Letters to the Editor
-
The Political Movement
That produces a Coulter, now on the lecture tour about hate.
-
anonymous liars
Left-wingers in Tennessee were joyous in 1963 when JFK was shot?
C'mon, if you're going to make up outrageous fabrications like that, at least do so non-anonymously, so we can publicly praise you for your chutzpah.
-
Asshattery
"Bush hatred, however, is distinguished by the pride intellectuals have taken in their hatred, openly endorsing it as a virtue and enthusiastically proclaiming that their hatred is not only a rational response to the president and his administration but a mark of good moral hygiene."--Berkowitz
Bekowitz writes in his oped the the above has never been done before quite like it is happening now in regards to the "hatred" of presidents past. He writes that the difference in "Bush hatred" is that "intellectuals" are proudly and blatantly speaking out about their "hatred".
The Southern section of the United States succeeded from the Union partly in protest of President Abraham Lincoln. Is that not "openly endorsing" and "enthusiastically proclaiming"?
-
Forgetful ninnies
Extreme hypocrisy is far too common to take note of every time one sees it, but sometimes it is so jaw-dropping that it can't be ignored. A remarkably petulant column on today's Wall St. Journal Op-Ed page is a prime example. --Greenwald
The upper class may read, believe and delight in columns like this one -- but it is odd that they do it in plain view of the rest of the world. The contemporary American overclass seems to be unaware of why their grandfathers were so cautious in public, so full of noblesse oblige.
Conservative religion may appear dominant just now -- but 45 years ago no one thought about it as a significant factor in national or international politics. Everything was Communism vs. Capitalism. Now zealous Communism is relegated to isolated, backwards 3rd world regions the same way political religion was then. And everyone seems to believe things could never switch back. That the heartfelt Maoism of Naxalites, Anatolian Kurds, and Bolivian peasants will never matter again.
Ah,.... sure.
-
A telling detail on the WSJ editorial pages
I can't find a link to it, but IIRC, from my reading of the paper-based WSJ during the Clinton years, Bartlett, when he ran yet another anti-Clinton/Whitewater/Monica/Vince Foster/black helicopters/kitchen sink editorial, would actually place a boxed advertisement below the editorial, with an address where people could purchase audio tapes about the various conspiracy theories.
This is the only time I can ever recall an editorial page actually hawking a product -- although, of course, Christianist televangelists do this sort of thing all the time. How are the mighty fallen.
-
@whispers
It seems the anon poster talking about liberals in Tennessee meant to say that there were some Dems in Tennessee that were happy about JFK.
Trouble is, these "Democrats" were the Dixiecrats of old and for the most part have all changed parties to where they most closely align, Republicans. That's like blaming the Democrats today for an old vote of Trent Lott's in the 60's.
-
Long Memories
GG:
This was all driven by an unbridled and pure hatred that was as ugly and personal as it was fact-free.
And you just know they're gearing up for this same kind of assault again on our next (Democratic) President. I don't suppose quoting Berkowitz' whine back at them when it happens will do any good, do you?
I actually feel a little sorry for Berkowitz. Bush is a loser, and history won't be kind to him, no matter his delusions. His bumbling incompetence has been sliced and diced and made available for all perpetuity in Daily Show reruns (and YouTube). He's going to be a cause for derision and scorn, as our great-great grandkids pay off his debts and bear the brunt of his policies, for a long, long time to come, and Berkowitz will have to get used to it. It doesn't really matter that others assisted Bush along in this travesty-- he is the face (or codpiece-- see how easy that is?) of it.
As for the WSJ, their smartest people are not working the editorial pages.
-
Silly Season Notwithstanding
Oh My
There's anonymous with his own personal story to contradict the one he just heard. His about all the left wingers in the south in 1963.
-- The Notorious W.E.S.
I will be so happy when this is all over because the trolls for a particular candidate have annoyed the hell out of everyone right, left and center and it has little to do with the policy positions of the candidate in question.
http://tinyurl.com/yv8cqb
-
History being kind
I wouldn't place any bets on "history", at least in the short run.
It's already being actively rewritten with regards to Nixon and Vietnam. Hell, more RW pundits even saying that McCarthy had a point.
I suspect Bush will be treated just fine by the "serious" pundits for quite awhile.
-
Contempt for the American People
"However they put it, the Democrat (sic) approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses"
George W Bush - October 30, 2006
"Liberals saw the savagery on 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."
Karl Rove - June 22, 2005
It's one thing for Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Bill O'Reilly to talk that way, but this is the President of the United States and his Deputy Chief of Staff.
These people are shit and have earned nothing but scorn and contempt.
-
Good Riddance to the WSJ
When I was in college in the 1980s, I picked up a copy of the WSJ in an airport and was amazed at its quality. On and off I was a subscriber until 2006. Then I canceled.
The reason? A journal editorial that effectively said Louisiana should not get and does not deserve Katrina recovery money. I thought the editorial especially mean spirited and partisan. And hypocritical, considering the "money is no object" stance it took towards Iraq.
A newspaper editorial can be critical of government but should at least make a showing of impartiality. How can a paper claim to fairly cover Democratic politicians when it spews this bile? The WSJ is well on its way to being the favorite target of liberals, along with Fox News, just as the NYT is for the Republicans. The difference is that the NYT is broad based enough to maintain grudging respect. The Journal is rapidly losing that.