Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=5519)

Bloggingheads 07-07-2010 12:49 PM

Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 

chiwhisoxx 07-07-2010 02:53 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
I know Dave reads (and occassionally responds) to comments here, so I'm going to throw this out here and maybe he'll take the bait. I won't make this a debate about your own ideology, or if you should have been covering the beat you were covering, because that's tired ground that frankly wasn't that interesting in the first place.

What I think the more interesting question is relates to the beat itself. Why does the post have a reporter who just follows conservatives? I'm pretty sure they don't have a reporter who follows liberals, or libertarians, or anyone else. So why give conservatives this sort of gorillas in the mist attitude? It reinforces conservative notions about media bias, by making people think there is such an ideology gap between the paper and conservatives that they need to bring in a special reporter just to investigate and report on these strange creatures.

I don't fault you for taking the job, working at the Washington Post is the opportunity of a lifetime for a reporter. But ultimately, was that job one that needed to even exist in the first place?

osmium 07-07-2010 03:05 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
I really love that David Frum has this mid-career Jack Kerouac look here. Maybe it's your lighting, David. Honestly, I like it.

Don Zeko 07-07-2010 04:06 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
I found this clip frustrating
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/292...1:23&out=32:11

Now, I appreciate David and wish that more of the strident Conservatives out there were like him, and I feel a bit silly for demanding more contrition when he's so prominently not living in a fantasy universe, but I wish he would give some examples of the criticism of Bush that was so unacceptably vitriolic. I doubt that there were comparably influential Liberal voices saying anything as crazy about Bush as is said about Obama today, and that's without taking into account the fact that Bush deserved much more criticism the latter years of his presidency than Obama does now.

badhatharry 07-07-2010 04:20 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 168647)
What I think the more interesting question is relates to the beat itself. Why does the post have a reporter who just follows conservatives? I'm pretty sure they don't have a reporter who follows liberals, or libertarians, or anyone else. So why give conservatives this sort of gorillas in the mist attitude? It reinforces conservative notions about media bias, by making people think there is such an ideology gap between the paper and conservatives that they need to bring in a special reporter just to investigate and report on these strange creatures.

Really well put. It's a very good topic for discussion, IMHO, although I'm sure that many around here will not understand why people so abhorently strange, childish, racist, deluded and mentally unhinged wouldn't obviously be a fertile subject of liberal investigation.

I mean how the hell do those conservatives find the fucking nerve to even get up in the morning??

chiwhisoxx 07-07-2010 04:23 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
Telling someone to find specific examples of overheated criticism of Bush is like telling someone in a submarine to find water, so that's not worth de-railing this thread over. Just posting to point that statements like "Bush obviously deserves the criticism a lot more than Obama does" is equal parts normative and useless in attemtping to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

badhatharry 07-07-2010 04:27 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 168656)
I found this clip frustrating
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/292...1:23&out=32:11

I wish he would give some examples of the criticism of Bush that was so unacceptably vitriolic. I doubt that there were comparably influential Liberal voices saying anything as crazy about Bush as is said about Obama today, and that's without taking into account the fact that Bush deserved much more criticism the latter years of his presidency than Obama does now.

Surely you jest.

Don Zeko 07-07-2010 04:28 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 168658)
Really well put. It's a very good topic for discussion, IMHO, although I'm sure that many around here will not understand why people so abhorently strange, childish, racist, deluded and mentally unhinged wouldn't obviously be a fertile subject of liberal investigation.

just sayin'

I, for one, do think that it's an interesting question. Would they be better off with reporters covering both the Conservative Movement and liberal activists in a semi-anthropological way? I think that Weigel's beat is simultaneously interesting, informative, and problematic in exactly the way chiwisoxx describes. Hopefully Weigel will hop in here and share his thoughts on this.

AemJeff 07-07-2010 04:30 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 168660)

You missed the phrase "comparably influential."

Don Zeko 07-07-2010 04:33 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
I'll happily stipulate that cherry-picked protesters and commenters at Dailykos said things that are just as crazy as the most deranged rantings about Obama's birth certificate. What I was trying to say was that, as you move up the respectability hierarchy, you saw much less vitriol directed against Bush than is currently directed against Obama. For example, Andy McCarthy is writes totally insane things for National Review about Obama's supposed ties with Islamic terrorists. Nobody at TNR or The American Prospect or any similarly respectable liberal outlet wrote anything nearly as crazy about Bush.

