’s one of the reasons I asked people online for one. (If I recall, you mentioned that if Kerry had released all of his ‘Nam record, you’d support him over Bush. Given the amount of secrecy, document holding, and deception of this administration, I found Kerry to hold to a higher standard.)
You have friends that are current Communists? Do they believe that Stalin was justified in his murders? If they did, could you still be friends with them?
“I hope it isn’t true that we are sending innocents to be tortured. Not entirely sure why we would do that. Sending terrorists back tot he gentle hands of their Arab brothers, well, that I might understand, if not approve. ”
As I’ve shown earlier, I need to do more research and source citing when I make claims like this. What I have read is that the U.S. is, and has, rounded up *accused* people, denied them fair hearing, lawyers, the press, etc. and sent some abroad to be tortured. That I cannot condone.
“But lest you think that this is something Bush came up with…Jimmy Carter holds the dubious distinction of being the only president in my lifetime directly responsible for the deaths of innocent people directly linked to my family. And as far as I can see, he did it for craven political gain.”
I don’t know that much about that period. I need to look more into it.
Bottom line, and this is where I have to be really careful, all of my life, I’ve really tried to learn my history. From what I’ve read, there are patterns of decline and fall (Roman Republic, Empire, and Fall) (Third Reich rise and fall.) (Soviet Union Rise and Fall) and they seem to follow totalitarianism, fascist related policies (going by the Wikipedia def. of fascism) nationalism, paranoia, fear, xenophobia, manipulation, expasionist policies and wars, and mass deception. Maybe it’s because I was raised with a LOT of holocaust history, but the message I always received was, “It can happen anywhere, even here, and you have to constantly be on the look out for it.” Many of the historical experts I’ve talked to and watched (including some survivors) say that our current situation is far too similar. That’s what bothers me.
“I don’t judge Al Sharpton to have the kind of influence/support from Democrats that I saw Helms, Reed, Limbaugh, Savage, and the current president get and got from Republicans.”
Al Sharpton was one of the candidates for President last year! He got to speak at the convention! Each of the other candidates had to pretend on stage during the debates that they would actually consider him for the role of vice president!
Did ANY of the people you mention ever run for president? maybe Ralph Reed, though if he did it sure didn’t last long. If the Savage guy you mention is that clown on the radio, the only time I ever heard him he was ranting about how Bush and Limbaugh were frauds…I thought I’d finally found Air America…He’s gone so far to the right that he’s proven Einstein’s theory about space being curved and practically met up with his extreme left wing opposites.
At any rate, NONE of them ever were presented as legit presidential candidates.
Now, since you are such a nice guy and this has been an unusually civil and interesting exchange, I’m gonna cut the branch from underneath myself and give you two names that WOULD support your point–Alan Keyes and Pat Robertson. And I’ll hang my head in shame and mutter something about well, that was a few years ago and ok, we can call it even.
The point is, it works both ways–Democrats have to swallow almost any idiot who runs if he happens to have support from minorities and Republicans have to at least pretend that some evangelical leaders have enough brain cells to make a viable synapse.
“if Kerry had released all of his ‘Nam record, you’d support him over Bush.”
Eww, I hope I didn’t say that. Maybe I was on the crack again. I think I might have said that Kerry and EVERY candidate, should be forced to release all medical, financial, and military records. I absolutely believe that. The fact that the Democrats keep nominating people who won’t is just playing with fire. What’s gonna happen when, two weeks before an election, it turns out that the nominee got a dishonorable discharge because he knowingly infected an entire barrack’s water supply with a rare form of gonnorhea, an affliction that now requires him to take daily doses of an experimental drug known to cause schizophrenia? Oh sure, you can say it sounds unlikely but that’s what they said about zombies too.
“You have friends that are current Communists? Do they believe that Stalin was justified in his murders? If they did, could you still be friends with them?”
Probably not. Most of them don’t particularly understand communism, it just sounds like a good idea which, aside form the “it never actually could work” problem, it is.
We are probably very much alike but our experiences put on on different paths. Going to college in the 80s, when political correctness really got going, left its scars on me. You want to see fascism, fear, paranoia, manipulation, groupthink, repression of political thought? Go to a good university. I tell my conservative students that my advice, which they are of course free to ignore, would be to keep their opinions to themselves, keep their heads low, don’t call attention to any differences of opinion, don’t pick fights with people who can ruin them. It’s pretty much the same advice I imagine I would have given my liberal students in the 1950s.
Looks like the only thing that has changed is the politics of the bad guys. Too bad. Think how great it would be if college was full of teachers like you and me, folks who can argue points on their merits instead of just trying to scare the other side into submission.
“”I don’t judge Al Sharpton to have the kind of influence/support from Democrats that I saw Helms, Reed, Limbaugh, Savage, and the current president get and got from Republicans.”
Al Sharpton was one of the candidates for President last year! He got to speak at the convention! Each of the other candidates had to pretend on stage during the debates that they would actually consider him for the role of vice president!”
What I wasn’t really clear about was this: I judge a party based on what I percieve to be their values, as shown by their policies and the people they elcet into leadership positions. Therefore, I mostly judge the Dems on people such as Clinton and Cazrter (not having ever heard of your example on him before) their, majority leaders, etc. I never saw Sharpton, Mosely-Braun, or Kucinich as representitive (for the same reason that I don’t see Pat Buchanan(post Nixon moslty, later years) or Alan Keyes as representing the Repubs: They got little to no support when they ran, just enough to get noticed.)
I judge the Republicans (moslty) by the example set by the Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, and Nixon and Ford Administrations (I was born in 1975, I’ve read of the earlier admins of both party, but can’t really judege them as well as the later ones.)
I saw Helms and Reed as powerful and representitive (and Limbauch and Savage as more recent, though I have to be aware of the “volume vs support fallacy” and Sharpton as not very supported by the party. Also, I’ve read pro and con on him, but not as much as the more powerful figures discussed.
“You want to see fascism, fear, paranoia, manipulation, groupthink, repression of political thought? Go to a good university.”
I’ve been going to De Anza College (local community college) for a while, and I’m going to San Jose Stae University now. Living in the Bay Area, I realize that liberal attitudes are more likely (frankly, I’m glad, because those are my attitudes, but I will want conservative to have the asame freedoms I do. To me, that is a liberal value) but we have a Republican Club on campus and one thing I want to do is coordinate the Campus Greens, Repub, and Dems, (if there is a dem club, I haven’t seen the fliers) and get some civil debate going. (I know, keep dreaming.)
I used to go for easier answers in life. It was easir to demonize one wing/party as “practically the ultimate adversary” (I know, very wrong of me) because I thought it would be a clear choice. Plus, in the 80’s, with Reagan in office and Evangelists on TV, it seemed that they gave me all the negative examples. I guess I still see more negative examples from the right wing than the left. Is this the truth or just my personal filter? Can’t tell without a good philosopher.
“We are probably very much alike but our experiences put on on different paths. Going to college in the 80s, when political correctness really got going, left its scars on me.”
Perhaps we are alike, but I was able to relate more to friends I had that veered Republican (despite what I said earlier about simple demonization) before this administration. Maybe it was just building in me. I look at the last several Republican Presidents and I can’t think of one that I’d support. Maybe I’d have to go all the way back to Eisenhower. (maybe, I wasn’t around to judge his administration)
Maybe I see too much of the world through the “World War Two Filter” (one of the many reasons I want the time to read Jared Diamond’s books for the long view.) I’ve really tried to check out my history, and I honesntly don’t see why so many people on “your side of the fence” don’t see this administration as one of the worst, if not the worsat we’ve ever had. (I know that every administration seems that way at the time, but for me, the proof is in their actions)
People rounded up based on an Arab name, Specious accusations? Muslim Names? Check. Detention without transparacy? Check. Denial of Due process? Check. Torture (government facilitated, and/or sanctioned) Check. Death in our prisons due to torture and abuses (with an obfuscated chain of command) Check. Expansionist war based on false pretenses? Check. Media Manipulation? Check. Dammit, I read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and it was all there! What is it that you see that I don’t? What is it That I see that you don’t? Personal bias? Or just ….?
By the way, I’m aware that the Nzai’s didn’t round up Arabs; I was referring to minority persecution.
So would I be justified in accusing anyone who supported or still looks fondly on FDR to be unworthy of respect? I mean, I sort of doubt that it’s true that people are being rounded up SOLELY because they have Arab names. However, it IS true that Japanese were rounded up and put in concentration camps solely because of their race by FDR.
Media manipulation? Kennedy and FDR had the press so in their pocket that American public didn’t even know about the reality of FDR’s paralysis and Kennedy’s multiple health issues (including some that required the taking of drugs with potentially serious aftereffects)
Now I’m not arguing that just because someone else did it it’s ok now, but as a student of history you have to know that some of the greatest presidents of the past (FDR, Lincoln) did things that make GW Bush look like a tree hugging hippy.
I don’t consider the Iraqi war as an expansionist one. I guess we will know who’s right in a few years. If the Iraqis are running the country it will be hard to say we went there to steal their oil.
Maybe I’ll end up looking back on this in a few years and realizing that I typed messages that made me look like a hysterical lunatic. All I can say for now is, I really don’t like the parallels. If I recall correctly, When the U.S. started on its present path post 9-11, one senator remarked, “It’s like we’re sleepwalking through history.” When I read letters from holocaust survivors and their children that they see the U.S. starting to follow nearly exactly the same path that too many empires followed in the past, I get scared. I’ve been promising myself that when I had the time I would read more about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, etc. (When I have the time I want to read Jared Diamond’s “Collapse: How societies choose to succeed or fail” among others.)I took a 20th century world history class in fall of 2002 (I knew most of it going in, but still learned a few new things) and a lot of the negative parallels lined up.
