Inflammatory is one thing Sam. I fully accept that Beck is highly inflammatory and says outlandish things. "shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post" is a wee bit more than simply "inflammatory." And yes, the prospect of anyone saying that sounded unlikely.
here's a Krugman quote you forgot, albeit from a separate column: "A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy." eliminationist? Spoiler Indeed.
The way "Debate and Discussion" should work is one person makes his points, the other person responds to those and then makes counter-points, etc. Your tactic appears to be just keep posting whatever you find in your daily blogroll, without an effort to actually engage in debate and discussion. I'm not interested in playing whack-a-mole with your posts. I'll repeat my post, and when you take the time to actually respond to it, maybe then I'll respond to the above. <hr> Where did Krugman make this charge (note I did not read his original article, because no link was provided in this thread)? I think its not unreasonable for you to cite specific evidence of your charge that he made this charge. With respect to the the actual charge he made that you quoted, namely that eliminatist rhetoric comes mostly from the right -- how would you suggest he support that? And let's turn it around. Suppose a conservative charged that eliminatist, divisive rhetoric comes mostly from the left -- how might he go about supporting that? I think its pointless to insist on a proof of such a charge. We could indefinitely point to irresponsible remarks made on both sides. Its like arguing over which is the larger infinity. The example Krugman referenced, quoting in full: [rquoter] It takes a lot to wow members of Congress after a while. This wowed them. And I am going to have materials for people when they leave. I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people--we the people--are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States and that's why I want everyone to come out and hear. So go to bachmann.house.gov and you can get all the information.[/rquoter] Context for the specific part "armed and dangerous" comes from both what precedes it and also what comes after. I don't believe she is so nuts as to be literally calling for people to be armed with guns. But this isn't what Krugman charged, now is it? He said "eliminatist rhetoric", and this certainly qualifies. She wants people to be "armed and dangerous" and they should engage in "revolution" (which is a good thing, Jefferson said so!). The Jeffersonian concept of revolution is not simply debating with political opponents "armed with ideas". That's not what revolution means -- certainly not in Jefferson's time, on the heels of the French and American revolution.
The Times cuts and runs. -- 'It Did Not' A rebuke from Obama leads the New York Times to run from the fight it started. By JAMES TARANTO As we have noted, the New York Times's response to last weekend's murders in Tucson was to instigate a witch hunt against Republican politicians and "particularly" against members of the independent (nonliberal) media. This appealed to what one might call the Manichaean wing of American liberalism: those who mistake political disagreement for enmity, who are so strongly prejudiced against conservatives as to regard them, in some sense, as less than fully human. Yet that is not what one would call a broad appeal--a point powerfully made by a USA Today news story: Most Americans reject the idea that inflammatory political language by conservatives should be part of the debate about the forces behind the Arizona shooting that left six people dead and a congresswoman in critical condition, a USA Today/Gallup Poll finds. A 53% majority of those surveyed call that analysis mostly an attempt to use the tragedy to make conservatives look bad. About a third, 35%, say it is a legitimate point about how dangerous language can be. This is an astonishing finding. Only 35% of those surveyed think the New York Times's position is even legitimate. And although President Obama, in his speech last night, did not go so far as to call it illegitimate, he did make his disagreement clear: If, as has been discussed in recent days, their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy--it did not--but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud. "It did not." With those three truthful words--an improvisation or a late addition, as they were not in the prepared text--the liberal president rebuked the out-of-control liberal media that have, under the leadership of the New York Times, been engaging in a vicious campaign of lies and smears. The Times's response, in an editorial this morning, could hardly have been weaker: It was important that Mr. Obama transcend the debate about whose partisanship has been excessive and whose words have sown the most division and dread. This page and many others have identified those voices and called on them to stop demonizing their political opponents. The newspaper that seized upon a horrific crime to demonize its political opponents--and