Lyle 07-07-2010 04:33 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 168656)
I found this clip frustrating
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/292...1:23&out=32:11

Now, I appreciate David and wish that more of the strident Conservatives out there were like him, and I feel a bit silly for demanding more contrition when he's so prominently not living in a fantasy universe, but I wish he would give some examples of the criticism of Bush that was so unacceptably vitriolic. I doubt that there were comparably influential Liberal voices saying anything as crazy about Bush as is said about Obama today, and that's without taking into account the fact that Bush deserved much more criticism the latter years of his presidency than Obama does now.

Hopefully you're kidding.

Whatfur 07-07-2010 04:39 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lyle (Post 168664)


I have come to discover that Zeke's information reservior is pretty much a puddle accumulated during the last rain. So I doubt very much he was kidding.

Lyle 07-07-2010 04:41 PM

Bush Family and Nazis
 
Really? Nobody on the Left connected the Bush family to the Nazis?

badhatharry 07-07-2010 04:44 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 168663)
I'll happily stipulate that cherry-picked protesters and commenters at Dailykos said things that are just as crazy as the most deranged rantings about Obama's birth certificate. What I was trying to say was that, as you move up the respectability hierarchy, you saw much less vitriol directed against Bush than is currently directed against Obama. For example, Andy McCarthy is writes totally insane things for National Review about Obama's supposed ties with Islamic terrorists. Nobody at TNR or The American Prospect or any similarly respectable liberal outlet wrote anything nearly as crazy about Bush.

OK so who is Andy McCarthy's counterpart on the left?

This is really just off the top of my head but 1) what about Michael Moore suggesting Bush was involved with the 9/11 events? 2) What about people saying that the Supreme Court was influenced by Bush to get him elected instead of Gore? 3) What about all of the speculation about Cheney and Bush being interested only in oil when it came to our involvement in Iraq?

I have the feeling you might be agreeing with any or all of these charges. But are they any less vitriolic than what McCarthy puts out there?

Don Zeko 07-07-2010 04:46 PM

Re: Bush Family and Nazis
 
Did you even read my post? That's not what I said. Now, on the one hand I think we're destined to have an unproductive argument because our media consumption is different in a way that exposes me to more right-wing craziness and less left-wing craziness, while I suspect your habits do the reverse. But on the other, I'm still not seeing anything but cherry-picking. Rush and the rest of talk radio are both much more vitriolic and far more influential than Olbermann, Moore and their imitators on the left.

Plus, this is all in the context of things like Bush's actual support for torture, which is actually a violation of US law and the laws of war. This whole "the left was mean to Bush too" line is a false equivalence that's only palatable if you're ideologically inclined to believe it.

badhatharry 07-07-2010 04:48 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 168665)
I have come to discover that Zeke's information reservior is pretty much a puddle accumulated during the last rain. So I doubt very much he was kidding.

priceless

Don Zeko 07-07-2010 04:50 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 168667)
This is really just off the top of my head but 1) what about Michael Moore suggesting Bush was involved with the 9/11 events? 2) What about people saying that the Supreme Court was influenced by Bush to get him elected instead of Gore? 3) What about all of the speculation about Cheney and Bush being interested only in oil when it came to our involvement in Iraq?

I have the feeling you might be agreeing with any or all of these charges. But are they any less vitriolic than what McCarthy puts out there?

For what it's worth, I believe that partisan affiliations obviously influenced the outcome of Bush v. Gore, I think the "war for oil" line is almost entirely wrong but contains a germ of truth, and yes, 9/11 truthers are crazy.

But these things are all way less vitriolic than McCarthy, or Beck, or Levin's lines. Andy McCarthy is arguing that Barack Obama is literally in league with Al-Qaeda to destroy the United States. Beck and Levin think that Obama is actually trying to destroy American democracy. The red-meat producers on the left just can't compare to talk radio and Fox News.

badhatharry 07-07-2010 04:55 PM

Re: Bush Family and Nazis
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 168668)
Did you even read my post? That's not what I said. Now, on the one hand I think we're destined to have an unproductive argument because our media consumption is different in a way that exposes me to more right-wing craziness and less left-wing craziness, while I suspect your habits do the reverse. But on the other, I'm still not seeing anything but cherry-picking. Rush and the rest of talk radio are both much more vitriolic and far more influential than Olbermann, Moore and their imitators on the left.

