Saturday, November 7, 2009

When the Right revolts

Regular readers of the In Box know that I'm a big fan of serious debate. I actually love being convinced (by argument or new facts) that I'm wrong about something.

The world is more interesting when it's shaped and reshaped by nuance. And in that conversation we need all stripes, from the very very liberal to the very very conservative.

But I find myself recoiling more and more often from a type of rhetoric from the Right that leaves me frankly disgusted.

I recoiled during the congressional campaign when Rush Limbaugh cracked wise about Dede Scozzafava's "bestiality."

I grew up in a conservative family attending a conservative church and there's no way that kind of disgusting language has a place in any serious conversation.

I recoiled again this week when certain elements on the Right tried to smear President Obama after the shootings at Fort Hood.

The highly influential Drudge Report placed a prominent link on their front page for two days to a blog post called "Ragged Thots" alleging that Mr. Obama's response to the shooting was "jolting, if not emotionally disturbing."

The meme? This is a President disconnected from America's military, insensitive to the death of our soldiers.

Meanwhile, prominent conservative propagandist Jerome Corsi posted to WorldNet Daily (another prominent conservative website) arguing that the shooter at Fort Hood "advised Obama transition."

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged shooter in yesterday's massacre at Fort Hood, played a homeland security advisory role in President Barack Obama's transition into the White House, according to a key university policy institute document.
As you can probably guess, the most cursory journalistic rigor demonstrates that both of these suggestions are utterly, categorically, demonstrably false.

For starters, the video shows clearly that Mr. Obama speaks substantively and sensitively to the tragedy, calling it "a horrific outburst of violence."
"My immediate thoughts and prayers are with the wounded and with the families of the fallen," said Mr. Obama.
Meanwhile, Mr. Corsi's claims about the shooter's involvement with the Obama transition are frankly ludicrous.

It turns out Hasan once attended a non-governmental event involving homeland security discussions -- as an audience member.

This from NPR's Tom Gjelten:
Frank Cilluffo, the HSPI director, says the participants' list, published as an appendix to the Task Force report, was no more than a tally of those people who RSVP'd to a notice of the roundtable meetings, which took place between June 2008 and February 2009. "Hasan joined as a member of the audience," Cilluffo says.
These incidents speak volumes about the wretched, stomach-turning calculus of the far Right.

They will say anything, exploit any incident -- even the death of American soldiers -- to discredit and delegitimise this President.

There are, of course, many areas for reasonable debate, for disagreement, for argument. Mr. Obama's agenda is, on many fronts, controversial.

Many conservatives have called for a national "rebellion" against the Democratic leadership.

Fair enough. But this kind of dishonesty and ugliness is merely revolting.

22 Comments:

At November 7, 2009 12:22 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

A companion piece to this might be a play on words entitled, When moderate Republicans revolt? I was struck by the SLC Republican Committeeman who posted on the INBOX this week who said that he would go to the Board of Elections and change his registration from Republican to Independent. Just this morning I worked with a aging male on a volunteer project who, while circumspect indicated he had gone down Wednesday morning and changed his registration. He will now be voting for the best person. While anecdotal one has to wonder how much smaller Republican registration will be throughout the NY-23 district as a result of the recent campaign. People are voting again, this time with their feet.

 
At November 7, 2009 7:21 PM , Blogger Jim said...

Unfortunately not enough people see through such lies. The FactCheck.org site was confronted some time ago with a study which showed that even after a lie had been debunked, most people continued to believe the original lie. Sadly the Right is depending on this phenomenon.

 
At November 7, 2009 7:43 PM , Anonymous Bret4207 said...

I don't like it when people lie. But, there's no difference between liberal liars and right wing liars Brian. A liar is a liar. Distorting facts is the same whether Al Gore does it or Limbaugh does it. To me there is no difference between the people on the left who to this day carry on about Bush continuing reading to those kids after the first plane hit NYC and Obamas "shout out" and happy demeanor when he knew about the shootings. If one is wrong, so is the other. Rush Limbaugh is no more disgusting than Howard Stern and Glenn Beck is no more "over the edge" than Keith Olbermann or any of the other mainstream talking heads. It's the same on both sides.

I occasionally used to catch a liberal talk radio station out of the Bufflao area. The venom from those people was no less than what Michael Savage (an idiot BTW) spiels every day.

So I don't see a bit of difference between the two sides in those respects. The one difference I do see is that it's only right wing talk radio that's the subject of Congressional action outlawing it- "The Fairness Doctrine". If that passes you won't have to worry about any dissenting views, it'll be Obama-love and sports 24/7.

The sad part is there are probably people who will read this that think that would be just dandy.