I hope that I’m wrong about all of this. To me, it’s a partial explanation of why the most recent election was one of the closest (and to some, the nastiest) we’ve ever had. Too me, George Bush’s War on Terror is a war that will never end, and just be an excuse to suppress liberties, consolidate power, and deny rights. We’ll always be at war, and this will always be an excuse. From what I’ve read, this government radically reversed
Clinton’s policy of declassifying more documents than ever, and history teaches me that government secrecy begets government corruption. For too many people, George Buch taking office against popular vote and the WTC attacks were almost a mirror copy of Hitler’s manipulation of the German Parliament (so many people say, “Hitler was elected by the people.” He wasn’t) and the Reichstag fire. When I first heard those hysterical pronouncements, I said, “We have documented evidence that the Nazi’s blew up the Reichstag and blamed it on their enemies. Show me your proof that the U.S. government caused 9-11.” (I didn’t exactly say that, but I said and thought something like it.) I’ve talked again with many who believe the government knew and/or planned it. They don’t have the evidence I need, but some of their arguments based on some of the evidence in the 9-11 commission report (our government’s past repsonses to air security problems vs. their responses on 9-11) are case for reasonable suspicion. Not the kind of probable cause warranting an arrest, but reasonable suspicion demanding more investigation, which isn’t happening.)
If George Bush leaves office in 2009 I think that I’ll feel a lot better. I’ve presented as much of a case as I can that the current administration is engaging in unjustifiable behavior. When and if our government becomes less secretive, and more and more documents get declassified (and I really hope I’m wrong about this) we may find that so many of the governments denials of torture, the knowledge of torture high up the chain of command, and that the orders really did come on high etc. turn out to be false. I hope that the claims I’ve read about our government lying about the number of innocent Iraqi’s killed (and being killed) aren’t true. I really hope that history won’t have good cause to say that this was America’s time to fall into empire, expansionism, oppression, and slaughter, but I find too many indicators. If one day I look back on all of this, the one thing I’ll never understand is just what this administration did that earned the votes of so many Americans such as you. I’m sorry, even after our long talks and your descriptions of Kerry and the Democrats vs. Bush, I just don’t get it.
I really hope that one day I’ll post, “Bill, you were absolutley right, and I was absolutley wrong.” I really do. Anyways, for now, I’m going to school, learning more (supposedly) building communities (attended a Muslim Student Association
meeting, I’m part of the Jewish Student Union and it looks as though members on both sides want to set up a dialogue. That’s one good start.)
I’m curious as to what you would think if you were to read some of the essays and blog post at davidbrin.com. Just an FYI. (By the way, if I recall correctly, you are a teacher; what subject do you teach?)
Mostly earth Science and biology. Not much opportunity for political talk and I don’t like talking politics with students anyway, mostly because they make me look like a tree hugging hippy (“No Cletus, we really can’t just go and kill everyone with AIDS.”)
I don’t take the 9/11 conspiracy theories seriously because they tend not to come from serious people–when you raise any point against their nutty ideas they accuse you of being part of the conspiracy and so on. Popular Mechanics recently debunked a bunch of the popular theories, the article is at http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
And it’s a good one but frankly I find most of this to be a waste of time. I won’t even get into the BS about how all the Jews supposedly stayed home from the Towers that day.
I hope I’m totally right too but that’s unlikely–if I were that smart I’d be rich. But looking at the world around us recently…people taking to the street in Lebanon to take their country back, Syria suddenly remembering they had some terrorists they’ve been meaning to hand over, the Iranian public increasingly turning against the mullahs, the people of Iraq defying death to cast votes, the Orange revolution in the Ukraine, hell, even the Palestinians seem to be moderating their tone.
Are things perfect? Hardly, but even just a week ago I would have never seen Lebanon as a likely place for democratic revolution. If Iraq and Lebanon”fall” to the people, how long will the Egyptians, Syrians, Saudis, etc be able to hold on? Imagine being an Egyptian and seeing what they consider to be a rubble filled backwater like Lebanon have more freedom than your own culture. It won’t stand.
If Bush leaves office with democracy blooming in the middle east…his critics will say he got lucky, just like they say that Reagan happened to take office right before the Soviet Union met it’s inevitable demise. But that’s ok, who gets credit is way less important than the hope that this long suffering region of the world and its people will finally get the chance to join the 21st century.
You know, we toatlly got away from the whole Gunnett thing so it’s interesting to read today’s Editor & Publisher.
White House Correspondents Want No Role in Credentialing
credit: Aya Kawano
By Joe Strupp
Published: February 28, 2005 4:30 PM ET
NEW YORK The White House Correspondents Association announced Monday that it would not seek changes to the White House press-credentialing process, despite complaints from several members that controversial former reporter James Guckert had been able to gain the same access as any other reporter for two years.
“The board felt like none of us were happy about Gannon being in the briefing room, but we all view it as the price we pay for a system that favors inclusion over keeping someone out,” Hutcheson told E&P. “While not perfect, [the current system] is geared toward letting people in.”
He also added that none of the board members at the meeting believed that Guckert was “a plant” by the Bush administration to insert “softball” questions into the daily briefing
Jeeze, what if they had a “controversy” and nobody came? But at least the left wing can say they ruined the guy’s life. Way To Go.
But at least the left wing can say they ruined the guy’s life. Way To Go.
I don’t know, I’d say the guy pretty much ruined his own life with the choices he made. I know that personal responsibility is out of fashion even with those calling themselves conservative nowadays, but c’mon…
I like Andre Sullivan’s take:
“The substantive case against Gannon is trivial; the irrelevant case against him (the one that’s fueled this story) is that he’s gay, has allegedly been (or still may be) a prostitute, and may not agree with everything the gay left believes (although I agree with David Corn that the evidence that Gannon has written anything even remotely “anti-gay” is laughable). The real scandal is the blatant use of homophobic rhetoric by the self-appointed Savonarolas of homo-left-wingery. It’s an Animal Farm moment: the difference between a fanatic on the gay left and a fanatic on the religious right is harder and harder to discern. Just ask yourself: if a Catholic conservative blogger had found out that a liberal-leaning pseudo-pundit/reporter was a gay sex worker, had outed the guy as gay and a “hooker,” published pictures of the guy naked, and demanded a response from a Democratic administration, do you think gay rights groups would be silent? They’d rightly be outraged. But the left can get away with anything, can’t they? Especially homophobia.”
*sigh* Yes, the poor, poor put-upon Right can’t do anything. Poor, poor victims…
Oh, wait, wasn’t the Right supposedly the ones decrying what they called ‘victim mentality’? Then again, the Right ain’t waht it used to be. I can still remember the days when they at least paid lip service to the idea of fiscal responsibility. Guess they tossed that one out right along with the personal kind, huh?
Hey, I’m just saying that if I knew about the sexual past of someone who’s views I disagreed with, I would not feel that was a good justification for revealing it. You may feel differently. Your call.
I suppose it would depend on whether or not they had made opposition to said sexual activites a part of their public persona or not, a la any of the hundreds of evengelicals who turned out to be having multiple out-of-marriage affairs, or all the congressmen who were shocked, shocked I tell you! about Clinton while they were doing the exact same thing or worse.
Mind you, I really know very little about this guy in question, so I can’t say if that criteria fits him or not. What I was responding to was the increasing whinyness of the Right (the apoption of ‘we’re poor, poor victims of the evil elites’ etc…) I know doubletalk and double standards are SOP for politicians, but it’s just getting really grating…
Also, I’m currently running a high fever, so that may have something to do with me being snippier than usual today…*g*
Well, I hope you feel better. You certainly write better with a high fever than I would!
I haven’t found anything by Gunnett that indicates he ever criticized gays. That accusation was made by some bloggers but upon examination they justified it as something along the lines of “Well, he’s conservative, conservatives vote republican, republicans hate gays, therefore, God plays the piano. But not as well as ray Charles!” or something equally bogus and indicative that they may also be suffering from high fevers…
Anyway, get some rest.
As for me, I gotta get back to studying, the job hunt (oy) and hoping that one day I’ll have to eat crow and write “Bill Mulligan was right and I was wrong” 500 times on the blackboard after class.
Personally, I’m a bit worried about some of the developments in the Middle East that you see as positive. I don’t necessarily believe that the unrest that you describe is a push towards democracy. It reminds me more of the unrest in Iran (in the 1970’s and 80’s) against a corrupt secular government; it led the way for a vicious, totalitarian, fundamentalist theocracy. (Then again, I talked with an avowed Muslim fundamentalist speaker at that meeting I mentioned earlier, and that probably influenced my perception of militant Islam as on the rise. It seems to me that the theocratic movement is getting stronger than ever over there. I really hope Mohammed Abbas and Sharon get some concrete progress done (fragile, tentative, scared, hope seems to be the current mood) and that Hamas doesn’t grow any more in power and popularity.
“Not much opportunity for political talk and I don’t like talking politics with students anyway, mostly because they make me look like a tree hugging hippy (“No Cletus, we really can’t just go and kill everyone with AIDS.”)”
Ick! Where do you teach anyway and where do students like that come from?