Plus, this is all in the context of things like Bush's actual support for torture, which is actually a violation of US law and the laws of war. This whole "the left was mean to Bush too" line is a false equivalence that's only palatable if you're ideologically inclined to believe it.

I thought I read it. What did I miss?

And I guess that vitriolic is in the eye of the beholder but blaming Bush for blowing up the World Trade Center just isn't very nice, darn it! You're probably correct that this discussion won't be very productive. But if we can keep it light (and respectful) it will probably be a whole lot more fun than the national debt.

So are you admitting here that the right wing propaganda machine is far more powerful than that of the left?
Rush and the rest of talk radio are both much more vitriolic and far more influential than Olbermann, Moore and their imitators on the left.


And just one more (more substantive) thing. I don't really care about left wing crazy. What I care about is the left's mentality. I have problems with it whether it's being put out there as crazy or not.

Lyle 07-07-2010 04:58 PM

Re: Bush Family and Nazis
 
Yeah, I read your post. That's why I'm pointing you to comments made by George Soros and the Guardian newspaper. Their commentary kind of behead your argument, I think.

Don, you're whole point about Bush "deserving" the crazy talk he got is unpersuasive and nonsensical. You're just making a subjective argument about what you think is some kind of unfair, unequal treatment of Obama, i.e. you're simply ignoring what you don't care to see and believing whatever it is you want to believe in. That's simply your spin on things. Good for you that you think that, but so what... that's just merely your personal opinion. Some people think Obama deserves to be name called and they're name calling him just like some people name called Bush. Kind of fair if you ask me... for those who are partisan.

Oh my god, they have a different world view from you. Oh, the horror! They disagree with you, they disagree with you... oh no, they don't like the President! Eeeeeek!!!

JonIrenicus 07-07-2010 05:05 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
Title looks promising.

Don Zeko 07-07-2010 05:10 PM

Re: Bush Family and Nazis
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 168672)
I thought I read it. What did I miss?

I didn't say that there wasn't anybody on the left saying crazy, vitriolic things about Bush. There were. What I was saying was that the really ridiculous anti-Bush vitriol was confined to the fringes of the political system in a way that anti-Obama vitriol and crazification is not. So yeah, the kinds of people that protest the G20 meetings every year were hanging Bush in effigy, but they've never had an impact on even Democratic Party politics. It's like comparing Rush Limbaugh and Dennis Kucinich. Both say plenty of silly things, but only Rush has real power.

Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 168672)
And I guess that vitriolic is in the eye of the beholder but blaming Bush for blowing up the World Trade Center just isn't very nice, darn it!

No, it isn't. And if 9/11 truthers had become as prevalent on the left as the Obama is a socialist/in league with terrorists/whatever crowd has become on the right, that would have been a big problem for the country and for the Liberal agenda. I think that we should all be dismayed about the increasing acceptance of craziness in today's grassroots Republican Party. For Conservatives, you guys even have an electoral incentive to tamp these shenanigans down. After all, the odds that Sharron Angle and Rand Paul are going to lose the R's two Senate seats that should have been shoe-ins aren't that low.

Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 168672)
You're probably correct that this discussion won't be very productive. But if we can keep it light (and respectful) it will probably be a whole lot more fun than the national debt.

Yep. The trouble is that it's an extremely hard debate to get any agreement on, because it is extremely easy to expose yourself to less craziness from your side while also considering the craziness on your side less ridiculous when you partially agree with it. So when we have these discussions, we have very different conceptions of what the Left and the Right look like, who they include, and what sorts of things they're saying.

Case in point: I thought it was outrageous when Dick Durbin was pilloried for saying that the treatment of prisoners in Gitmo was remniscient of the Gulag. As I heard it, he was making a perfectly defensible point that gitmo interrogators used torture techniques that had also been used by totalitarian states like the USSR. As many conservatives (possibly including you, Badhat?) heard it, he was saying something to the effect of "Bush is as bad as Kruschev because of his treatment of detainees in the GWOT," which is a much crazier and basically indefensible statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 168672)
So are you admitting here that the right wing propaganda machine is far more powerful than that of the left?
Rush and the rest of talk radio are both much more vitriolic and far more influential than Olbermann, Moore and their imitators on the left.