 
At November 7, 2009 9:33 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bret,
Nobody in this administration or this Congress has brought forth a proposal bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. In fact, Obama openly opposes any such suggestion.
Yet right-wingers like Jim DeMint constantly bring it up. Must help them raise money or something.
What's it like to live in constant, pants-pooping fear of things that don't exist?

 
At November 8, 2009 9:45 AM , Anonymous Bret4207 said...

The Fairness Doctrine IS being talked about and so is Net Neutrality. The bills may not be there yet, but do you really believe it won;t be forthcoming? I don't.

As for your vile portrayal of my concern as "constant, pants-pooping fear of things that don't exist?", do you really want to open the ball? Whats it like for YOU to live in fear of a group of people rallying for their rights and the course their nation takes? Your hypocrisy is readily apparent. I'm "scared", but you're "concerned". Huh. Do we need a review of the liberal Democrat fears of the Bush administration? Everything from "He's going to outlaw abortion" to "He's going to declare martial law in December and refuse to relinquish his seat!".

The fecal matter that flows from your post is your responsibility, not mine.

 
At November 8, 2009 10:58 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lately, I'vebeen hopeful that Bret's posings might make this blog more open to discussion from both sides. It obviously hasn't The constant fascination with Republicans and their parties woes-is puzzling.

I am conservative, peaceful, and live my life intentionally andkindly. If every post on the Inbox has to be virulently anti my beliefs, I will stop reading it. I won't go elsewhere, I'll just keep my own counsel, think deeply and love my fellow men. You have succeeding in completely blinding yourself to your bias, and your unwillingness to see both sides of actions or issues. I was so in hope...

 
At November 8, 2009 1:09 PM , Blogger Brian Mann said...

A couple of comments. First - to the Anonymous who flamed Bret, knock it off. Make your points without that kind of pettiness, or go elsewhere.

Second, to the Anonymous who feels unwelcome because of a perceived anti-conservative bias:

Pointing out unacceptable behavior among conservatives isn't anti-conservative. We need a conservative movement; we need a strong Republican party.

I'm convinced that both are endangered by the likes of Limbaugh and Beck.

That seems a worthy point of debate, no?

--Brian, NCPR

 
At November 8, 2009 1:09 PM , Blogger Brian Mann said...

A couple of comments. First - to the Anonymous who flamed Bret, knock it off. Make your points without that kind of pettiness, or go elsewhere.

Second, to the Anonymous who feels unwelcome because of a perceived anti-conservative bias:

Pointing out unacceptable behavior among conservatives isn't anti-conservative. We need a conservative movement; we need a strong Republican party.

I'm convinced that both are endangered by the likes of Limbaugh and Beck.

That seems a worthy point of debate, no?

--Brian, NCPR

 
At November 8, 2009 1:20 PM , Anonymous Bret4207 said...

Brian, and Anon 10:58AM- I'm not TRYING to bring hate and discontent to this place. I'm not a trained writer, I'm just guy frustrated beyond belief at what I see happening around me. Maybe I'm just too dumb to understand why the liberal way is the right way, but it's just wrong for me. I have 5 kids, 3 adopted, and a granddaughter. Their futures are important to me. I want them to have a chance at what I consider a free American life. So I come here and refute those who think otherwise because they're my neighbors and I hope to at least open their eyes, and my own, to alternative ideas. I sometimes find myself rethinking my positions, or at least questioning them. I don't see too many "liberal" thinkers doing that. The right is called the party of "no" and yet to me it's just the opposite.

Sorry if I'm stirring things too much Brian.

 
At November 8, 2009 2:01 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, Bret- you got it wrong- I welcome your posts- I just can't stand to see them torn apart evey time you say anything. It's not a matter of someone dissecting something thoughtfully- it's like a pack of dogs going for a piece of meat. That isn't thoughtful debate, but it's what happens here. Thank you for what you've done, and I'll leave you to convince people.

