Letters to the Editor
-
Cops and Guns
It's no more contradictory than police officers decrying the use of guns and carrying them themselves.
-
Tactics
Wouldn't you love to see Cindy McCain on Colbert? That is the sort of thing that needs to happen. And is it my imagination or has Jon Stewart of late become surprisingly obsequious to right wingers and Clintonites he interviews on his show?
-
Turning the other cheek doesn't work in politics
The right has been using focus groups for years to create buzz words like, Death tax, the Clean Air Act, the Healthy Forest Initiative, liberal, effete, latte-drinking and a host of others because they work. If progressives allow the right to frame this debate we will lose again.
The Right has learned that vitriol, slurs and divisiveness wins elections. As a result we gave Newt a majority, Bush a "Mandate", and if a change in tactics is required to bring some sanity to governance, I'm an advocate for change.
Fortunately, Obama seems to get it and it's been refreshing to see a candidate that is willing to hit back.
-
@bsgroup
And is it my imagination or has Jon Stewart of late become surprisingly obsequious to right wingers and Clintonites he interviews on his show
Jon Stewart has always been "nice" during the interviews, except for a few notable times like when he snapped at Newt and Bill Kristol (frequent guest). He even was polite to Dinesh about his book the "Culture of Death"...
He rarely takes anyone "on" in his interviews, he leaves that more for the news portion and skits, which are much more pointed and hard hitting.
Stephen Colbert on the other hand....
-
excellent point
Remember MoveOn/BetrayUs. The press does not respond in the same way when the left uses the tactics dear to the right. Obama is smart enough to understand this. Are the rest of us?
After several years of Unclaimed Territory, shouldn't we all be clear on the fact that the news media (whether because of corporate ownership or because of sheer "think-tank" funding superiority) are fundamental to the problem? Republicans have been doing the dirtier tricks for a long time now, but they can't be blamed for discovering that the media don't need much coaching when it comes to echoing lies against people who reject the corporate line.
The news media are vulnerable. The news media are disliked by "bitter" as well as educated Americans. Attacking the news media can't be as easily played as attacking a party, where "oh look, the [insert supposedly symmetrically opposed parties here] are at it again" works to diminish the message. And news media are losing money because they are turning off readers/watchers, because they offer only shallow drama.
Start here, with pointing out media lies. It's so easy: Can anyone resist a tag line like "The Truth They Don't Want You to Know"?
Now get to work!
-
re: Update
A blogger over at TPM, Fly on the Wall, also makes this interesting point regarding the media frenzy attempting to put the silver spoon into Senator Obama's mouth:
The week started off in classic campaign form: a report of remarks made by Obama percolated through the media and came to dominate the news cycle. In typically circular fashion, the exhaustive coverage came to provide its own justification, as journalists covered the controversy that they had largely created.
The Oracle of Lancaster, G. Terry Madonna, took to the airwaves to proclaim that "unless [Obama] figures out a way to explain it in manner that makes more sense, I think this is probably going to damage his campaign in this state," and compared the remarks to gaffes that had sunk prior Pennsylvania campaigns, writing that they were "likely to do serious damage to his campaign in Pennsylvania." And he was among the more moderate critics. One thing that almost all of the reports shared was their focus on perception, rather than substance - the remarks were generally held to be newsworthy because they were likely to damage Obama politically, and so represented a turning point in the race.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the forum in Philadelphia. It turns out that despite the fuss, the remarks have had no discernable impact on the levels of support enjoyed by either candidate. We've had seven Pennsylvania polls released over the past two days, and not one shows a statistically significant gain for Hillary.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/signals-noise-and-polling.php
This guy writes some good stuff, imo.
-
He already did
The Oracle of Lancaster, G. Terry Madonna, took to the airwaves to proclaim that "unless [Obama] figures out a way to explain it in manner that makes more sense..."
Try to find any report of it in the MSM.
-
Two Wrongs = Greenwald Column
A) I don’t know if you are; 1. Condemning the use of personal attacks by the Right, 2. Promoting the use of personal attacks by the Left, or 3. Both.
If you’re doing both, you are most certainly a hypocrite.
B) “But liberal squeamishness over engaging personality-based battles has allowed the Right to flourish”
glenn, if you truly believe that, you’re blind. Absolutely blind. You have every right to attack Republicans, Neo-cons, conservatives, Richard Nixon, however you see fit. But, the notion that attacks on a candidate's personality and/or image are unique to the Right, is absurd.
Google george bush personality for unrefutable proof.
-
Email to Maureen Dowd
I sent this "thank you" email to Maureen Dowd:
Hi Maureen,
I just want to thank you so much for pointing out that Obama is an elitist. I was beginning to think that Obama was a different kind of candidate with a different message but now I see he's just an elitist like John Kerry and Al Gore. I will now support Hillary or McCain because they are not elitist and have nothing to do with San Francisco.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Marcus
-
@ gherstein
You're right in theory, but in practice the two are often difficult to distinguish. If you call someone a foul-mouthed liar, the liar part is likely to be a legitimate ad hominem argument, while the foul-mouthed part is equally likely to be an ad hominem fallacy.
In posting the picture of an advocate of the virtues of war which shows a paunchy middle-aged man with piggy eyes and a double chin, Glenn may argue that it illustrates an inconsistency between what is being advocated and who is advocating it, and by implication, that his advocacy is not to be trusted. Others may argue -- and have, as a matter of fact -- that a man may legitimately argue a virtue he doesn't possess, and that Glenn's posting of his picture is an irrelevant attempt to smear him. Who is correct?