Heck yes. I don't think they change elections significantly, but the Conservative propaganda machine effects the behavior of Republican politicians in a way that Olbermann and Moore can only dream of.

chiwhisoxx 07-07-2010 05:12 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
While I don't entirely agree with Don, I don't think others are being fair to him here either. I don't think liberals will ever fully appreciate the extent to which criticism of Bush was unhinged; I find Charles Krauhammer's phrase "Bush derangement syndrome" to be pretty accurate in a lot of ways.

But it is true that the critics of Bush seemed more...decentralized. But I think that says more about respective political movements than about the criticsm. I agree there isn't a liberal equivalent to Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc., who were lambasting Bush back in 03. But that's exactly the point: who exactly in the universe are those peoples dopplegangers? If they actually did exist, they probably would have been incredibly vitriolic towards Bush. The closest example I can think of is Keith Olbermann, who is not someone who was a fan of Mr. Bush, and also not someone who is particularly skilled at controlling his incoherent rage.

And sort of as an aside, I love and have a deep reverence for NRO, but I agree with you on the Andy McCarthy point. I think he may have gone off the deep end with his latest book, although to be fair I haven't read it yet. Making points about the nexus of leftist radicals and radical Islam has a very limited threshold for usefulness before it becomes...somewhat deranged.

badhatharry 07-07-2010 05:12 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 168670)
For what it's worth, I believe that partisan affiliations obviously influenced the outcome of Bush v. Gore, I think the "war for oil" line is almost entirely wrong but contains a germ of truth, and yes, 9/11 truthers are crazy.

But these things are all way less vitriolic than McCarthy, or Beck, or Levin's lines. Andy McCarthy is arguing that Barack Obama is literally in league with Al-Qaeda to destroy the United States. Beck and Levin think that Obama is actually trying to destroy American democracy. The red-meat producers on the left just can't compare to talk radio and Fox News.

Despite their crazy presentation style I think Levin and Beck are genuinely concerned about what they see as a growing move towards socialism. They really, really don't like it and think that this is a pivotal point in American history. I suppose the health care bill was the epicenter for their angst and certainly fueled their fire.

But again, I don't think their characterization of Obama as someone with socialistic leanings is any more incendiary as Micheal Moore's characterization of Bush in Fahrenheit/ 9-11. Some of us were a little offended by Moore's insinuations, while the movie grossed $250 million and got a twenty minute standing ovation at Cannes.

And BTW, the left tried the talk radio thing. They just weren't successful. But you guys have lots of mean people to be proud of...a lot of whom post right here!

TwinSwords 07-07-2010 05:18 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 168658)
Really well put. It's a very good topic for discussion, IMHO, although I'm sure that many around here will not understand why people so abhorently strange, childish, racist, deluded and mentally unhinged wouldn't obviously be a fertile subject of liberal investigation.

I mean how the hell do those conservatives find the fucking nerve to even get up in the morning??

Let's not forget two things, while you and Chi are feeling sorry for your movement:

(1) The WaPo didn't have anyone on this beat prior to Weigel, so it's probably entirely inaccurate for Chi and you to suggest that the WaPo "had to" or "has to" have a beat that is dedicated to coverage of ultraconservative extremists.

It's true that many years ago, the WaPo hired serial liar and plagiarist Ben Domenech to blog from the wingnutty fringe. But his brief tenure, followed years later by Weigel's brief tenure, hardly support the original implication that the WaPo is determined to "have a reporter who just follows conservatives, ... reinforc[ing] conservative notions about media bias, by making people think there is such an ideology gap between the paper and conservatives that they need to bring in a special reporter just to investigate and report on these strange creatures." The premise is false, so any conclusions you come to using this premise will also be false.

