Interestingly we have had the same comments on the bbs, about how it unfair to talk about Arnold's groping or Bush's personal life, or the Plame Scandal as it is impolite and it makes no difference if the Republicans did things like that. Lessons in Civility By PAUL KRUGMAN t's the season of the angry liberal. Books like Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," Joe Conason's "Big Lies" and Molly Ivins's "Bushwhacked" have become best sellers. (Yes, I've got one out there, too.) But conservatives are distressed because those liberals are so angry and rude. O.K., they admit, they themselves were a bit rude during the Clinton years — that seven-year, $70 million investigation of a tiny money-losing land deal, all that fuss about the president's private life — but they're sorry, and now it's time for everyone to be civil. Indeed, angry liberals can take some lessons in civility from today's right. Consider, for example, Fox News's genteel response to Christiane Amanpour, the CNN correspondent. Ms. Amanpour recently expressed some regret over CNN's prewar reporting: "Perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News." A Fox spokeswoman replied, "It's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than as a spokeswoman for Al Qaeda." And liberal pundits who may be tempted to cast personal aspersions can take lessons in courtesy from conservatives like Charles Krauthammer, who last December reminded TV viewers of his previous career as a psychiatrist, then said of Al Gore, "He could use a little help." What's really important, of course, is that political figures stick to the issues, like the Bush adviser who told The New York Times that the problem with Senator John Kerry is that "he looks French." Some say that the right, having engaged in name-calling and smear tactics when Bill Clinton was president, now wants to change the rules so such behavior is no longer allowed. In fact, the right is still calling names and smearing; it wants to prohibit rude behavior only by liberals. But there's more going on than a simple attempt to impose a double standard. All this fuss about the rudeness of the Bush administration's critics is an attempt to preclude serious discussion of that administration's policies. For there is no way to be both honest and polite about what has happened in these past three years. On the fiscal front, this administration has used deceptive accounting to ram through repeated long-run tax cuts in the face of mounting deficits. And it continues to push for more tax cuts, when even the most sober observers now talk starkly about the risk to our solvency. It's impolite to say that George W. Bush is the most fiscally irresponsible president in American history, but it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise. On the foreign policy front, this administration hyped the threat from Iraq, ignoring warnings from military professionals that a prolonged postwar occupation would tie down much of our Army and undermine our military readiness. (Joseph Galloway, co-author of "We Were Soldiers Once . . . and Young," says that "we have perhaps the finest Army in history," but that "Donald H. Rumsfeld and his civilian aides have done just about everything they could to destroy that Army.") It's impolite to say that Mr. Bush has damaged our national security with his military adventurism, but it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise. Still, some would say that criticism should focus only on Mr. Bush's policies, not on his person. But no administration in memory has made paeans to the president's character — his "honor and integrity" — so central to its political strategy. Nor has any previous administration been so determined to portray the president as a hero, going so far as to pose him in line with the heads on Mount Rushmore, or arrange that landing on the aircraft carrier. Surely, then, Mr. Bush's critics have the right to point out that the life story of the man inside the flight suit isn't particularly heroic — that he has never taken a risk or made a sacrifice for the sake of his country, and that his business career is a story of murky deals and insider privilege. In the months after 9/11, a shocked nation wanted to believe the best of its leader, and Mr. Bush was treated with reverence. But he abused the trust placed in him, pushing a partisan agenda that has left the nation weakened and divided. Yes, I know that's a rude thing to say. But it's also the truth. link
Krugman is preaching to the choir. The hard part is getting all of Dubya's fan boys to accept the truth, which is still out there for them.
I usually find editorials so... eck but that one is so right on. How easy is it to declare legitimate criticism of this lying administration as Bush hating, an extension of the you hate America crap thrown at anti-war folks. Thanks for posting.
just as easy as it was to label any legitimate criticism against Clinton as being anything but the product of "angry white males." neither side is ever, never, ever beyond reproach.
The article is pretty good, but you're right. All the Clinton crticisms were just explained-away as the 'Right Wing Conspiracy'. How soon we forget.
I don't think we are talking about how it's unfair to bring such issues up. They are relevant. It is probably the way it is done that most conservatives object. ie. bringin up the groping and Bush's DWI at the very last second, not looking into Gray Davis' alleged misconduct, exaggerating how bad it is, etc.
Criticism is one thing. Saying that Hilary was a lesbian and accusing the President of conspiring to murder Vince Foster was another. And that wasn't consigned to a few nuts and cranks in the fringe right wing media, that kind of stuff was repeated by Congressman, the WSJ editorial page, and even in the NYT by William Safire. When the New York Times writes that Laura Bush is a lesbian murderer, call me. Until then the two situations are not analogous.
Krugman's been nailing this administration from Day One and has a few death threats to show for it... My guess is right leaning columnists who were only pointing out the facts about Clinton rarely if ever received death threats. And as Al Franken points out, when this administration came to Washington to "Change the tone" that meant "we'll keep doing what we've been doing and you people just shut up."
I don't recall voters for impeachment being accused of being angry white males. Pretty lame shot there Maxie.
i'm not making this a race issue, timing, so let me defuse that now...the phrase, "angry white males" was one i heard over and over again during the clinton administration to describe opposition to president clinton. i didn't invent that one. you don't recall the "vast right wing conspiracy?" the voters for impeachment aren't who i'm talking about. as best i can tell through a rather cursory reading, the article is talking about how the press and the court of public opinion treats the president. i'm talking about that same group in both administrations. neither side is ever, never, ever beyond reproach. what's good for the goose is good for the gander....and other clever phrases that mean the same thing.
Really nothing has changed now Bush is facing a 'vast left wing conspiracy' though it is not labeled as such (yet). Either way about half the population is going to want the sitting president ousted, but the tactics against Clinton were extreme to say the least. The only reason Bush is not facing an independent counsel etc., is the Republican majority in the house and Senate.
