Broadband Politics - Latest Comments in Silence of the left

Re: Silence of the left

SmarterThanBennet — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:54:32 -0000

After everybody has gone to bed, Kevin Drum sneaks a post onto Political Animal endorsing the ?sloppy journalism but no evidence of bias? line. Give me a break. A commenter observes that racing to be the first to air a story they knew was false doesn?t really rate as competitive journalism. It was politically-motivated bias, nothing more and nothing less.

What a stupid observation. Did you read what drum wrote? He was so shrill, if you didn't know it was Drum you'd have thought it was someone from the Freeper Gallery of The Wing Nuts (TM)

But this was an issue to be shrill about, because CBS blew it.

Re: Silence of the left

Richard Bennett — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:59:40 -0000

Michael Moore is behind Ashlee Simpson, so what?

Re: Silence of the left

John K. — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:53:19 -0000

You know what's also a fact?

If you go to Blogpulse, Dan Rather's been behind Jacko (since early December) and Armstrong Williams (this week).

I guess it's that liberal blogosphere...

Re: Silence of the left

Richard Bennett — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:08:26 -0000

Ed, Saddam did try to acquire uranium from Africa, it's a fact. We don't believe he was successful, but he certainly tried; even Joe Wilson admitted that much.

Re: Silence of the left

edwardpig — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:52:52 -0000

If the left is too silent about the outcome of Memogate, then the right is too self-congratulatory. I believe a fair summary of Memogate and the sins committed by all is available here.

I also believe that Atrios' critics miss his point. When bad reporting with a liberal bias occurs, heads roll. When bad reporting with a conservative bias occurs, usually nothing happens. And sometimes, those responsible are actually rewarded. If the mainstream media had an inherent liberal bias, it would be the other way around.

Re: Silence of the left

kim — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 12:31:04 -0000

Ernest,

Yes, my comments on fascism were brief, but I think overall a good nutshell description. The "national rebirth" myth is at the core of it. Thus, fascism can take root in many gardens.

The war in Iraq is complex. It's not just "about" establishing liberal democracy and free-market capitalism.

Yes, you're right in suggesting that the question as to whether or not Arab Muslim culture is fertile ground for liberal democracy and free-market capitalism remains open.

PS: Thanks for explanation of "Beefsteak Nazis."

Re: Silence of the left

Ernest Brown — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:42:32 -0000

Beefsteak Nazis were Communists who found it easy to convert to Nazism. ("brown on the outside, red on the inside") In reality, all they had to do was substitute race and national struggle for class struggle.

Re: Silence of the left

Ernest Brown — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:35:18 -0000

Kim,

Change it to the hypothetical statement "If you support Baathists..." if you oppose the war on the grounds that Arab Muslim culture doesn't provide fertile ground for liberal democracy. That's one way of opposing the war without calling the fascists there "minutemen."

Fascism is much more than what you mention, it actively opposes liberal democracy and free-market capitalism as much as Marxism does, and for the same dubiously statist & "populist" reasons.

Re: Silence of the left

kim — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:08:25 -0000

Ernest,: Yes,I know the site you directed me to. My earlier comment refered to "conventional wisdom." It still stands.
Of course, fascism is more complex than "conventional wisdom". Fascist elements exist in many corners, but I think it is best defined as revolutionary form of nationalism which sets out to be a politcal, social, & ethical (some supporters would even say spiritual) revolution, wedding an concet of the "people" to a dynamic national community unders new elites infused with new
(thought sometimes presented as "traditional") heroic values. The core myth which inspires fascism is that only a populist, trans-class movement can offer a cathartic national "rebirth" that can stem the tide of decadence. This can apply to all shades & colors of what we term as "fascism".

Why do say I support Baathists & religious fascists? What gave you that idea?

And what's the point of asking me about
"Beefsteak Nazi"?

Re: Silence of the left

Ernest Brown — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:45:04 -0000

Finally, Kim, tell me what a "Beefsteak Nazi" is.

Re: Silence of the left

Ernest Brown — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:44:28 -0000

By supporting the Baathists and religious fascists against those who fight for liberal democracy in Iraq, you objectively support fascism. Is that hard to understand?

Re: Silence of the left

Ernest Brown — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:42:51 -0000

Kim,

You simply show your ignorance of fascism:

http://www.la-articles.org....

Re: Silence of the left

Ernest Brown — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:41:07 -0000

Kim,

When you support Saddam and the Baathists against those who would bring liberal democracy to Iraq, you objectively and gladly support fascism. That is what the Baathists are, openly and proudly I might add.

You only show your ignorance of the history of fascism. It is the bastard child of leftism, and as such merely substitutes national or race war for class warfare. That is why Germans found it so easy to go from being Communists to being Nazis, the phenomenon even had a name, "Beefsteak Nazis." (i.e. brown on the outside, red on the inside)

David Ramsey Steele, no Bush partisan he, explains the findings of socialist historian Zeev Sternhell here:

http://www.la-articles.org....