to demonize "particularly" those in the media who reject its worldview and its presumption of moral authority--is now applauding the president for being able to "transcend the debate" that it instigated with its yellow journalism. The Times expresses a desire to change the subject, to "gun safety laws and improvement to the mental health system" before taking another shot (just a figure of speech, people!) at Sarah Palin, this time for her "especially disturbing" description of the Times-led smear campaign as a "blood libel"--a term that, as we shall see below, the Times itself has used more than once other than in reference to the traditional anti-Semitic smear. Obama's speech reinforces our observation yesterday that, in general, liberal politicians have behaved far more decently than liberal journalists in the aftermath of Saturday's atrocious crime. Reader Don Rubottom offers some insight as to why: As a staunch Republican, and then a state senator in Oklahoma, I was present when Bill Clinton participated in the citywide memorial service at the Oklahoma City Fairgrounds. His gifts were then on display, and that is the reason for his political gains from that tragedy. Despite accompanying vitriolic noise about talk radio, etc., Clinton showed his amazing gift for connecting with human hearts. He was everyone's president that day, notwithstanding Dick Morris' calculations back at his indecent hotel room. As you acknowledged today, all successful politicians have at least a capacity to imitate civility and compassion in a way that makes voters willing to believe them to be human. (Hence the practicing fire breathers calling for an end to fire breathing. Hypocrisy is a nod of vice to virtue.) You call it a sense of decency. I consider it a connection to reality. Our journalist friends, on the other hand--including some on both sides of the political divide--do not require such capacities. They don't need people to vote for them or identify with them, only to notice them. The more hostility they incite, the higher their ratings. They are rarely made accountable to good taste or any standard of decency. (Did Dan Rather err? Not in his eyes!) This is quite entertaining in many instances. In recent years, though, journalists have pretended that they are participants in the political contest, rather than mere critics or cheerleaders. They fail to acknowledge that they are not bound by any rules and are not subject to any tally of points scored. A politician is the "man in the arena," in Teddy Roosevelt's phrase. Each one puts his name on ballots and suffers real consequences for his bad taste, lack of empathy, or any mistaken sense of public approval. Journalists pretend to compete with the politician, but they aren't in the same game. They get to grade themselves, and they get to declare victory every time they knock over a straw man. Those characteristics can give them a sense of invincibility. As long as their social crowd approves of their attacks or prescriptions, the truth, legitimacy, effectiveness and civic utility of their work remains irrelevant. To me, few approximate anything close to a "first draft of history." They are more like bantam roosters or chihuahuas. In the case of the New York Times editorial page, they are rabid yet toothless chihuahuas. They lack both the integrity to renounce their scurrilous slanders and the courage to attempt a defense. "Decent people of whatever political stripe must say enough is enough," we wrote on Tuesday. When Barack Obama said, "It did not," that was his meaning. This column has found much to criticize about the president and his policies. We expect to find much more over the next two years. Last night, however, he committed an act of decency for which Americans can be grateful.
Welcome to 2004. People respond to it for the drama. Explaining common sense doesn't work, and they sure as hell aren't victims here.
I wonder if this writer was writing these things when conservative commentators and writers were labeling liberal politicians cowards, traitors, treasonous, unpatriotic, etc. during the debates over Iraq
Define treason? Is it exposing a CIA operative to perpetuate lies to extend the war? Or is it exposing the fact that the war itself was based on shadows and nothingness, and was faring a lot worse then most actually thought?
In the online searches I did, it appears the writer voiced no concern whatsoever over these horrible allegations of people calling those that voiced dissent for the war treasonous. In fact, according to this article he defended the dissent equals treason rhetoric that was irresponsibly thrown at the left at the time. http://www.slate.com/id/2078455/ Apparently he has also accused anti-war protestors of being pro Saddam Hussein. In light of these libelous false attacks, I hope basso will join in and denounce James Taranto as part of the irresponsible media that falsely labels political rivals, and accuses them of things that are blatantly untrue. I'm happy that basso has done a 180 turn on going after media that falsely accuses people. Well done.