For now it seems that the only cure for my armchair ramblings is to actually put my nose to the grindstone and get some valuable social work done. Now if just one of these fershluggener places that I’ve been interviewing for would actually hire me…
“Ick! Where do you teach anyway and where do students like that come from?”
I teach in a small North Carolina town but the kids who say that sort of thing are not usually the sterwotypical redneck southerners. More likely a black kid, by far the most homophobic group that I come in contact with. Allan Keyes is no aberration in that regard, sorry to say.
Ouch. Anyway, as an FYI, I read the paper yesterday (something I haven’t had time to do in while since classes started) and it mirrored some of your statements on the middle east (about fragile, optomistic possibilities.) This is supposed to be the year that I go vegetartian, but I’m currently placing one of crow on reserve, with a chaser of humble pie.
(grumble)
Crow, shmow. It really doesn’t matter who ends up being right or wrong–and we will never actually know that for sure anyway. Even if the middle east blooms into a land of peace and tranquility, nobody will be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what the exact chain of events was that caused it to happen.
We will always need a balance between liberals and conservatives, hawks and doves. One, left unchecked without the other, will almost always lead to calamity.
“If Bush leaves office with democracy blooming in the middle east…his critics will say he got lucky, just like they say that Reagan happened to take office right before the Soviet Union met it’s inevitable demise. But that’s ok, who gets credit is way less important than the hope that this long suffering region of the world and its people will finally get the chance to join the 21st century.”
Part of what bothers me is that when I was very young, I thought that Reagan was glamourous (I even though that the word Republican sounded better than Democrat. At what point I probably would have thought something like, “Improvements happen over time, therefore newer equals better; the Republicans are a newer party than the Democrats, therefore the Republicans must be better or right and the Democrats must be older, therefore, wrong.”
As I’ve looked so much at Reagan’s history, actions, and legacy, and I remember that when he was in office, he seemed to be the most “stage-mangaged president” ever. “Reagan doesn’t mean the meanness of his views” etc. I’ve read a good deal on some of him and his administration’s deceptive tactics (to bring this back to the comics aspect of this site, Larry Gonick’s cartoon guides to the History of America and (Mis)Communication do a good job describing some of this) and the attitude of “He’s teflon, he can do anything vicious and get away by just smiling” really bothers me.
I wanted to believe that the country had learned from this, and Bush seems to be more stage-managed than anyone, incompetent (I’m sorry if that offends, but I believe it, In the debates I didn’t see or read anything showing Bush as the better, clearer, more articulate or more ANYTHING candidate) and with his “stage managers” excusing away his poor speech, his obvious ignorance of many matters (I risk hypocracy here, but I didn’t run for President) that it seems like a return of the worst of the Reagan years.
I also see too much of “style vs. substance” in Arnold’s governorship here. I really hate to see, yet another actor that I never thought was that good run a “show-biz” razzle-dazzle but-nothing-of-value campaign win the governorship of California with people talking about him running for President.
“But that’s ok, who gets credit is way less important …”
Very true. What bothers me is this sense of being trapped. Santyana wrote that those that do not know their history are condemned to repeat it” and Gonick said that looking at history, history repeats itself whether we know ours or not.
When I look at Reagan’s legacy (massive misspending, corrupt administration, massive slashes in education and social services spending and, I thought, a massive unthinking jingoistic “my country right or wrong, criticism=commie/traitors attitude and nuclear world annihilation as an almost inescapable threat” and I look at today’s governors and presidents doing what I see as more of the same. I feel powerless and despairing and end up writing highly inflammatory/scared posts.
“We will always need a balance between liberals and conservatives, hawks and doves. One, left unchecked without the other, will almost always lead to calamity.”
For a long time, I looked at countries with pluralistic, parliamentariy-style governments (Austrailia, U.K., Israel, India, etc.) and thought about them. I knew that our systems was set up to avoid the chaos and collapse that hits every time their is a crisis/possibility of vote of no confidence. I knew that regular elections and term limits “let off steam” for both sides. “Hate Clinton? He won’t be in office, you can wait for him to leave. Hate Bush 1?2? Reagan? ditto” I still envied the amount of choices they had overseas and wondered my more American felt trapped by Demo/Repub and lib/conserv. Sometimes I think that a two party systems isn’t good, it’s too limiting, and pluarlistic reform is the way to go. I don’t know.
I’m told that some libertartian conventions have (or at least had) the diversity of thought and spontaneity that the Democrats and Republicans used to have. For years I wanted to see the Greens get enough former-Democrats and the Libertarians get enough former-Republicans to creat a more stable four-way large party with the Reform party, Peace and Freedom party, American Independent etc. with representation that matched their side.
I don’t know if a hybrid between a U.S. constituitional republic and parliamentary pluralism (with peter piper picking a peck of pickled alliteration on the side) or something similar is possible, but maybe internet message boards/blogs/usenet etc. are good models. There are still “majority” views, but the independent dissenter still gets a voice. It’s food for my thoughts.
On a cheerier note (and if you want, we can table this discussion or move it to a different blog post/email/blog whatever) I like the fact that what I am reading (and typing) dovetails a bit with my current classes and job hunt/interviews.
I’m taking Philosophy of Science, Philosophy and Literature, (which would explain why I’m arguing so much these days.) Human Sexuality (which related to the recent “gay gene” discussion, some radio training, and working with various student organizations. I like that a lot of it fits together.
I realize (being the son of a former teacher) that teachers are busy to the tenth power, which means that you probably don’t have a lot of time for these posts, so I appreciate it. I am curious as to what you might say over at David Brin’s “Modernism” discussion argument.
BTW, I think that March 20th is a major protest day (at least for some of us in California.) are you planning on going to a protest or counter-protest?
March 20th is a protest day? And nobody told me?
What are we protesting? Or can just anyone show up? I’ve got plenty of bones to pick…
Seriously, I don’t really get into the whole protest thing, though I’ve seen some interesting videos. I kind of like the idea of going to protests with a camera. The only time I ever really REALLY wanted to join in a protest was back during the FIRST gulf war, when a bunch of protectors stood on the side of a road, each one spaced about 50 yards apart, holding a sign– USA. OUT. OF. THE. MIDDLE. EAST. is what I think they meant to say but an unfortunate lack of coordination had it saying USA. OUT. THE. OF. MIDDLE. EAST. Anyway, I desperately wanted to get in the back of the line holding a sign that said BURMA SHAVE.
My then-wife argued that A-nobody would get it, B-Not everyone watches The Flintstones, and C- I’m an idiot and if I get the shit beaten out of me by a bunch of angry pacifists it would serve me right.
Also, I’m happily remarried now so there’s no point in going to protest to pick up hot chicks. But if I WAS, I’d be on the plane to Lebanon.
Lastly, before I put all of this to rest (obviously, we’ll chat on other PAD topics) I wonder if you’ve ever considered using Larry Gonick’s graphic novels in your classes (specifically the biology and earth science ones.)
I don’t know if Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs, and Steel” and “Collapse” would be good texts, but if you ever read them, let me know; I wan’t to check them out myself. (they’re reviewed at David Brin’s site.
I hope that we can meet an a convention some time (assuming I can ever get to one in the future.
Unable to make the Jeff Gannon story into anything much, some members of the left are becoming increasingly crude in their seeming homophobia.
I mean, had Gannon/Guckert been straight I doubt that there would have been any question about him sleeping with Condi Rice to get his pass…but gays, you know, those folks just can’t help themselves…
I don’t think this horse is breathing Glenn, but feel free to give him a few more hard whacks.
I think that hypocrisy is a perfectly legitimate charge to level at the Republicans in this case. It reminds me of how much Henry Hyde, Helen Chynoweth, James Carville, and Dan Burton screamed to the high heavens over Clinton having an affair right before their own affairs came to public attention.
Keep it up Glenn, let’s see fans of this administration continue to make cheap excuses and cheap dodges.
“I think that hypocrisy is a perfectly legitimate charge to level at the Republicans in this case. It reminds me of how much Henry Hyde, Helen Chynoweth, James Carville, and Dan Burton screamed to the high heavens over Clinton having an affair right before their own affairs came to public attention.”
Putting aside the puzzling inclusion of James Carville as a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, how exactly does the Gannon story expose republican hypocricy?
Seems like it’s mostly the left that outs gays these days. As if there were something wrong with it…
But I do agree that liberals should focus much attention on this. Right wing bloggers have Dan Rather and Easton Jordon on their trophy walls. Left wing bloggers have Jeff Gannon. Sounds about even.
“Putting aside the puzzling inclusion of James Carville as a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,
Ack! I was confusing James Carville with Bob Livingston. My mistake.
“how exactly does the Gannon story expose republican hypocricy?”
Let’s see, homphobic party with homosexual members? Party that has repeatedly run on the idea that gays are a threat to America (Jesse Helms et al?)and running on a huge moral high horse having a prostitute member? Party that accuses the press of being biased and inaccurate repeatedly running fake newscasts, bribing newscasters to shill, and, oh yeah, creating their own fake journalist? Maybe just a tad hypocritical? Oh but wait, this was the president that was going to “restore the dignity of the White House.” My mistake.
“Let’s see, homphobic party with homosexual members?”
Maybe you need to reexamine your assumptions. There are many gay republicans. That fact seems only to surprise those who assume that the party is homophobic.
Now there are certainly homophobic members of the party but that should not be used to tar the entire membership.Tthe fact that the supposedly pro-African Amercian democrats have former Ku Klux Klanner Robert Burd as a member does not make them hypocrites when they support affirmitive action. Using a few members of a group to represent the entire group is lazy at best and the basis for most bigotries at worst.