Re: Silence of the left

kim — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:20:40 -0000

Ernest, strange as always to hear folks speak of the left as "pro-facist"--it shows little understanding of what fascism is.
Facism has always been against leftist ideology. Conventional wisdom is that the extreme left is communism, the extreme right is fascism.

But I guess nowadays it's okay to just mix up terms however one pleases.

Re: Silence of the left

Ernest Brown — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:21:10 -0000

"I guess Iraq isn?t that ?interesting? because I never hear jack about it at Instaclown?s site"

'Speaking of lefties? habit to say demonstrably untrue (and stupid) things?'

Right here:

http://instapundit.com/arch...

The leftist pro-fascist liars take their cues from Goebbels and Pravda.

Re: Silence of the left

M. Simon — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:39:41 -0000

Yeah.

And what I want to know is why the Right is not up in Arms about Clinton's use of torture. They called it "rendition".

Clinton sent people to bad places for torture and the Right is practically silent.

I think they are hiding something.

We lefties have to hold their feet to the fire on this one.

My God. Torture. Approved by the President. Has the Right no shame?

Re: Silence of the left

Richard Bennett — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 05:32:23 -0000

Atrios' examples are absurd because all of those cases were discussed on center-right blogs at the time they were relevant. The CBS News (whitewash) report came out today so it's topical, and yes, it clearly shows Rather's bias. Whether the whole of the MSM is similarly biased is an interesting discussion, but it should start with the admission that Rather's bias can no longer be hidden.

And BTW, Atrios calls The New Republic a "conservative" publication, which is obviously absurd as well. I can't figure how he writes that crap with a straight face.

Re: Silence of the left

eugene — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 04:14:32 -0000

I think Atrios' point is that to merely focus on one example of media screwups without taking on the whole of the problem is itself a whitewash.

The fact is that the right wants to use memogate to further convince folks that the media is hopelessly biased for liberals and will stoop to any low to achieve that bias. The actual fact of media lies is not at all important, since the whole controversy is a stalking horse for another issue (liberal bias).

Atrios, however, quite rightly asks why these other egregious examples of media dishonesty don't merit a mention on any of these righty blogs. We can surmise an answer (that this dishonesty only matters if it's committed against the right), but I think it's perfectly fair to respond to a claim of ignoring an issue by pointing out that you, in fact, ignore the real issue.

Re: Silence of the left

HH — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:50:10 -0000

So Atrios tells us that stories that REALLY matter were ignored and this, about Bush's Guard service doesn't... except it does and it's all true, except for "window dressing" - that being, you know, the EVIDENCE that it was true, aside from some old partisan secretary's word. Then he tells us that it's SENSIBLE to accept that Rather is biased to the left, and this somehow proves that if there's any bias, it's to the right.

Spin of the year nominee!

Re: Silence of the left

Zeyes — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 02:54:13 -0000

I guess Iraq isn?t that ?interesting? because I never hear jack about it at Instaclown?s site

Speaking of lefties' habit to say demonstrably untrue (and stupid) things...

Re: Silence of the left

Trapeze — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:39:44 -0000

Uhh Dan, don't wear your panties too tight. If there were "untrustworthiness" to trumpet, we'd trumpet it. As it is, Bush's supposed "corruption" and "fraud" exists only in your own mind. It's why you're so angry. You think that because you saw Fahrenheit 9-11, you have all the answers, and we're just a bunch of stupid hicks. Michael Moore's joke's is on you. Is Bush perfect? No. Was Clinton perfect? No. But unless you can get beyond the mindless talking points of Michael Moore, or come up with solid evidence, I'm afraid you will only ever sound convincing to the "true believers".

Re: Silence of the left

Sortelli — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:27:29 -0000

You really convinced me there, Dan, thanks for opening my eyes!

Re: Silence of the left

Dan — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:23:36 -0000

I love the 'selective silence' outrage. Why doesn't the right tumpet the untrustworthiness of the Bush admin? From Education to EPA to FDA to Legal Counsel to National Security Advisor etc. this administration is corrupt and fraudulent through and through. The Democrats should oppose everything that comes out this administration on the general principle that you can be sure it isn't being genuine.

Re: Silence of the left

Sortelli — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:14:22 -0000

"And I loved your response to Atrios?s observations. Way to address it on the merits."

Hee hee hee. Yeah, that wacky Atrios. Address his merits! Don't you see? Even assuming that Dan Rather really is a liberal partisan media hack working for a media outlet blinded by ideology, that just PROVES there is no liberal media!!! If Chewbacca is from Endor, you must acquit!

Re: Silence of the left

Richard Bennett — Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:49:46 -0000

"Instafluffer?" That's rude, anon, like commenting on somebody's supposed lack of bravery while posting under a pseudonym.