 
At November 8, 2009 2:18 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of my biggest concerns is that the recent campaign will poison our region with all the hate and sense that people of different political persuasion are somehow the enemy and really that different than us. That goes for both sides of the political spectrum. Here in NNY we live side by side and I work with folks of all persuasions on various community boards. I hope that continues. All the stratified media is not helpful and I wish people watched less of it. The government is not evil or our enemy for the most part. It may be big, prone to inertia, and slow to change, but we live in a complex society. It seems like people are worrying about things that aren't true. I go about my business for days on end with out feeling government is intruding in my life here in the north country. When I ran a small business I didn't feel overregulated or over taxed. The personal does not always translate logically into the political. I know people who are permissive parents and spend every dime they earn and are conservative in their political views. I also know people who are frugal, debt free, teaching their children personal responsibility and would be the last people to have an abortion,but are politically liberal. I wish people were more involved in planning boards, town councils, and school boards. Put in the position of acting for the common good ideology and personal opinion go out the door pretty fast. I remember sitting in a County committee meeting waiting to speak, and listened to 3 or 4 problems. I was sitting there thinking I am glad I don't have to decide this.
The problems we face locally and at the state level and nationally are very difficult. Perhaps it will take a bigger crisis to force action.
The traditional Republican coalition of social conservatives, religious right, libertarians, fiscal conservatives seems to be unraveling. Conservatives seem to blame Obama on a big tent Republican party when there are very few liberals or moderates in congress. We ended up with Obama after 6 years of big government conservatism.; and expanded government with HOmeland Security, expanded entitlements in the prescription drug bill, more deficits, more national debt, a war that Americans were not asked to sacrifice or pay for. The list goes on. Where were all these people who were up in arms now, back then? This is very much like the period before the civil war with weak leaders and a broken politics. The liberal and conservative fringes are both dangerous. Both sides need to drop the culture wars and focus on the basics, or we really will go over the cliff. As noted before Bret's frustration is clear and understandable. He doesn't seem to have much use for either party at this point, yet it unclear what vehicle can help us address our problems. Perhaps a national party Conservative Party, even if it remained a third party would force the two major parties to adopt fiscally conservative positions on spending, and budget deficits.

 
At November 8, 2009 5:33 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am the anon that accused Bret of living in fear.
I don't hate conservative viewpoints or opinions, but I don't agree with letting baseless, fear-based inaccuracy, like the Fairness Doctrine fallacy, go unchallenged. Falsehoods have to be pushed back on, or they become seen as true in some quarters, like "the Bush conspired to allow 911 to happen" lie, or the "swine flu shots will cause autism" fallacy. When there is no evidence for such statements, and when belief in such statements is spawned by fear, it should be called out.
By the way, I never brought up net neutrality, though there's a good chance if net neutrality doesn't happen, people like Bret will only have access to conservative-owned cable systems, and may not have access to places like Time Warner, because such opinions would be deemed controversial and thus disallowed.
I don't live in fear of Tea Partiers, etc... I do live in fear of inaccuracies and "beliefs" fobbed off as unerring truth. I won't apologize for that.

 
At November 8, 2009 6:02 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am surprised that the pres. of USA know how to Pray.he speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He has a double face

 
At November 8, 2009 6:18 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Adding (from the Bret-baiting anon): I enjoy the bulk of Bret's posts, and I agree with him more than he might think about some of the really big-picture problems of the nation, which is why I get really annoyed when he goes off on tangents with no facts.
Quite simply, he's better than that. He doesn't need untruths to make his points.

 
At November 9, 2009 9:19 AM , Anonymous frank thies said...

I love The in Box, precisely because it allows so many different voices to be heard - or is that words to be read?
Anyway, I find this site to be very refreshing.
As a liberal, I have attempted debating on two right wing blogs and finally gave up this exercise in futility about a month ago.
The other side was not interested in honest debate, let alone peaceful debate. And the people that monitor these blogs were definitely not interested in screening out responses from the "right", no matter how incendiary, vulgar or violent in tone.
I can't tell you how many times I was called the most vilest opf names, threatened with "ass kickings" or threats to my life.
Fortunately for those posting here, the conversation is kept uite civilized in comparison.
Do you ever notice how one right winger posting to The In box, always attempts to justify the anti-social behaviors exhibited by those on his side of the isle by claiming that the exact behaviors are demonstrated by those on the left (ie. Bush was a failure therefore, so is Obama)?
And when called out on many of these statements he makes, he is now making comments about not posting here anymore because...what, he's not gaining traction in a reality based world? That last sentence may seem harsh, a put down of this man, but brothers and sisters, try going to a right wing blog and saying something like "President Bush was a failure" and I guarantee you that 9 times out of 10, you will not find people willing to engage in debate. Rather, they will literally scream at you with all caps and exclaimation points!!! Profanities (from nice Christian folk too!)by the bucketful. Here is one comment I received after writing what I thought was a fairly innocuous posting about wanting Obama ending the wars - "Go f*** yourself you terrorist lover. Yah, Obama wants America to stop killing his Muslin (sic) family members. This Kenyen (sic) fag deserves jail not our White House!!!"
And this is what passes for civilized discourse with the "right." it's not only twisted in logic and reasoning, but it downright scary.
So, when I read postings from right wingers on this sight complaining about not getting a fair shake...
Just unbelievable.