“Party that has repeatedly run on the idea that gays are a threat to America (Jesse Helms et al?)and running on a huge moral high horse having a prostitute member?”
See above. And are you serious in being shocked that a national party of tens of millions has “a prostitute member”? Wow, you hold Republican to a very high standard indeed, I am humbled.
I don’t think that the party has run on the “gays as a threat to America” platform, though some members certainly have. If opposing gay marriage makes one homophobic, meet John Kerry, homophobe.
“Party that accuses the press of being biased and inaccurate repeatedly running fake newscasts, bribing newscasters to shill, and, oh yeah, creating their own fake journalist?”
Actually it would be MORE hyprocritical if they claimed that journalists were NOT whores and then turned out to be paying them.
“Oh but wait, this was the president that was going to “restore the dignity of the White House.”
He didn’t say he would restore the dignity of the White House Press Corp. A man can only do so much.
“Using a few members of a group to represent the entire group is lazy at best and the basis for most bigotries at worst.”
Fair enough. I think, however, that it is fair to use the leadership of a group as an indicator of a groups priorities. The Republican party used fear of gay marraige as a major issue in the most recent campaign. Jesse helms was elected to an important government post (leader of the committee on foreign relations, if my memory isn’
t pulling another “James Carville” on me) by the Republicans in Congress, and used his position to deny William Weld a fair hearing. That, to me, are good examples of the party’s priorities.
“See above. And are you serious in being shocked that a national party of tens of millions has “a prostitute member”? Wow, you hold Republican to a very high standard indeed, I am humbled.”
I think that when a party uses a member for a very important function (creating a fake identity, etc.) that they should check a candidates backgroud to see if the member practices the qualites they claim are important.
“I don’t think that the party has run on the “gays as a threat to America” platform, though some members certainly have. If opposing gay marriage makes one homophobic, meet John Kerry, homophobe.”
I believe that in the last election, they have. George Bush put his opposition to gay marraige in his state of the union speech, marking it as a priority. I’ll aagree that I’m ticked that Clinton and Kerry have supported such legislation.
“Actually it would be MORE hyprocritical if they claimed that journalists were NOT whores and then turned out to be paying them.”
If one is going to criticize a behavior, it makes sense not to indulge in that behavior.
“Oh but wait, this was the president that was going to “restore the dignity of the White House.”
“He didn’t say he would restore the dignity of the White House Press Corp. A man can only do so much.”
Personally, I long for the days when a president put, “The Buck Stops Here’ on their desk and meant it and when a president took responisibility for their staff, instead of passing info that they knew was false and then blaming their staff, not even holding teir staff accountable, and then giving them a medal for doing a poor job.
“Fair enough. I think, however, that it is fair to use the leadership of a group as an indicator of a groups priorities. The Republican party used fear of gay marraige as a major issue in the most recent campaign. Jesse helms was elected to an important government post (leader of the committee on foreign relations, if my memory isn’
t pulling another “James Carville” on me) by the Republicans in Congress, and used his position to deny William Weld a fair hearing. That, to me, are good examples of the party’s priorities.”
I agree that the party put too much emphasis on gay marriage but since it is wildly unpopular it would be foolish to expect otherwise. Not a few Democrats have expressed opposition to it as well. One CAN be against gay marriage and not be anti-gay (personally,I see no reason to deny gay people this right but I know that I am in the minority.
Helms had seniority and was a tremendous pain in the ass to both parties. I guess there is something to admire in that, though I shed no tears at his retirement. What William Weld has to do with opposition to gays is beyond me. Similarly, Byrd has been around almost as long as dirt has, so he can’t help but be a leader of the Democrats. That said, a smarter party would probably ask a former kleagle to not be so prominant in voting against the first black Secretary of state.
Is Ted Kennedy’s leadership an indication of the Democrat’s hypocrisy on women’s issues? No, he’s just been around long enough to gain a high degree of influence and power, at least more than most people who should be in jail for manslaughter could hope for.
“I think that when a party uses a member for a very important function (creating a fake identity, etc.) that they should check a candidates backgroud to see if the member practices the qualites they claim are important.”
You and Jeff Gannon’s mom may be the only one’s who thought he had a “very important function”. I assume you have proof that the White House did indeed “creating a fake identity, etc” or are you getting info from Maurice Hinchey? (In fairness, I wouldn’t put it past them to have engaged in numerous etc.).
Why people think it’s a big deal that Jeff Gannon isn’t his real name is beyond me, unless they get a similar case of the willies whenever they see Larry King or Geraldo Rivera. On second thought, that at least would make sense…
It was one thing when Gannon was accused of involvement in the Plame case but that seems to have been completely made up. I think the real issue is in Glenn’s headline–he was gay. That’s been the focus. I think it’s indicative of a far greater degree of intolerance than the left likes to admit to but only they can know what is in their hearts. me, if I found out that Helen Thomas worked nights as a stripper, it wouldn’t change my opinion of her at all. I might tear out my eyes in a vain attempt to erase the mental image but my opinion wouldn’t be changed.
“What William Weld has to do with opposition to gays is beyond me.”
If I recall correctly, that was the major sticking point when Clinton tried to get him an ambassadorship. Helms wouldn’t even let the man get a fair hearing.
“Not a few Democrats have expressed opposition to it as well.”
Agreed. This is one of the many things I hold against the Democrats, and why I plan to work from within to change this (I may be getting an internship working in their offices in California.)
“You and Jeff Gannon’s mom may be the only one’s who thought he had a “very important function”. I assume you have proof that the White House did indeed “creating a fake identity, etc” or are you getting info from Maurice Hinchey? (In fairness, I wouldn’t put it past them to have engaged in numerous etc.).”
Point taken. Next time I’ll do more research to back up my opinion before spouting off, and I’ll try to cite my sources.
“It was one thing when Gannon was accused of involvement in the Plame case but that seems to have been completely made up. I think the real issue is in Glenn’s headline–he was gay. That’s been the focus. I think it’s indicative of a far greater degree of intolerance than the left likes to admit to but only they can know what is in their hearts. me, if I found out that Helen Thomas worked nights as a stripper, it wouldn’t change my opinion of her at all. I might tear out my eyes in a vain attempt to erase the mental image but my opinion wouldn’t be changed.”
I think the deception is more important than him being gay. That said, I find it confusing that gay people join a party which (in my opinion) has worked very hard to demonize them, and deny them equal rights. I understand the concept of trying to reform a group from the inside (as with my example above) but there are limits, and I think that this would be one of them.
In all fairness Bill, though I am a massive liberal and you sometimes describe yourself as conservative (if I recall correctly) I’ve always admired the way you treat those that disagree with you (respectfully)and and that you hold all groups accountable. Though I discussed this issue with several, I was always hosnetly confused by your support for Bush. I can understand not liking Kerry, but I believe that an honest look at the past four years shows the Bush administration as incredibly corrupt, dishonest, and untrustworthy.
“”What William Weld has to do with opposition to gays is beyond me.”
If I recall correctly, that was the major sticking point when Clinton tried to get him an ambassadorship. Helms wouldn’t even let the man get a fair hearing.”
As far as I know or care, Mr Weld is straight. I believe Helm’s objectin was officially that he was not strict enough on illegal drugs–more likely, it was Weld’s dislike for Helms.
“In all fairness Bill, though I am a massive liberal and you sometimes describe yourself as conservative (if I recall correctly) I’ve always admired the way you treat those that disagree with you (respectfully)and and that you hold all groups accountable. Though I discussed this issue with several, I was always hosnetly confused by your support for Bush. I can understand not liking Kerry, but I believe that an honest look at the past four years shows the Bush administration as incredibly corrupt, dishonest, and untrustworthy.”
You’re a good guy, Jon, and I say that not only because you said something nice about me. 🙂 I take a fairly utilitarian approach to politics–there are a few issues I feel are of primary importance and I choose the one I think will be most likely to get us there. Obviously, we can disagree on both which issues are important, what the correct outcome should be, and which candidate will be most likely to get to that outcome. Given all those variables, it should be no surprise that reasonable people will come to opposing opinions; in fact, it would be crazy to think otherwise.
My big problem with the left in general these days is that all to often its members seem stunned to find someone of above average intelligence who doesn’t see things their way, causing them to turn to nutty conspiricy theories, claims that their opposition must be craven, evil, corrupt or dumber than they look, or other self indulgent fantasies. Oh, lots of righties do it too, I know that. But most of the people I hang with are to the left of me, so that’s what I see. I went to college a liberal and 4 years of political correctness and institutional liberal cruelty burned it out of me. It still amazes me that any fair minded person could see the treatment that anyone who did not toe the political line received and not want to fight back.
So maybe if I’d gone to Brigham Young University I’d be writing for MoveOn.org. Who knows? We are all the products of our lives. But I will never be surprised by the fact that some who I like and respect come to 180 degree different conclusions. There but for the grace of God…I only ask that they try to show me some of the same courtesy.
Regretably, this seems to be getting more and more difficult to do. I don’t know if I’ve ever lost a friend to political differences but there are certainly some who I avoid the subject with–my being on the “dark side” would upset them and I know I won’t change their minds so why cause a fuss? People like you and Tim Lynch and several others on this board are doing a far better job of fighting for liberal ideas than the moonbats at the Soros funded blogs could ever do. But their voices are loud and are dangerously close to becomeing the public face of the left, which would be a disaster for both parties.
