Letters to the Editor
Scientician
Published Letters: 533 Editor's Choice: 1
-
ha.
[Read the article: Enemies everywhere]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There really isn't much need to respond to Shooter's point, it's pretty much self-refuting to anyone who knows the people he names. I'm touched really that he named all my favourite bloggers. I was expecting Michael Moore and Olberman to be on the list.
But to provide a good faith rebuttal. I'd invite anyone to read kos' columns in Newsweek and then read the "balance" columnist Newsweek brought in alongside Kos: Karl Rove.
Rove's first piece was about how the Democrats in congress forced Bush to invade Iraq. No I won't link to it, but this is the equivalency in intellectual dishonesty, sophistry and egregious disingenuity that Shooter thinks exists. What do they have on Kos? He wasn't sympathetic about a couple blackwater mercenaries getting killed in 2004.
-
Conflating Islamicism and the Left
[Read the article: Enemies everywhere]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I know we find it absolutely laughable when they do this, because it is so absurd. Liberalism is almost entirely antithietical to Islamicism from any number of perspectives.
So why do they try? I think it's because communism went away as a viable political force, and ceased being scary. The right floundered for a few years going on about rogue missiles because they couldn't really come up with a scary enough straw man to attack, and accuse the liberals of being "soft on."
It was much easier for them with communists because there are obvious points of agreement between communists and liberals. Liberals are not communists for anyone with a political understanding more sophisticated than a 5 year old's, but there's no denying they're perhaps cousins, once or twice removed.
The real point is to find some way of distracting the public from our very valid and increasingly compelling econmic and social critiques of conservative policies. Universal health care works everywhere else it's been tried, and the US health system is a running joke, yet by appealing to the threat of "socialized" medicine they were able to beat it back in the US in the 40s when Truman proposed it, and LBJ never even tried, and then even after communism went belly up in 1995.
The irony is (not totally lost on conservatives) that they in fact have much more in common with Islamic extremists. They even call it "Islamofascism" which pretty accurately puts it on the right extreme of the spectrum (which Goldberg tries to put on the left in no coincidence). After all, who else appeals constantly to religious texts for moral justification, hates gays, and wants a very traditional patriarchical society? It's not liberals that fit this bill.
So by trying to conflate the left with the Wahhibism, they're just avoiding picking out the beam in their own eyes. But I don't think it's working, if the public's abhorrence to the Terri Schiavo incident is any guide.
-
Lynx:
[Read the article: Enemies everywhere]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Actually, that's a fair point. But he didn't get a universal one, despite his historic landslide.
-
W.E.S
[Read the article: Republicans have become the credibility-free party]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Many democrats are too craven to go on FOX.
First, I'm glad Hillary did a good job pushing back against Wallace. I didn't watch but was alarmed to see her name listed as a guest. Still I would rather she didn't go on.
Your mistake here is to take that interview in isolation and generalize it into something more Democrats could do on Fox. Hillary is not a typical Democrat and this is not a typical moment in time with regards to Fox. She's a super-famous presidential candidate and since Dems have been avoiding Fox, Fox is desperate.
If Democrats did as you suggest, they wouldn't get the star treatment Hillary did, they'd get put on slanted panels with 2-1 right wing voices, and sudden hit interviews, or only invited on when they were criticizing the left.
I'm really glad the Democrats have taken a page out of Sun Tzu and stopped fighting battles on the enemy's chosen turf. Sure, sometimes you'll win a match, but in the long haul, simple statistics says you'll end up with a .400 record for your troubles.
Still, I wish Hillary had not gone on. Democrats should not legitimize what Fox does by deigning to appear. They wouldn't go (I hope) on Limbaugh's show, and they shouldn't appear with Chris Wallace.
-
More on Dems and Fox
[Read the article: Republicans have become the credibility-free party]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Honestly, it's depressing that the liberal American party should have to play these games with the media, as an active and informative media is a liberal goal. However Democrats have to live and compete in the environment that is, not the one that exists in some ideal notion of what the media does.
And it hasn't happened here yet, but for any Republicans reading, you have no grounds to critque the Democrats on for avoiding Fox. Cheney and Bush have made a career of only appearing on "friendly" outlets, and that goes far beyond even what networks or shows they'll appear on. When was the last time Cheney gave a speech to anyone other than neo-conservative radicals like the AEI? Bush had actual loyalty pledges to attend his campaign rallies during 2004. He should have been impeached for that. Seriously, making Americans sign a loyalty pledge to listen to the sitting President give a speech while campaigning for re-election? What the fuck?
So Democrats protesting Fox is pretty small potatoes and really too long coming in my view. They didn't start the media wars, so I can't fault them for fighting back, even though I lament that the fight is needed.
We'd all like to believe that reason and logic will win out and the person with the strongest factual and rational case will usually win an argument. This is true when the argument is roughly fair. Kerry wiped the floor with Bush 3 times in 2004, despite the stilted debate format and Bush being likely fed answers through an earpiece. But propogandists know how to exploit human weaknesses to make foolish points seem better than sane ones. This is an actual field of study, it's better known as "marketing." In the long haul, Democrats can not win on fox except by refusing to play.