Spinsanity: The Republican assault on "political hate speech"

Damn "right-wing conspiracy"

 

It's no different than what the left does. It's politics and politics is by nature ugly to some. It's just a way for them to say, "Ah, those evil Republicans, they are just going to brand any of our criticisms as political hate speech, oh woe as us, we just won't be able to lob our insults at the President anymore...."
Yawn........

 

Bama if you're going to fake quote nasty Democrats, never use the word evil. They don't put everyting in terms of good and evil like your simpleton conservative pals... Bush, Rush, Gingrich, O'Reilly, etc. Someone once asked me to point out examples of how conservatives love to use the word evil in just about any argument possible. You know who you are. Ding, another example!

 

It's absolutely different than what the left does. It's also different than what the right's ever done before. This is new. It has never happened in contemporary politics before this administration. Rove and company invented it. Spin always exists in politics, but this is not just spin. This is a concerted effort to make sure a sitting president is NEVER criticized for anything he does. First it's 'we've had a divisive election, let's heal the wounds.' Then it was 'we're at war with terrorists. Any criticism gives comfort to the enemy.' Then it was 'Afghanistan, more comfort to the enemy. Any criticism (whether it be of foreign affairs or tax cuts) is unpatriotic and gives comfort to Osama.' Then we were supposedly giving comfort to Saddam. And now if anyone disagrees with anything Bush does (which approximately half of the country does with everything he does), they're being hateful. This is as pathetic as posters here who blast anyone who disagrees with them and when they get blasted back run to the moderators crying that they're being picked on. Actually, it's far worse since it has real world consequences. This president (as it is with all presidents) makes decisions which cause people to live or die, to eat or starve, to receive or be denied health care or education. And his policies will be scrutinized, as all presidents' policies are. It's not hateful. It's democracy. Or do we only want that for Iraq? Quashing dissent is the province of dictators. I only pray the American people are smart enough to see through this brazen facade.

 

I'm taking bets on when T_J unleashes this gem on us.

 

I honestly don't see how this part is different than saying that anyone who attacks you is part of a right-wing conspiracy. It's all an effort to deflect the criticism itself and discount the messenger's motives. It may be taking it to a higher level (that can be debated), but I don't think it's truly different.

 

Wasn't the "Right Wing Conspiracy" stuff used to describe false stories about the Clintons, like murder, rape, drug trafficking, etc. . .

Political Hate Speech is used to describe ALL criticism of Bush.

 

It wasn't always used in that context. I recall the First Lady using it attempt to discredit stories that turned out to be factual and to deflect some level of personal criticism of the President.

Now, I will admit that it wasn't used, to my knowledge, to discount criticisms of policy, so this administration would be further down the same road. Of course, the Democrats have used other methods and phrases to demonize Republican policies or their opposition to Democratic policies (and vice versa).

 

No, mrpaige, this is new. This is the first administration since I've been old enough to follow politics (I'm 34 -- I wasn't reading the newspapers during Vietnam) to say it's not okay to criticize a president's foreign policy. I'd love for someone to point out when any other contemporary White House has done this.

In fact, the stuff the Bush admin's so upset about was trumped by a mile by the way DeLay and company behaved during Bosnia. But Clinton's people never said it was unpatriotic to dissent and they certainly never called DeLay hateful. They were not above politics or spin -- they revelled in it. But they never stooped this low. Criticism of policy does not demean the presidency, but lowering the debate in order to buy some permanent teflon does.

p.s. Hillary, to the best of my recollection, said the right wing conspiracy thing only in reference to the Monica stuff. (I know for a fact that's the first time she said it. It was on a morning show like Today or GMA. I remember watching it.) And she did so after years of the right looking for any weird ass thing they could pin on Clinton (from Whitewater to Vince Foster). This guy wasn't just criticized -- he was steadily investigated through virtually his entire presidency. And I'm not even here to defend Clinton. I hated Clinton. But I hated him on policy matters, not personal ones or whack job conspiracy theories. Bottom line though, the Clintons were roughed up like no president and first lady in our contemporary history, so it's no surprise Hillary said something dumb. And I did think it was dumb, but I understood why she was frustrated enough to say it. Very, very different than concocting talking points in order that policy can never be debated. The Bush people's indignance toward policy debate is brand new in this country. And I say again, they're behaving like they're working for an oppressive dictator who disdains democracy, not an American president. It is they who demean the presidency.

 

I did say that I didn't recall them doing it in relation to policy arguments.

When you disagree on policy, you usually just claim the other side wants to starve children and pollute rivers, etc.

Of course, Reagan was investigated throughout his entire presidency, as well, even when the investigations were based on extremely little evidence (like October Surprise), as were his political appointees, especially Judge Bork. As a matter of fact, it was the treatment of Bork and Reagan that made some Republicans so hot to go after Clinton when he came into office. You can argue that the Republicans went further with that line of attack, but it was, to a good many, simply payback.

To me, I would characterize this in the same way. Taking something the Democrats started and just taking it further. It may be worse, but it isn't exactly new.

But that's an argument in semantics.

 

I recognize that the two major parties are akin to the Hatfields and McCoys, but Rove and co. have turned a corner here. They have created a central argument around the idea that dissent is un-American -- that any criticism of a sitting president demeans the presidency. That is absolutely new.