Anyway, take care.
“As far as I know or care, Mr Weld is straight. I believe Helm’s objectin was officially that he was not strict enough on illegal drugs–more likely, it was Weld’s dislike for Helms.”
Dammit, looks like I was wrong again. I googled looking for info on this (I was POSITIVE that I remembered hearing about that in the news at the time) and most of the article focused on the drug issue (they also mentioned conservative opposition to Weld because he is pro-gay rights, not gay) and that Helms opposed him for a number of reasons. Dammit! I’m only 29! I’m not supposed to be going senile yet!
“My big problem with the left in general these days is that all to often its members seem stunned to find someone of above average intelligence who doesn’t see things their way, causing them to turn to nutty conspiricy theories, claims that their opposition must be craven, evil, corrupt or dumber than they look, or other self indulgent fantasies. Oh, lots of righties do it too, I know that. But most of the people I hang with are to the left of me, so that’s what I see. I went to college a liberal and 4 years of political correctness and institutional liberal cruelty burned it out of me. It still amazes me that any fair minded person could see the treatment that anyone who did not toe the political line received and not want to fight back.”
Being a leftist myself, I can see some of that. I’ve been reading the blog and essays at Davidbrin.com and he makes a good point abot misleading and destructive left/right classifications work.
For me it comes down to this. Yes, reasonable people disagree and a person has a right and a responsibility to air their own views. I’ve had roommates that were libertarian, some that were very conservative and homophobics, etc. and we found some common ground. I also had some that voted Republican, considered themselves finacially conservative and socially liberal. I want to see a pluralisatic system with Greens, Libertarians, and The Reform party on a more equal footing with the Republicans and Democrats, but I’m rambling.
This administration specifically (and the Republican Party in my lifetime) are why I can not respect those that support their views. I can’t respect George Bush’s administration’s pattern of deception, outright lies, manipulation, and flat-out bigotry. I cannot respect a party that treated Jesse Helms with such respect. I cannot respect a party with Ralph Reed using “astroturf” (faux-grass roots misrepresentation) and I can’t respect its supporters. Reasonable people can disagree on many things, but not always. I know that this is going too far with analogies, but with this administration off-shoring (rendering) torture, rounding up people and denying them fair trials, this level of press manipulation, I hate to say that with this president America has come closer to (yes, I know this is a loaded word which is why I shied away from it for so long) neofascism. I’ve had huge arguments with other leftists over the definition of this word and I’ve done my own independent research, and I have to say, they are right. My country is not Nzai Germany, but it is closer to it than I would have ever have believed it could come. I know the old statements about how once a discussion goes back to Worlds War 2 it is effectively over, but I feel as though we’ve all gone down the rabbit hole and our current events are a mix of Vietnam, McCarthy, Korea, and The 1940’s redux.
More than enough rambling. What I meant is that there are some issues on which people can not disagree and remain friends. For me, I know some homophobes (and borderline Anti-Semites) and while I am trying to slowly convince them to reexamine their views and check out the facts, I can’t hold a friendship with people who treat other people that way. There are some friendships that have to be broken up, because when people care about an issue to abolitionist/slavery levels, well, in the words of They Might Be Giants, “You can’t shake the Devil’s Hand and say you’re only kidding.” My Dad was a registered Republicann. My step-dad is one. I just can’t can’t respect a party that uses such secrecy, deception and flat-out hate. I can’t respect those who do. Sorry if this comes at a personal slam, but I’ll never understand how you can support Bush with all of the evidence we have avaialable, and “reasonable people can disagree” doesn’t work for me in this case.
I don’t think we’re heading towards a civil war (yet.) I don’t think that Bush’s presidency will be remembered as “Nazi America.” But I can’t disagree as much as I used to with those that do, and one of my biggest fears is that one day I’ll look at an adopted child or grandchild, and try to explain Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. sending innocents abroad to be torutred, and the torture and Death at the prison that I can never remember how to spell (Garib?) without admitting how close they are, to me, to interment/concentration camps.
That’s part of why I view the current situation the way I do.
But you have to see how easily that kind of thinking can be turned right around at you and, since you have engaged in it yourself, leave you in a very poor position to object. I can selectively pick out some of the Democratic Party’s most egregious race baiters– Al Sharpton, Mell Reynolds, etc–and start talking about how it’s impossible to respect anyone who can support a party that would support such people.
Most of the racial bigotry I see comes from Democrats, albeit bigotry that often has the best of intentions (making it suitable material for road to Hell paving). Most of the anti-gay bigotry comes from republicans (though as the Jeff Gannon story shows, there seems to be a awful lot of homophobia lurking within more than a few of our progressive friends). I’m afraid that I have much more faith in the ability to change the Republican party from within than you will in changing the Democrats–they are far less likely to accept diversity of opinion. (Don’t believe me? Compare the status of pro-choice Republicans (Rice, Powell, Guiliani, Shwartzenegger) with that of pro-life Democrats).
At any rate, you and I can trade horror stories all we want. For every Jesse Helms I can toss back a Mel Reynolds (True, Mel never reached the level of power that Jesse did but that may be due to the interruption from his convictions on child molesting and corruption charges). If you compare how Reynolds was treated by the Democrats (A pardon from Bill Clinton) to how the Republicans treated Donald “Buz” Lukens when HE got caught with an underage teen. They threw him out on his ass and as far as I know, no conservative group came to him with a cushy job after he served his jail time (Mell Reynolds now works for Jesse Jackson’s PUSH organizations).
This could be where I get sarcastic and start talking about how I could never respect anyone who supports a party of child molesters and the people who protect them.
To each his own of course. If there is one thing a person should have it’s the right to choose who their friends are, under whatever qualifications they want. I would suggest that by removing all Republicans from the list of potential friends you are needlessly limiting your chances of finding some great folks who will enrich you life. I have friends who are communists and I love them to death. Communism is responsible for the deaths of millions. Somehow I overlook it. But that’s MY choice, obviously your mileage might vary.
“the U.S. sending innocents abroad to be tortured”
I hope it isn’t true that we are sending innocents to be tortured. Not entirely sure why we would do that. Sending terrorists back tot he gentle hands of their Arab brothers, well, that I might understand, if not approve. But lest you think that this is something Bush came up with…Jimmy Carter holds the dubious distinction of being the only president in my lifetime directly responsible for the deaths of innocent people directly linked to my family. And as far as I can see, he did it for craven political gain.
Long story short–when the Shah of Iran fell, the diplomats at the Iranian embassy in Washington started doing everything they could to get people out of the country. While they were “officially” representing the Khomeini regime, they were actually protecting those who would be likely to be targeted by the radicals now controlling the country. They arranged for the kids who would become my brother and sister to leave Iran and end up in America (they were born here so were technically American citizens–reason enough for the crazier elements in Iran to possibly harm them). Carter, in an act of utterly futile political impotence, sent these heroic men and women back to Iran–“expelling” them with a puffed out chest, like this was something that would show that old Ayatollah a durn good lesson.
He knew what would happen to them when they got back. He didn’t care. He got what he wanted; a one day headline.
Keep building those houses for poor people, Jimbo.
“But you have to see how easily that kind of thinking can be turned right around at you and, since you have engaged in it yourself, leave you in a very poor position to object. I can selectively pick out some of the Democratic Party’s most egregious race baiters– Al Sharpton, Mell Reynolds, etc–and start talking about how it’s impossible to respect anyone who can support a party that would support such people.”
True (although I didn’t know about Mel Reynolds (or remember him) untill you pointed him out); the difference I see is in who the party chooses to lead them versus individual members. If I start a group (say I invented the Boy Scouts) and one member turns out to be an axe murderer/serial killer etc. I wouldn’t expext people to condemn the enire group. However, if the Boy Scouts voted a known pedophile/bigot/lunatic/racist/whatever into a leadership position, then I would judge the group. I don’t judge Al Sharpton to have the kind of influence/support from Democrats that I saw Helms, Reed, Limbaugh, Savage, and the current president get and got from Republicans.
When it comes to a large group, I think that I have to judge them by their representitive leaders. (Though your point about Mel is well taken.)
“Most of the racial bigotry I see comes from Democrats, albeit bigotry that often has the best of intentions (making it suitable material for road to Hell paving). Most of the anti-gay bigotry comes from republicans (though as the Jeff Gannon story shows, there seems to be a awful lot of homophobia lurking within more than a few of our progressive friends).”
I’ll have to say that my observations differ (maybe because most of my life has been based in New York (first few years) and the California Bay Area (most of it).) When I think of recent racial bigotry, I think of what I have read about fraudulent polling practices in the last two elections. When I think of racial bigotry in America In general, I think of “Dixiecrats” who went Republican when the Democrats changed tactics (in the 50′-60’s If I recall correctly.) and I think of Strom Thurmond, and other “New South” courting strategies. (also I look at the current racial makeup of both parties. The Repubs, seem to have the few, the proud, the really conservative minority candidates, the Democrats seem to have everyone else, though this may be changing.)
I don’t see homophobia in the Jeff Ganon story. Most of the references I’ve seen take more of a “how hypocritical is it to be gay in such an anti-gay party?”
“I’m afraid that I have much more faith in the ability to change the Republican party from within than you will in changing the Democrats–they are far less likely to accept diversity of opinion. (Don’t believe me? Compare the status of pro-choice Republicans (Rice, Powell, Guiliani, Shwartzenegger) with that of pro-life Democrats)”.