(2) What's even more interesting is that conservatives have been complaining for a long time that the WaPo doesn't have a reporting covering the far-out rightwing fringe. This is the first time I've ever hear a conservative (or two) complain that their movement is being covered. Part of the reason, perhaps, that the WaPo felt compelled to fill this niche is because so many self-pitying conservatives have been complaining that it hasn't dedicated a reporter to cover them.

uncle ebeneezer 07-07-2010 05:30 PM

Re: Bush Family and Nazis
 
I would add an obvious question: when has anyone with real power in the Democratic Party ever had to apologize to Keith Olberman, Michael Moore, etc., or retract/change their positions to stay on their good side?

AemJeff 07-07-2010 05:33 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 168678)
While I don't entirely agree with Don, I don't think others are being fair to him here either. I don't think liberals will ever fully appreciate the extent to which criticism of Bush was unhinged; I find Charles Krauhammer's phrase "Bush derangement syndrome" to be pretty accurate in a lot of ways.

But it is true that the critics of Bush seemed more...decentralized. But I think that says more about respective political movements than about the criticsm. I agree there isn't a liberal equivalent to Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc., who were lambasting Bush back in 03. But that's exactly the point: who exactly in the universe are those peoples dopplegangers? If they actually did exist, they probably would have been incredibly vitriolic towards Bush. The closest example I can think of is Keith Olbermann, who is not someone who was a fan of Mr. Bush, and also not someone who is particularly skilled at controlling his incoherent rage.

And sort of as an aside, I love and have a deep reverence for NRO, but I agree with you on the Andy McCarthy point. I think he may have gone off the deep end with his latest book, although to be fair I haven't read it yet. Making points about the nexus of leftist radicals and radical Islam has a very limited threshold for usefulness before it becomes...somewhat deranged.

What you miss, or ignore, about harsh criticism of Bush is that it mainly came from the fringes or from people who had no particular sway. It certainly did not come from sitting politicians or major media figures - though there were a few significant exceptions. But those exceptions - people like Michael Moore, and pre-election Al Franken - still aren't comparable to folks like Limbaugh and Levin in terms of media reach. And there's no contemporaneous comparison to the out and out crazy politicians of the current cycle - the likes of Michelle Bachmann - who seem willing to say anything at all without regard to any consideration except riling up the crazies in the base. That's why the complaint that "they did it to Bush" is so hollow. That, and the fact that the very people making those complaints during Bush's term were the folks uttering obscenities about Clinton just a few years previously.

Bush Derangement Syndrome Indeed.

Krauthammer is the guy who pronounced "I'm the only psychiatrist on this panel..." on a FoxNews show and who proceeded to "diagnose" Al Gore's mental imbalance in public. That was pretty fucking shameless, as was his disingenuous construction.

badhatharry 07-07-2010 05:44 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 168680)
Let's not forget two things, while you and Chi are feeling sorry for your movement:

I don't feel sorry for the conservative movement, but thanks for your concern.

badhatharry 07-07-2010 05:46 PM

Re: Bush Family and Nazis
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer (Post 168682)
I would add an obvious question: when has anyone with real power in the Democratic Party ever had to apologize to Keith Olberman, Michael Moore, etc., or retract/change their positions to stay on their good side?

There must be something that happened on the right that is analogous to this. I am unaware, but curious as to what it is.

nikkibong 07-07-2010 05:47 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 168683)
What you miss, or ignore, about harsh criticism of Bush is that it mainly came from the fringes or from people who had no particular sway.

You're right, of course. Yet that message never seems to get through to people like chiwisoxx. After all, there will always be another grainy youtube video of some marginalized lunatic in Berkeley braying "Bushitler!!1!"

badhatharry 07-07-2010 05:50 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 168683)
Krauthammer is the guy who pronounced "I'm the only psychiatrist on this panel..." on a FoxNews show and who proceeded to "diagnose" Al Gore's mental imbalance in public. That was pretty fucking shameless, as was his disingenuous construction.

He also said that Obama is narcissistic, which I believe is a technical term.

Lyle 07-07-2010 05:52 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
George Soros is fringe? The Guardian newspaper is fringe?

badhatharry 07-07-2010 05:55 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 168688)
You're right, of course. Yet that message never seems to get through to people like chiwisoxx. After all, there will always be another grainy youtube video of some marginalized lunatic in Berkeley braying "Bushitler!!1!"

What you guys are missing is that most people 'on the right' don't care about fair. The political climate is the way it is. It's just sort of amusing to see people on the left doing all these contortions to prove the right is the worser.