And if we need to discuss who was more persecuted between Clinton and Reagan, let's do it in another thread. I'd be interested to follow the discussion -- I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention during the Reagan years (too busy discovering girls). But I'm not aware of his private, personal or business dealings being the subject of years' worth of Congressional hearings. And, though I'm not well versed in the whole affair, I do know that Bork was opposed on ideological grounds.

I have always thought it was out of line to characterize criticism of policy (from either side) as "negative" campaigning. Voters need to hear both sides of the policy debate in choosing candidates. Who's going to poke holes in a candidate's policies (or proposed policies) if not the other candidate?

 

Clinton was opposed on ideological grounds, as well. The methods that the opposition took to express that opposition was not an ideological discussion.

I mean, when you start pulling a guy's video rental records looking for dirt, I'm thinking you've gone past the ideological discussion. There was no stoned unturned in the effort to keep Judge Bork off the bench.

I don't know, though. I mean, I guess there's a difference between saying criticism is un-American (though using the term "political hate speech" is not, in my opinion, saying it's un-American) and saying that the Contract with America is "mean spirited". I guess calling those who called for investigations into "Travelgate" "obsessed" with the politics of bringing down the President is different than saying they're engaging in political hate speech.

I guess making reference to many who oppose you as "Clinton Haters" is different than saying they're engaged in politcal hate speech.

But it doesn't seem that different to me.

Of course, saying that Bush and Hitler use the same playbook probably is political hate speech.

 

I think you're right about this. I think if you can defend your position, you shouldn't be afraid if people criticize it. If you think you're right, say so. Tear down their arguments if you think they're wrong.

If anything, criticism can make you think through your argument and make sure it's sound. If those who criticize have a point, then maybe your position needs some tweaking.

Of course, it's hard in politics because those who oppose you won't make an ideological argument most of the time. They will, instead, just call you mean-spirited, or mischaracterize your position (as I think Dean has been seeing with the Confederate Flag flap, etc), or compare you to Hitler, or whatever.

So, you fight back with rhetoric of your own. I honestly think you can characterize some of what's been said about the President as political hate speech. I don't think that term is out of line when referencing things like the Hitler comparison. But yeah, these sorts of things shouldn't apply to legitimate criticism.

Now, if there were legitimate criticism out there.....

 

I'm against going through video rental records, just as I'm against the Big Brother style stuff happening under the Patriot Act. Whichever side it comes from, I'm against it.

The difference between calling the Contract With America mean spirited and calling criticism of Bush hateful is that the mean spirited thing referenced alleged meanness toward private citizens who were (whether you think the Contract was mean or not) affected by the policies included in the Gingrich plan -- it was a legitimate (if colorful) criticism of policy. The political hate speech thing only refers to criticizing an elected official's policies. Thinking people can disagree as to whether or not the Contract was mean, but thinking Americans should all agree it's okay to disagree with the president and that such disagreement is not, by definition, hateful.

I don't know whether or not Travelgate had legs. I do know it looked bad after the previous inquiries into Clinton's private business dealings. But again, I'm not here to defend Clinton (except against the Monica stuff which I strongly believe was a trap set by vindictive enemies). I worked for Jerry Brown. I thought Clinton was shady when thinking Clinton was shady wasn't cool.

I'm not aware of any presidential candidate comparing Bush to Hitler. I am also unaware of any BBS poster comparing Bush to Hitler in any meaningfully offensive way. There have been warnings about the dangers of pre-emptive war policies, imperialism and reminders that trains running on time ought not trump the ideals this nation was founded upon, but no one's suggested Bush subscribed to anything abutting Nazi philosophy. But I'm talking about the BBS here. This thread's about Rove and Gillespie and those guys. I don't think they're referring to this BBS when they talk about political hate speech. I'm not aware of Dean or anyone else mentioning Hitler on the stump.

 

Isn't the already classic example of political hate speech the time that Kennedy (?) called President Bush a liar? How does that reflect merely "criticizing an elected officials policies?"

It doesn't at all. How many other presidents have been publicly called a liar in such a way?

Dean said that Bush "is the enemy." Did he mean opponent as in "political opponent" or did he mean enemy the way we think of it in a wartime era?

 

Isn't this pretty much the same thing as that Democratic memo about how to exploit and handle the current atmosphere to meet their political needs? I don't see this as being much different. I don't think I'll get overly upset over either case.

I swear some of you must have really high blood pressure considering the way you get worked up over stuff. Play nice today, it's FRIDAY!

 

You know, giddy, that if Bush hadn't lied, he wouldn't be called a liar. Clinton was called a liar by various and sundry Republicans over and over again for 8 years.

As far as Bush being the enemy, I do believe that he is the enemy of the American way of life. Truth, justice, and the American Way take a back seat to exaggerations, cronyism, and the Republican agenda.

 

You <b>still</b> haven't proven that Bush lied. In our last discussion of this you admitted that you didn't know if he lied or not. Why the certainty again... except that it suits your purpose here.

Which Republican office-holder called Clinton a liar. Was it before or after his address to the nation or his grand jury testimony?

Are you sure you're not thinking of Lex Luther?

 

Question: Not about Demos or Repub

but IS POLITICS GETTING A BIT TO NASTY AND INSIDEOUS THESE DAYS

Nowadays it is more the Lesser of two Evils than a good candidate

I sick and tired of the maddness

Rocket River