Letters to the Editor
-
typo
"WAS" raped and killed.
-
Glenn Greenwald on contradiction
Is it "contradictory" to decry the Right's tactics while insisting on their equal application?
I realize that Glenn Greenwald isn't much of a Walt Whitman kind of guy, but I can't help but think of the latter's notable quip on the topic:
"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself. I am large; I contain multitudes."
Contradict away! Trying to fault Greenwald's efforts at generating a counternarrative is as good a way as any of showing that one has something invested in the right-wing myth.
-
Decimate is probably not the right word
Decimate literally means to kill one in 10. The Republican approach is more akin to killing all the adult men, raping the women and selling off the children as slaves. Oh, and burn the houses and sow the fields with salt as they move on to the next village. (What is annoying is the fact that they tend to get away with these tactics even when they are pretty obvious to most casual observers. I suppose this has to do with the whole concept of the ease of selling an attractive lie.) Other than this minor detail, I agree with Glenn Greenwald's comments entirely and enthusiastically.
-
This is funny and sad
I had the opportunity this week to speak to a gathering of roughly 20 members of Congress and various Democratic Beltway strategist-types about my book and some of these strategic themes, and this same question was raised: "if we engage these themes, aren't we dragging ourselves to the level that they're at, and copying tactics which voters emphatically say they dislike"?
Since when do these people care about what voters want, like, or dislike?
And how did they account for the barbs traded between the Democratic campaigns of Clinton and Obama? What's the taboo against directing those sharp knives against a Republican candidate?
-
another recurring pattern
Again, Maureen Dowd isn't claiming she sees Obama as "elitist." Oh no, that would be bias. She's citing all those voters out there who have been calling Obama an elitist.
Because, you know, ordinary folks have been jamming her private line to tell her that.
-
I think this is telling...
The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza provided the answer just this week:
Critical mass has been reached. "Bitter" and "cling" will forever be tied to Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in the same way that "Tuzla" and "the laugh" will always evoke Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) when a political junkie thinks of the 2008 Democratic race. (emphasis added)
Maybe Chris Cillizza is a political junkie, and maybe most of the people he hangs around with are political junkies, but most Americans are not political junkies. They're too busy trying not to lose their homes and their health insurance.
How out of touch and self-referential can these people be?
-
catfood ...
if MoDo had been talking to legions of voters out there(preferrably not the elitist idiots like herself) .. don't you think she would have found one guy that would like to date her? ... Maybe she ought to look in the mirror
-
Jeanette D. ...
They are projecting ... why do you think they talk about all the Democrats being out of touch? .. when will they ever apply that same standard to McBush? .. Hell .. they never applied it to Bush .. and he went to Andover .. Yale .. and Harvard .. if that ain't elitist .. I don't know what is .. we have a truly dysfunctional TradMed
-
Leveling the playing field (and one of the players)
Yep. In particular, we should endlessly retell the story of McCain's abandonment of his first wife for a much younger, richer, and more useful second wife. Any segment of the American population that is inconvenient to McCain's purposes will be ignored just as easily as he discarded wife #1, and the public should understand that he is not now and never has been an honorable or trustworthy person. He's what a deadbeat dad looks like with enough money and social connections.
-
You are exactly right with this,
Voters say they dislike those tactics, but they still continue to dictate election outcomes, largely because the tactics are deployed in such a one-sided manner, and are therefore highly effective.
And the right will continue to use those tactics as long as they can achieve success by doing so. To deny them that success, "equal application" is one method and probably the one most likely to work.
-
Part of the confusion arises from the division of labor.
When browsing the left-blogosphere, if I want a serious tone and perhaps some analysis, I might go to TMP or Kevin Drum. If I want to see people I don't like get mocked unmercifully, I might go over to TBogg or Jesus General.
If, on the other hand, I want to experience both simultaneously then GG's the guy. Needless to say, this drives his detractors crazy....
-
Yep, there is a BIG difference
On the right the personality attacks are the POINT of the article or story. Where as on the left, pointing out that a right-wing leader who vociferously promotes and supports family values, support for military or hardline stances against drug offenders is also a multiple divorced, draft-dodger with an illegal pill habit is called journalism.
Anyone who can't see that shouldn't be called a journalist.
-
If a tree falls in a forest, and no one reports it...
The left responds to attacks, but in the right way?!
Kerry responded too little and too late to the attacks against him. Part of the problem was that because it was not an attack from Bush, Kerry fely it unseemly to compare his service to Bushs (Lack of) directly. But he should have, probably. He was not the greatest speaker. Dean (I loved him, once), a firebrand, got the most attention from the media, and positive, mostly. But he got buried, and it wasn't just the scream.
The left has to stop being reactive, and be more proactive, so our position is not cast in the shadow of what the right says, and can stand on its own.
But...how does the left get the media to report their side of the story, uncolored by the right? I don't see an answer to that in what GLenn writes, and I sure don't know.
Also - "Love Story"? I thought it was Love Canal.
-
@ "Joe Klein's conscience"
I'm afraid I don't understand your reply to my comment about Maureen Dowd, although I'm afraid it has what sounds like a misogynistic tone. Would you mind explaining please?
Unless of course the sexist implication was intended, in which case just STFU.