We know that. We also know we're stupid. What else is new?

uncle ebeneezer 07-07-2010 06:10 PM

Re: Bush Family and Nazis
 
All Apologies:

Quote:

It must be crowded at the base of the throne. Steele is only the latest GOP official (Georgia Rep. Phil Gingrey and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford preceded him) to find himself offering clarifications and apologies for making the mistake of speaking honestly about the party's bloviator in chief. It's a sign that, for all the talk about rebranding and reinventing, the party remains too reluctant and regressive to match its words with actions. And that bodes ill for both it and the nation.

chiwhisoxx 07-07-2010 06:31 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
Does anyone read posts, or just post what they were going to say anyways?

I suggest Jeff, Swords, and Nikki go back and read what I actually wrote. Swords, I didn't say there "had to be" a conservative beat for WaPo, my entire post was questioning the wisdom of such a beat in the first place. You literally took the opposite meaning of what I wrote, bravo Or, more likely, read a sentence, stopped, and posted something.

Jeff, I also stated in one of my posts that criticism of Bush was more decentralized, which is basically exactly what you said at the beginning of the post. You don't need to repeat points to me that I've already conceded. If you actually read what I wrote, which I'm pretty sure you didn't, my point was that there actually is no left wing equivalent to Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity, because liberals are more decentralized. So pointing out that criticism didn't come from people with equal sway is kind of an obvious point to make.

Nikki...I don't know what your deal is, you seem to have something up your ass as of late, and I don't have the energy to deal with it right now.

badhatharry 07-07-2010 06:38 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 168698)
Does anyone read posts, or just post what they were going to say anyways?

Yep. It's more fun that way. You don't really think you're going to get through, do you?

BTW. Zeke (as well as I) found merit in your original thesis. It's the little things that we must find pleasure in.

Quote:

Nikki...I don't know what your deal is, you seem to have something up your ass as of late, and I don't have the energy to deal with it right now.
and since BJKeefe isn't here, I'll say you don't need the comma before the and. St Ignatius on Loyola Ave...it never lets you go.

badhatharry 07-07-2010 06:48 PM

Re: Bush Family and Nazis
 
Does Olbermann apologizing to Stewart count?

Don Zeko 07-07-2010 06:55 PM

Re: Bush Family and Nazis
 
Call me when Olbermann is elected to the Senate.

nikkibong 07-07-2010 07:14 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 168693)
What you guys are missing is that most people 'on the right' don't care about fair. The political climate is the way it is. It's just sort of amusing to see people on the left doing all these contortions to prove the right is the worser.

We know that. We also know we're stupid. What else is new?

i'm pretty much the last person to call all conservatives stupid; in fact, i scorn those who do. i'm not craven enough to link to my oeuvre (except in my signature) to prove that, but it attests to that fact.

(also, feel free to take a look at this week's weekly standard for more evidence of my receptiveness to *some* on the right.)

AemJeff 07-07-2010 07:25 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 168693)
What you guys are missing is that most people 'on the right' don't care about fair. The political climate is the way it is. It's just sort of amusing to see people on the left doing all these contortions to prove the right is the worser.

We know that. We also know we're stupid. What else is new?

Who said "the right is stupid?" Not me, certainly. "Worse?" Not "The Right." Rather the current right-wing media complex - AM radio, FoxNews, the Rightosphere." There are simple ways to measure intellectual honesty. Sourcing. Taking care to have a factual basis for what you say. Avoiding repugnant rhetoric. Responding to criticism. Demonstrating respect for your opponents. etc... Those particular media do not stand as exemplars of any of those values.

Just because I'm convinced that Rush and Breitbart are opportunistic self-regarding blowhards doesn't mean I believe that about every conservative (or even most). So, to repeat the question, who are we talking about?

badhatharry 07-07-2010 07:30 PM

Re: Special Unemployment Edition (Dave Weigel & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 168708)
i'm pretty much the last person to call all conservatives stupid; in fact, i scorn those who do. i'm not craven enough to link to my oeuvre (except in my signature) to prove that, but it attests to that fact.

(also, feel free to take a look at this week's weekly standard for more evidence of my receptiveness to *some* on the right.)

Well, shit Ethan! I'll link to it. Good for you!

Now I will read it.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.