 
At November 9, 2009 9:43 AM , Anonymous Bret4207 said...

Okay, so it's all completely baseless? Take a gander folks-

Hers the Net Neutrality Act-http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3458&tab=summary

Read it and tell me you wouldn't see a number of loopholes in that language if some redneck right winger like me was running things in Washington.

The Fairness Doctrine and it's current staus-

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubID.1327/pub_detail.asp

The key issue- "As of this writing, there is a real possibility that the Congress will again attempt to formalize the Fairness Doctrine into law. The Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 (H.R.226), has been reintroduced, but it is thought to be unlikely that Congressional leaders will allow that bill to proceed. While President Obama openly expressed his reluctance to support the Fairness Doctrine, powerful Senate Democrats such as Dick Durbin, John Kerry, Debbie Stabenow, Tom Harkin, Jeff Bingaman, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and former President Bill Clinton have all repeatedly expressed their support of the Fairness Doctrine. Yet, it is unknown how aggressively those leaders will pursue the Fairness Doctrine, given President Obama's expressed reluctance to support it. What does seem relatively certain is that any Fairness Doctrine legislation or administrative rule will be challenged in the courts."

IOW- while the FD isn't moving at the moment the big guns are all in favor of it going ahead. If you want I can get a whole slew of comments from the Obama Administration people and their feeling in favor of the FD. Cass Sunstein (IIRC) is a big proponent of "nudging" things like this into law.

Look at it this way- If Bush was in office and there was talk of some skanky bill to limit your rights being pushed forward in a Republican controled House and Seante, would you call it nonsense and "fear mongering" to be concerned? A few months back we were assured the Dems would never try to Federalize 1/6 of our economy and even if they did it would all be above board and transparent with no new taxes and fines and it would be revenue neutral. Well the House just passed a bill with everything in it they said wouldn't be in it.

Baseless fears? How about we rephrase that to legitimate concerns?

 
At November 9, 2009 9:48 AM , Anonymous Bret4207 said...

Frank, it's sad when people think that's the way to "win" an argument. You never "win", all you can hope to do is get the other person to think. It's hard to keep cool sometimes. I've been thrown off 2 other boards because I wouldn't toe the line. I once said I "...was appalled that the first suggestion for supporting horse logging was to lobby Congress for subsidies..." Apparently that was just over the top.

I do find it odd that what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. That seems patently hypocritical to me. Both parties are corrupt and useless, why is it wrong to present an example of the double standard?

 
At November 9, 2009 10:01 AM , Anonymous frank thies said...

First, it is probably a good thing to research the history behind the Fairness Doctrine, why it was est. in 1949 and then abolished in 1987 by Ronald Reagan. As a starter, I suggest reading about it at - http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine
Of course, this was not the original topic introduced by Brian.
Is this done purposefully so as to muddy the debate at hand?
"They will say anything, exploit any incident -- even the death of American soldiers -- to discredit and delegitimise this President."
Yes, indeed they will.
Bring back the Fairness Doctrine which sought to have those holding licenses to broadcast present programming of public interest that was honest, equitable, balanced, and dealing with subjects of a controversial nature.
With the Fairness Doctrine in place, FOX News could truly claim to be "Fair and Balanced."

 
At November 9, 2009 11:24 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is officially a hijacked thread, but if you're against the Fairness Doctrine, you should be for Net Neutrality, as a matter of principle. A lot of right-wing bloggers, including Instapundit, here, are for Net Neutrality. Read this post on a GOP blog: http://techrepublican.com/blog/blogfather-glenn-reynolds-supports-net-neutrality
They don't want corporate cable systems and other ISPs to limit their sites' availability and make some, as Orwell says, more equal than others.

 
At November 9, 2009 8:54 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Holy smokes Frank! And Code Pink, Harry Reid, and all the rest never used a soldiers death to deligitimize Bush?!! Sheesh!

Oh, I forgot- Bush Bad, Obama Pure and Good. My bad.

 
At November 9, 2009 10:21 PM , Anonymous frank thies said...

Dear Anon. If you notice, I was quoting the author of this blog. However, I stand by what I quoted.
The original author was referring about the "Right" wrongly using the Fort Hood massacre of American troops as a tool to call Obama a terrorist sympathizer and worse(geez).
Now, I understand that there are people on the Left who have used the massacre of American troops in illegitimate and illegal wars to label Pres. Bush a war criminal. But we all know (wink, wink) that Cheney was really running things so Bush was just following orders. I've heard Code Pink use that term, war criminal quite often, but Harry Reid?
Please cite a reference.

 
At November 11, 2009 6:26 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Code Pink is really frightening. And powerful.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home