Letters to the Editor
-
The intellectual conspiracy
Another central point to Berkowitz's rant is that the Bush hatred is employed by intellectual liberals. He repeats it over and over to ensure the reader doesn't miss the fact that those intellectual, self-important, elite liberals, who think they are so smart and so great are the ones that hate Bush. Not the regualar, salt-of-the-earth American. I'm surprised that he didn't just throw out Kerry's to demonstrate how elite these Bush-haters must be.
-
No consistent principles, lots of hypocrisy
The right wingers simply couldn’t care less about their own hypocrisy. I remember last summer when people like Bill O’Reilly were making such a fuss about the “hate speech” of letter writers on liberal blog sites like Daily Kos, ignoring the venom that’s been flowing from the right since the Clinton presidency. Yet, just a couple of nights ago, a questioner at a John McCain event asked how McCain was planning to “beat the bitch,” referring of course to Hillary Clinton. Imagine the outcry among the right wing had such a question been aired at a Democratic event. Where is O’Reilly to weigh in on this shocking incivility? So far the only outcry I’ve seen from the right about this was to express their anger that a CNN anchor reporting on the incident dared to suggest that it could damage McCain’s campaign.
But we already know that the Republicans have no principles.
-
@Bbbobbb
Yet, just a couple of nights ago, a questioner at a John McCain event asked how McCain was planning to “beat the bitch,” referring of course to Hillary Clinton.
To be fair, that could just as easily refer to Giuliani.
-
long live John Paul Stevens
The MSM is owned and operated by the folks who now own this country..the military industrial banking pharma complex. Until our bribed elected officials (bribed by the lobbyists by the companies who own us) are able to get elected without procuring tons of money, we will be continue to be owned by them...and there will never be anti-trust legislation to break up the MSM. Outlawing political TV ads would be a start..but what bought politician can afford to espouse breaking up the media conglomerates? The MSM would attack such a person (as they did Howard Dean who had the temerity to suggest this.) So we are all screwed..owned by the ruling oligarchy. And if HRC is the nominee all the people who hate the Clintons will bother themselves to get out of their LaZBoyz and go vote against her. The problem is John Paul Stevens can't live forever.
-
and for the record...
This is a time of great great peril for the world. Bush and Cheney and co are edging all of us closer and closer to armageddon. And what does this neocon buffoon fret about? Bush-hatred clouding intellectual judgment. Talk about inappropriate irrelevance, anyone would think he was talking about his pet cat's dislike of a new brand of pet food, instead of quite possibly the single most trigger-happy, world-peace destabilizing 'nuccular-tipped' rogue regime on the planet.
-
Shooter could...
...write for the WSJ Op-Ed page - completely oblivious to reality and makes no sense.
Before Rupert, the Op-ed page was humorously delusional making me think if they put on a red ball nose, they could get a job as circus clowns. It was especially humorous when news articles in their own paper refuted their editorials. The news reporting was reasonably robust.
Going forward the likely outcome is that the news reporting will also be jockeying for jobs in the circus along with the editors. Maybe as trained elephants?
-
@ Jim White
"Allowing the re-emergence of monopolies almost sounds like returning to the good old days, doesn't it?"
Can you say Ma Bell, er, AT&T?
-
more perversion of language
that's rich. "essentially ended."
-
I'm the ant at a picnic here
While 99% of Bush hatred is well-deserved, some of it is not. When people talk about the "Bush Crime Family," or how they're obviously going to void the 2008 elections, you have to be a little irrational.
But I'll tell you what kind of irrational hatred is popular in leftie circles right now: Hillary-hating. Sure, there's lots to be disagreed with. You can look at her votes and take them apart, and of course, you can prefer Candidate B based on this or that policy. But the hatred you see on the HuffPost, for instance, is to the point of being unbalanced, and that's the warning sign for any political movement.
The ridiculous Chris Matthews has been Clinton-phobic for a long time. Now she laughs funny, then she's you know, a woman. A controlling bitch, you know, like all women. And a fair number of progressives take this crap and accept it as true because it's useful to them. They think. I think the worst part of the MSNBC debate was how much the Russert-Matthews team jumped in bed with Obama, and how much he welcomed their support. And went after Hillary on a completely phony comedy routine about Social Security.
Surely, an important part of being a progressive is a "fact-based" world, not the theocratically partisan W-world we've had to live through.
To take an example: Kucinich's lone stand for single-payer health insurance is very appealing to me. But people who support him, and think Hillary's position is fascist, are nuts, and they're not helping the party or their candidate.
-
Dreadful!
In short, Bush hatred is not a rational response to actual Bush perfidy. Rather, Bush hatred compels its progressive victims [...] to reduce complicated events and multilayered issues to simple matters of good and evil. Like all hatred in politics, Bush hatred blinds to the other sides of the argument, and constrains the hater to see a monster instead of a political opponent. -- Berkowitz
So.... the gist of his criticism appears to be that "Bush hatred" allows his political opponents to form simple, clear and concrete arguments against his side. Which allows them to (finally) make arguments that the public will respond to. Which allows them to win.
Can't have that can we?
It's wrong, and a cheap shot, and it betrays my age and regional origins -- but, in my mind I keep calling this guy "Son of Same".