Point taken. (Although one of the many things that bothers me is that whenever I read a study of what followers of a politician believe, the report says that Kerry voters scored high in knowing both their and Bush’s views on the issues, and that most Bush supporters scored low on what Bush’s positions were. This was attributed to Bush being as vague and misleading as possible, letting people selectively interpret his views as just like theirs. What does this have to do with your point? This. I see many politicians (though mostly Republicans) taking the view, “I will say what I believe whatever gets me power.” Are the Democrats the same? Often, yes, but I see Boxer and Feinsteins stand as principled in the current situation. Shwartzenegger first said he opposed the right to gay marraige, then quickly shifted. I saw this as more of a power grab than a moral epiphany (his other recent actions cause me to doubt his worthiness, but to be honest, I never trusted him to begin with and voted against him.) Anyway, long story short, when Dole ran and some Repubs tried to change the party plaform to be tolerant of those with different opinions, the Repubs Shot it down. You may believe that the Repubs aare more open to change, whereas from what I’ve read (such as one jms post dealing with Jerry Doyle’s Republican California run for office) is that as opposed to letteing their members vote on what issues the party represents, the party leadership takes a top-down approach, “We say what the issues are, and if you disagree we’ll shut you out.” This strikes me as completely antithetical to what Democracy and Republicanism are truly about. For all of their many flaws, I see the Democrats as better than that.
“To each his own of course. If there is one thing a person should have it’s the right to choose who their friends are, under whatever qualifications they want. I would suggest that by removing all Republicans from the list of potential friends you are needlessly limiting your chances of finding some great folks who will enrich you life. I have friends who are communists and I love them to death. Communism is responsible for the deaths of millions. Somehow I overlook it. But that’s MY choice, obviously your mileage might vary.”
For me it’s a moral issue. I’ve had friends who voted Republican (for a large variety of reasons) who can’t support the current administration. I’ve had friends of many political stripes and hope to in the future. I hate drawing lines but my ethics demand it. I couldn’t be friends with someone who supported Botha, and based on all I’ve read about this administration (you may remember that during the election I told people on this board that I checked many different news sources, conservative and liberal and other) I can’t see a rational, legitamite argument for this one. It’s one of the reasons I asked people online for one. (If I recall, you mentioned that if Kerry had released all of his ‘Nam record, you’d support him over Bush. Given the amount of secrecy, document holding, and deception of this administration, I found Kerry to hold to a higher standard.)
You have friends that are current Communists? Do they believe that Stalin was justified in his murders? If they did, could you still be friends with them?
“I hope it isn’t true that we are sending innocents to be tortured. Not entirely sure why we would do that. Sending terrorists back tot he gentle hands of their Arab brothers, well, that I might understand, if not approve. ”
As I’ve shown earlier, I need to do more research and source citing when I make claims like this. What I have read is that the U.S. is, and has, rounded up *accused* people, denied them fair hearing, lawyers, the press, etc. and sent some abroad to be tortured. That I cannot condone.
“But lest you think that this is something Bush came up with…Jimmy Carter holds the dubious distinction of being the only president in my lifetime directly responsible for the deaths of innocent people directly linked to my family. And as far as I can see, he did it for craven political gain.”
I don’t know that much about that period. I need to look more into it.
Bottom line, and this is where I have to be really careful, all of my life, I’ve really tried to learn my history. From what I’ve read, there are patterns of decline and fall (Roman Republic, Empire, and Fall) (Third Reich rise and fall.) (Soviet Union Rise and Fall) and they seem to follow totalitarianism, fascist related policies (going by the Wikipedia def. of fascism) nationalism, paranoia, fear, xenophobia, manipulation, expasionist policies and wars, and mass deception. Maybe it’s because I was raised with a LOT of holocaust history, but the message I always received was, “It can happen anywhere, even here, and you have to constantly be on the look out for it.” Many of the historical experts I’ve talked to and watched (including some survivors) say that our current situation is far too similar. That’s what bothers me.
“I don’t judge Al Sharpton to have the kind of influence/support from Democrats that I saw Helms, Reed, Limbaugh, Savage, and the current president get and got from Republicans.”
Al Sharpton was one of the candidates for President last year! He got to speak at the convention! Each of the other candidates had to pretend on stage during the debates that they would actually consider him for the role of vice president!
Did ANY of the people you mention ever run for president? maybe Ralph Reed, though if he did it sure didn’t last long. If the Savage guy you mention is that clown on the radio, the only time I ever heard him he was ranting about how Bush and Limbaugh were frauds…I thought I’d finally found Air America…He’s gone so far to the right that he’s proven Einstein’s theory about space being curved and practically met up with his extreme left wing opposites.
At any rate, NONE of them ever were presented as legit presidential candidates.
Now, since you are such a nice guy and this has been an unusually civil and interesting exchange, I’m gonna cut the branch from underneath myself and give you two names that WOULD support your point–Alan Keyes and Pat Robertson. And I’ll hang my head in shame and mutter something about well, that was a few years ago and ok, we can call it even.
The point is, it works both ways–Democrats have to swallow almost any idiot who runs if he happens to have support from minorities and Republicans have to at least pretend that some evangelical leaders have enough brain cells to make a viable synapse.
“if Kerry had released all of his ‘Nam record, you’d support him over Bush.”
Eww, I hope I didn’t say that. Maybe I was on the crack again. I think I might have said that Kerry and EVERY candidate, should be forced to release all medical, financial, and military records. I absolutely believe that. The fact that the Democrats keep nominating people who won’t is just playing with fire. What’s gonna happen when, two weeks before an election, it turns out that the nominee got a dishonorable discharge because he knowingly infected an entire barrack’s water supply with a rare form of gonnorhea, an affliction that now requires him to take daily doses of an experimental drug known to cause schizophrenia? Oh sure, you can say it sounds unlikely but that’s what they said about zombies too.
“You have friends that are current Communists? Do they believe that Stalin was justified in his murders? If they did, could you still be friends with them?”
Probably not. Most of them don’t particularly understand communism, it just sounds like a good idea which, aside form the “it never actually could work” problem, it is.
We are probably very much alike but our experiences put on on different paths. Going to college in the 80s, when political correctness really got going, left its scars on me. You want to see fascism, fear, paranoia, manipulation, groupthink, repression of political thought? Go to a good university. I tell my conservative students that my advice, which they are of course free to ignore, would be to keep their opinions to themselves, keep their heads low, don’t call attention to any differences of opinion, don’t pick fights with people who can ruin them. It’s pretty much the same advice I imagine I would have given my liberal students in the 1950s.
Looks like the only thing that has changed is the politics of the bad guys. Too bad. Think how great it would be if college was full of teachers like you and me, folks who can argue points on their merits instead of just trying to scare the other side into submission.
“”I don’t judge Al Sharpton to have the kind of influence/support from Democrats that I saw Helms, Reed, Limbaugh, Savage, and the current president get and got from Republicans.”
Al Sharpton was one of the candidates for President last year! He got to speak at the convention! Each of the other candidates had to pretend on stage during the debates that they would actually consider him for the role of vice president!”
What I wasn’t really clear about was this: I judge a party based on what I percieve to be their values, as shown by their policies and the people they elcet into leadership positions. Therefore, I mostly judge the Dems on people such as Clinton and Cazrter (not having ever heard of your example on him before) their, majority leaders, etc. I never saw Sharpton, Mosely-Braun, or Kucinich as representitive (for the same reason that I don’t see Pat Buchanan(post Nixon moslty, later years) or Alan Keyes as representing the Repubs: They got little to no support when they ran, just enough to get noticed.)
I judge the Republicans (moslty) by the example set by the Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, and Nixon and Ford Administrations (I was born in 1975, I’ve read of the earlier admins of both party, but can’t really judege them as well as the later ones.)
I saw Helms and Reed as powerful and representitive (and Limbauch and Savage as more recent, though I have to be aware of the “volume vs support fallacy” and Sharpton as not very supported by the party. Also, I’ve read pro and con on him, but not as much as the more powerful figures discussed.
“You want to see fascism, fear, paranoia, manipulation, groupthink, repression of political thought? Go to a good university.”
I’ve been going to De Anza College (local community college) for a while, and I’m going to San Jose Stae University now. Living in the Bay Area, I realize that liberal attitudes are more likely (frankly, I’m glad, because those are my attitudes, but I will want conservative to have the asame freedoms I do. To me, that is a liberal value) but we have a Republican Club on campus and one thing I want to do is coordinate the Campus Greens, Repub, and Dems, (if there is a dem club, I haven’t seen the fliers) and get some civil debate going. (I know, keep dreaming.)
I used to go for easier answers in life. It was easir to demonize one wing/party as “practically the ultimate adversary” (I know, very wrong of me) because I thought it would be a clear choice. Plus, in the 80’s, with Reagan in office and Evangelists on TV, it seemed that they gave me all the negative examples. I guess I still see more negative examples from the right wing than the left. Is this the truth or just my personal filter? Can’t tell without a good philosopher.
“We are probably very much alike but our experiences put on on different paths. Going to college in the 80s, when political correctness really got going, left its scars on me.”
