There is also one other “defining feature” among pundits like Brooks that is increasingly common, although it may be unintentional – projection.

Take for example Brooks’ assertion that “Democratic politicians detest the netroots’ self-righteousness and bullying.” Those are precisely the characteristics of the pro-war bloggers, pundits, and radio hosts who, more than anyone, wrap themselves up in “America” and condemn anyone who disagrees with them as “traitors” who support “the terrorists.”

And as for those residing in “cuckoo land” I’ll just point out that Bush just met with crazies like mil-blogger “Uncle Jimbo” and the members of the Free Republic. Those meetings speak for themselves.

I see what Glenn is saying in his response to Mona, but I’m not sure that applying the same weapon to Republicans will eliminate “the advantage of this pernicious tool” at all, let alone cause “it to end.”

To the contrary, I’d think we’d see an escalation of use of this “pernicious tool” by both sides, which is not a road I’d like to see us go down.

Moreover, how can you ridicule the use of “passing resolutions condemning any group of American’s political speech” if you advocate using that tool yourself? I don’t think you can.

I think you can ridicule the hypocrisy of what Fox News and Limbaugh do more effectively (like Glenn just did) if you don’t advocate that the Senate pass such a resolution.

It’s an interesting debate, but I think I’m with Mona on this one.

There is nothing noble about unilateral disarmament. ~GG

Are all those who disagree with Glenn’s call for a Congressional resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh really guilty of unilateral disarmament?

Is this really such a black & white argument with no shades of gray? Are not there other tactics that could be used? Can we really discuss the efficacy of other tactics if all other tactics are automatically smeared as “unilateral disarmament?”

If you want to see an example of someone cowardly advocating “unilateral disarmament” perhaps FireDogLake is the place to start:

The needed remedy for Congress’ shameful actions last week is to rescind the resolutions they already passed. Contrary to the confused Senators who thought it would be politically shrewd only fair to also adopt a resolution condemning all criticisms of the military — e.g., those on Senators Kerry and Cleland as well as Petraeus — no resolution should ever have been offered or passed. And no such resolution should be considered for condemning Rush Limbaugh.

Like any veteran who has fought in America’s wars, I’m offended by Limbaugh’s odious statements and his ongoing disrepect for those who served in the military — but who happen to disagree with his narrow, right wing views. He deserves the strongest public criticism from us and others — but not from Congress.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/28/first-amendment-first-principles-and-rush-limbaugh/

Zack - on a scale of 1 - 100, with 1 being "absolutely impossible" and 100 being "certain," what do you think the liklihood is that this will happen?

That wasn’t my proposal, but a quote from FDL. I don’t think it’s likely that Congress will rescind that resolution at all, but neither do I think that if the Democrats pass a similar resolution that it’s “certain” Republicans will cower in fear and never use this tactic again.

My point was that such uncertainty (or advocating other tactics as they did at FDL) is not necessarily “unilateral disarmament.”

Grover Norquist explains why it’s okay for the right (but not the left) to use Nazi comparisons:

"The Nazis were for gun control, the Nazis were for high marginal tax rates. Do you want to talk about who's closer politically to national socialism, the Right or the Left?"

Norquist said his Nazi talk was justifiable because he was pointing out misguided "socialist policies." Yet he condemned submissions to the "Bush in 30 seconds" ad campaign that compared Bush to Hitler. ….But Norquist says he won't stop using Hitler analogies to criticize his political opponents. "The Left has misused the Hitler analogy for the past 50 years in defense of the socialists and the communists," Norquist said. "All my life Richard Nixon was a 'Nazi,' and Reagan was a 'Nazi,' and everybody on the right was a 'Nazi.' That's what the left does. That's their one standard thing."

So, it’s okay for the right to use Nazi analogies, but outrageous for the left, because the left is “closer politically” to the Nazis than the right. Got that?

Does the silence from the ADL and the Simon Wiesenthal Center mean that they accept this double standard?

http://rosenberg.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/01/23/norquist/index.html

Whatever it was, I think Barack Obama is having a really good week.

You know Obama had a good week because Mark Williams (on Fox News Newsroom) called him a “domestic insurgent.”

What do we do with ‘insurgents’? We kill them, of course.

When Fox News breaks out the eliminationist rhetoric, you know Obama must be saying something right.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200710050005?f=h_latest