Perhaps we are alike, but I was able to relate more to friends I had that veered Republican (despite what I said earlier about simple demonization) before this administration. Maybe it was just building in me. I look at the last several Republican Presidents and I can’t think of one that I’d support. Maybe I’d have to go all the way back to Eisenhower. (maybe, I wasn’t around to judge his administration)
Maybe I see too much of the world through the “World War Two Filter” (one of the many reasons I want the time to read Jared Diamond’s books for the long view.) I’ve really tried to check out my history, and I honesntly don’t see why so many people on “your side of the fence” don’t see this administration as one of the worst, if not the worsat we’ve ever had. (I know that every administration seems that way at the time, but for me, the proof is in their actions)
People rounded up based on an Arab name, Specious accusations? Muslim Names? Check. Detention without transparacy? Check. Denial of Due process? Check. Torture (government facilitated, and/or sanctioned) Check. Death in our prisons due to torture and abuses (with an obfuscated chain of command) Check. Expansionist war based on false pretenses? Check. Media Manipulation? Check. Dammit, I read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and it was all there! What is it that you see that I don’t? What is it That I see that you don’t? Personal bias? Or just ….?
By the way, I’m aware that the Nzai’s didn’t round up Arabs; I was referring to minority persecution.
So would I be justified in accusing anyone who supported or still looks fondly on FDR to be unworthy of respect? I mean, I sort of doubt that it’s true that people are being rounded up SOLELY because they have Arab names. However, it IS true that Japanese were rounded up and put in concentration camps solely because of their race by FDR.
Media manipulation? Kennedy and FDR had the press so in their pocket that American public didn’t even know about the reality of FDR’s paralysis and Kennedy’s multiple health issues (including some that required the taking of drugs with potentially serious aftereffects)
Now I’m not arguing that just because someone else did it it’s ok now, but as a student of history you have to know that some of the greatest presidents of the past (FDR, Lincoln) did things that make GW Bush look like a tree hugging hippy.
I don’t consider the Iraqi war as an expansionist one. I guess we will know who’s right in a few years. If the Iraqis are running the country it will be hard to say we went there to steal their oil.
Maybe I’ll end up looking back on this in a few years and realizing that I typed messages that made me look like a hysterical lunatic. All I can say for now is, I really don’t like the parallels. If I recall correctly, When the U.S. started on its present path post 9-11, one senator remarked, “It’s like we’re sleepwalking through history.” When I read letters from holocaust survivors and their children that they see the U.S. starting to follow nearly exactly the same path that too many empires followed in the past, I get scared. I’ve been promising myself that when I had the time I would read more about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, etc. (When I have the time I want to read Jared Diamond’s “Collapse: How societies choose to succeed or fail” among others.)I took a 20th century world history class in fall of 2002 (I knew most of it going in, but still learned a few new things) and a lot of the negative parallels lined up.
I hope that I’m wrong about all of this. To me, it’s a partial explanation of why the most recent election was one of the closest (and to some, the nastiest) we’ve ever had. Too me, George Bush’s War on Terror is a war that will never end, and just be an excuse to suppress liberties, consolidate power, and deny rights. We’ll always be at war, and this will always be an excuse. From what I’ve read, this government radically reversed
Clinton’s policy of declassifying more documents than ever, and history teaches me that government secrecy begets government corruption. For too many people, George Buch taking office against popular vote and the WTC attacks were almost a mirror copy of Hitler’s manipulation of the German Parliament (so many people say, “Hitler was elected by the people.” He wasn’t) and the Reichstag fire. When I first heard those hysterical pronouncements, I said, “We have documented evidence that the Nazi’s blew up the Reichstag and blamed it on their enemies. Show me your proof that the U.S. government caused 9-11.” (I didn’t exactly say that, but I said and thought something like it.) I’ve talked again with many who believe the government knew and/or planned it. They don’t have the evidence I need, but some of their arguments based on some of the evidence in the 9-11 commission report (our government’s past repsonses to air security problems vs. their responses on 9-11) are case for reasonable suspicion. Not the kind of probable cause warranting an arrest, but reasonable suspicion demanding more investigation, which isn’t happening.)
If George Bush leaves office in 2009 I think that I’ll feel a lot better. I’ve presented as much of a case as I can that the current administration is engaging in unjustifiable behavior. When and if our government becomes less secretive, and more and more documents get declassified (and I really hope I’m wrong about this) we may find that so many of the governments denials of torture, the knowledge of torture high up the chain of command, and that the orders really did come on high etc. turn out to be false. I hope that the claims I’ve read about our government lying about the number of innocent Iraqi’s killed (and being killed) aren’t true. I really hope that history won’t have good cause to say that this was America’s time to fall into empire, expansionism, oppression, and slaughter, but I find too many indicators. If one day I look back on all of this, the one thing I’ll never understand is just what this administration did that earned the votes of so many Americans such as you. I’m sorry, even after our long talks and your descriptions of Kerry and the Democrats vs. Bush, I just don’t get it.
I really hope that one day I’ll post, “Bill, you were absolutley right, and I was absolutley wrong.” I really do. Anyways, for now, I’m going to school, learning more (supposedly) building communities (attended a Muslim Student Association
meeting, I’m part of the Jewish Student Union and it looks as though members on both sides want to set up a dialogue. That’s one good start.)
I’m curious as to what you would think if you were to read some of the essays and blog post at davidbrin.com. Just an FYI. (By the way, if I recall correctly, you are a teacher; what subject do you teach?)
Mostly earth Science and biology. Not much opportunity for political talk and I don’t like talking politics with students anyway, mostly because they make me look like a tree hugging hippy (“No Cletus, we really can’t just go and kill everyone with AIDS.”)
I don’t take the 9/11 conspiracy theories seriously because they tend not to come from serious people–when you raise any point against their nutty ideas they accuse you of being part of the conspiracy and so on. Popular Mechanics recently debunked a bunch of the popular theories, the article is at http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
And it’s a good one but frankly I find most of this to be a waste of time. I won’t even get into the BS about how all the Jews supposedly stayed home from the Towers that day.
I hope I’m totally right too but that’s unlikely–if I were that smart I’d be rich. But looking at the world around us recently…people taking to the street in Lebanon to take their country back, Syria suddenly remembering they had some terrorists they’ve been meaning to hand over, the Iranian public increasingly turning against the mullahs, the people of Iraq defying death to cast votes, the Orange revolution in the Ukraine, hell, even the Palestinians seem to be moderating their tone.
Are things perfect? Hardly, but even just a week ago I would have never seen Lebanon as a likely place for democratic revolution. If Iraq and Lebanon”fall” to the people, how long will the Egyptians, Syrians, Saudis, etc be able to hold on? Imagine being an Egyptian and seeing what they consider to be a rubble filled backwater like Lebanon have more freedom than your own culture. It won’t stand.
If Bush leaves office with democracy blooming in the middle east…his critics will say he got lucky, just like they say that Reagan happened to take office right before the Soviet Union met it’s inevitable demise. But that’s ok, who gets credit is way less important than the hope that this long suffering region of the world and its people will finally get the chance to join the 21st century.
You know, we toatlly got away from the whole Gunnett thing so it’s interesting to read today’s Editor & Publisher.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000818837
White House Correspondents Want No Role in Credentialing
credit: Aya Kawano
By Joe Strupp
Published: February 28, 2005 4:30 PM ET
NEW YORK The White House Correspondents Association announced Monday that it would not seek changes to the White House press-credentialing process, despite complaints from several members that controversial former reporter James Guckert had been able to gain the same access as any other reporter for two years.
“The board felt like none of us were happy about Gannon being in the briefing room, but we all view it as the price we pay for a system that favors inclusion over keeping someone out,” Hutcheson told E&P. “While not perfect, [the current system] is geared toward letting people in.”
He also added that none of the board members at the meeting believed that Guckert was “a plant” by the Bush administration to insert “softball” questions into the daily briefing
Jeeze, what if they had a “controversy” and nobody came? But at least the left wing can say they ruined the guy’s life. Way To Go.
But at least the left wing can say they ruined the guy’s life. Way To Go.
I don’t know, I’d say the guy pretty much ruined his own life with the choices he made. I know that personal responsibility is out of fashion even with those calling themselves conservative nowadays, but c’mon…
I like Andre Sullivan’s take:
“The substantive case against Gannon is trivial; the irrelevant case against him (the one that’s fueled this story) is that he’s gay, has allegedly been (or still may be) a prostitute, and may not agree with everything the gay left believes (although I agree with David Corn that the evidence that Gannon has written anything even remotely “anti-gay” is laughable). The real scandal is the blatant use of homophobic rhetoric by the self-appointed Savonarolas of homo-left-wingery. It’s an Animal Farm moment: the difference between a fanatic on the gay left and a fanatic on the religious right is harder and harder to discern. Just ask yourself: if a Catholic conservative blogger had found out that a liberal-leaning pseudo-pundit/reporter was a gay sex worker, had outed the guy as gay and a “hooker,” published pictures of the guy naked, and demanded a response from a Democratic administration, do you think gay rights groups would be silent? They’d rightly be outraged. But the left can get away with anything, can’t they? Especially homophobia.”
*sigh* Yes, the poor, poor put-upon Right can’t do anything. Poor, poor victims…
Oh, wait, wasn’t the Right supposedly the ones decrying what they called ‘victim mentality’? Then again, the Right ain’t waht it used to be. I can still remember the days when they at least paid lip service to the idea of fiscal responsibility. Guess they tossed that one out right along with the personal kind, huh?
Hey, I’m just saying that if I knew about the sexual past of someone who’s views I disagreed with, I would not feel that was a good justification for revealing it. You may feel differently. Your call.
I suppose it would depend on whether or not they had made opposition to said sexual activites a part of their public persona or not, a la any of the hundreds of evengelicals who turned out to be having multiple out-of-marriage affairs, or all the congressmen who were shocked, shocked I tell you! about Clinton while they were doing the exact same thing or worse.
Mind you, I really know very little about this guy in question, so I can’t say if that criteria fits him or not. What I was responding to was the increasing whinyness of the Right (the apoption of ‘we’re poor, poor victims of the evil elites’ etc…) I know doubletalk and double standards are SOP for politicians, but it’s just getting really grating…
Also, I’m currently running a high fever, so that may have something to do with me being snippier than usual today…*g*
Well, I hope you feel better. You certainly write better with a high fever than I would!
I haven’t found anything by Gunnett that indicates he ever criticized gays. That accusation was made by some bloggers but upon examination they justified it as something along the lines of “Well, he’s conservative, conservatives vote republican, republicans hate gays, therefore, God plays the piano. But not as well as ray Charles!” or something equally bogus and indicative that they may also be suffering from high fevers…
Anyway, get some rest.
As for me, I gotta get back to studying, the job hunt (oy) and hoping that one day I’ll have to eat crow and write “Bill Mulligan was right and I was wrong” 500 times on the blackboard after class.
Personally, I’m a bit worried about some of the developments in the Middle East that you see as positive. I don’t necessarily believe that the unrest that you describe is a push towards democracy. It reminds me more of the unrest in Iran (in the 1970’s and 80’s) against a corrupt secular government; it led the way for a vicious, totalitarian, fundamentalist theocracy. (Then again, I talked with an avowed Muslim fundamentalist speaker at that meeting I mentioned earlier, and that probably influenced my perception of militant Islam as on the rise. It seems to me that the theocratic movement is getting stronger than ever over there. I really hope Mohammed Abbas and Sharon get some concrete progress done (fragile, tentative, scared, hope seems to be the current mood) and that Hamas doesn’t grow any more in power and popularity.
“Not much opportunity for political talk and I don’t like talking politics with students anyway, mostly because they make me look like a tree hugging hippy (“No Cletus, we really can’t just go and kill everyone with AIDS.”)”
Ick! Where do you teach anyway and where do students like that come from?
For now it seems that the only cure for my armchair ramblings is to actually put my nose to the grindstone and get some valuable social work done. Now if just one of these fershluggener places that I’ve been interviewing for would actually hire me…
“Ick! Where do you teach anyway and where do students like that come from?”
I teach in a small North Carolina town but the kids who say that sort of thing are not usually the sterwotypical redneck southerners. More likely a black kid, by far the most homophobic group that I come in contact with. Allan Keyes is no aberration in that regard, sorry to say.
Ouch. Anyway, as an FYI, I read the paper yesterday (something I haven’t had time to do in while since classes started) and it mirrored some of your statements on the middle east (about fragile, optomistic possibilities.) This is supposed to be the year that I go vegetartian, but I’m currently placing one of crow on reserve, with a chaser of humble pie.
(grumble)
Crow, shmow. It really doesn’t matter who ends up being right or wrong–and we will never actually know that for sure anyway. Even if the middle east blooms into a land of peace and tranquility, nobody will be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what the exact chain of events was that caused it to happen.
We will always need a balance between liberals and conservatives, hawks and doves. One, left unchecked without the other, will almost always lead to calamity.
“If Bush leaves office with democracy blooming in the middle east…his critics will say he got lucky, just like they say that Reagan happened to take office right before the Soviet Union met it’s inevitable demise. But that’s ok, who gets credit is way less important than the hope that this long suffering region of the world and its people will finally get the chance to join the 21st century.”
Part of what bothers me is that when I was very young, I thought that Reagan was glamourous (I even though that the word Republican sounded better than Democrat. At what point I probably would have thought something like, “Improvements happen over time, therefore newer equals better; the Republicans are a newer party than the Democrats, therefore the Republicans must be better or right and the Democrats must be older, therefore, wrong.”
As I’ve looked so much at Reagan’s history, actions, and legacy, and I remember that when he was in office, he seemed to be the most “stage-mangaged president” ever. “Reagan doesn’t mean the meanness of his views” etc. I’ve read a good deal on some of him and his administration’s deceptive tactics (to bring this back to the comics aspect of this site, Larry Gonick’s cartoon guides to the History of America and (Mis)Communication do a good job describing some of this) and the attitude of “He’s teflon, he can do anything vicious and get away by just smiling” really bothers me.
I wanted to believe that the country had learned from this, and Bush seems to be more stage-managed than anyone, incompetent (I’m sorry if that offends, but I believe it, In the debates I didn’t see or read anything showing Bush as the better, clearer, more articulate or more ANYTHING candidate) and with his “stage managers” excusing away his poor speech, his obvious ignorance of many matters (I risk hypocracy here, but I didn’t run for President) that it seems like a return of the worst of the Reagan years.
I also see too much of “style vs. substance” in Arnold’s governorship here. I really hate to see, yet another actor that I never thought was that good run a “show-biz” razzle-dazzle but-nothing-of-value campaign win the governorship of California with people talking about him running for President.
“But that’s ok, who gets credit is way less important …”
Very true. What bothers me is this sense of being trapped. Santyana wrote that those that do not know their history are condemned to repeat it” and Gonick said that looking at history, history repeats itself whether we know ours or not.
When I look at Reagan’s legacy (massive misspending, corrupt administration, massive slashes in education and social services spending and, I thought, a massive unthinking jingoistic “my country right or wrong, criticism=commie/traitors attitude and nuclear world annihilation as an almost inescapable threat” and I look at today’s governors and presidents doing what I see as more of the same. I feel powerless and despairing and end up writing highly inflammatory/scared posts.
“We will always need a balance between liberals and conservatives, hawks and doves. One, left unchecked without the other, will almost always lead to calamity.”
For a long time, I looked at countries with pluralistic, parliamentariy-style governments (Austrailia, U.K., Israel, India, etc.) and thought about them. I knew that our systems was set up to avoid the chaos and collapse that hits every time their is a crisis/possibility of vote of no confidence. I knew that regular elections and term limits “let off steam” for both sides. “Hate Clinton? He won’t be in office, you can wait for him to leave. Hate Bush 1?2? Reagan? ditto” I still envied the amount of choices they had overseas and wondered my more American felt trapped by Demo/Repub and lib/conserv. Sometimes I think that a two party systems isn’t good, it’s too limiting, and pluarlistic reform is the way to go. I don’t know.
I’m told that some libertartian conventions have (or at least had) the diversity of thought and spontaneity that the Democrats and Republicans used to have. For years I wanted to see the Greens get enough former-Democrats and the Libertarians get enough former-Republicans to creat a more stable four-way large party with the Reform party, Peace and Freedom party, American Independent etc. with representation that matched their side.
I don’t know if a hybrid between a U.S. constituitional republic and parliamentary pluralism (with peter piper picking a peck of pickled alliteration on the side) or something similar is possible, but maybe internet message boards/blogs/usenet etc. are good models. There are still “majority” views, but the independent dissenter still gets a voice. It’s food for my thoughts.
On a cheerier note (and if you want, we can table this discussion or move it to a different blog post/email/blog whatever) I like the fact that what I am reading (and typing) dovetails a bit with my current classes and job hunt/interviews.
I’m taking Philosophy of Science, Philosophy and Literature, (which would explain why I’m arguing so much these days.) Human Sexuality (which related to the recent “gay gene” discussion, some radio training, and working with various student organizations. I like that a lot of it fits together.
I realize (being the son of a former teacher) that teachers are busy to the tenth power, which means that you probably don’t have a lot of time for these posts, so I appreciate it. I am curious as to what you might say over at David Brin’s “Modernism” discussion argument.
BTW, I think that March 20th is a major protest day (at least for some of us in California.) are you planning on going to a protest or counter-protest?
March 20th is a protest day? And nobody told me?
What are we protesting? Or can just anyone show up? I’ve got plenty of bones to pick…
Seriously, I don’t really get into the whole protest thing, though I’ve seen some interesting videos. I kind of like the idea of going to protests with a camera. The only time I ever really REALLY wanted to join in a protest was back during the FIRST gulf war, when a bunch of protectors stood on the side of a road, each one spaced about 50 yards apart, holding a sign– USA. OUT. OF. THE. MIDDLE. EAST. is what I think they meant to say but an unfortunate lack of coordination had it saying USA. OUT. THE. OF. MIDDLE. EAST. Anyway, I desperately wanted to get in the back of the line holding a sign that said BURMA SHAVE.
My then-wife argued that A-nobody would get it, B-Not everyone watches The Flintstones, and C- I’m an idiot and if I get the shit beaten out of me by a bunch of angry pacifists it would serve me right.
Also, I’m happily remarried now so there’s no point in going to protest to pick up hot chicks. But if I WAS, I’d be on the plane to Lebanon.
Check out http://stopthebleating.typepad.com/stop_the_bleating/2005/03/special_midweek.html
Hootah! Hot pro-democracy women RULE!
Good point.
And to tie all this back to the orignial post:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4320873.stm
Lastly, before I put all of this to rest (obviously, we’ll chat on other PAD topics) I wonder if you’ve ever considered using Larry Gonick’s graphic novels in your classes (specifically the biology and earth science ones.)
I don’t know if Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs, and Steel” and “Collapse” would be good texts, but if you ever read them, let me know; I wan’t to check them out myself. (they’re reviewed at David Brin’s site.
I hope that we can meet an a convention some time (assuming I can ever get to one in the future.
Take Care.
Jon