Rage Continues
Dean
Rather than simply admit that the President was re-elected fair and square and consider reaching out to him and his supporters, it appears that some on the lunatic fringe left are just getting nastier.
If you haven't seen the photos of the protests in San Francisco, you should. Then contemplate that on Friday night (yeah, that's right, four days after the election), Republican headquarters in North Carolina were vandalized.
Now contemplate the fact that it appears that the New York Times is now hoping the President is assassinated.
Well. It appears that we've gone from "an illegitimate moron in the White House" to "half of America is stupid and evil and we hope Chimpboy gets his head blown off."
Obscene rhetoric isn't the exclusive province of the left of course. Still, I don't remember this much rage when Clinton was re-elected, do you?
Ah well. Someone asked me what we'd have to write about once the election's over. Heh. Moonbat watching is always worthwhile entertainment I'd say.
Take, for example, the newly elected president, George <b>W</b>. Bush. What do you get when you turn the W upside down?
<b>M</b>
M is also the first letter of Mephistopheles, which is another name for ... Satan.
Coincidence? I think not.
--|PW|--
My.
God.
Do you KNOW how many moonbatty leaps of logic you have to take to call that even a VEILED hope for an attempt on the president's life?
Good lord, Dean. You're jumping on the conspiracy train. It's the train going in the opposite direction as the one the left is riding!
Really, Dean, I'm just chalking this one up to you posting sleepy on Monday morning, dude.
Well, you know...
C'mon guys. What other possible conclusions can you draw from the article if not the one I drew? Don't just call me a moonbat, educate me. I'll add your comments to my post if you can give me another reasonable conclusion.
It just happens that these two presidents presided over "defining monents" in both the history of the USA and in their party.
You're seeing conspiracies where none probably exist. You're drawing conclusions based on a desire to prove something about the Democrats that simply isn't true.
And not just benign conclusions either.
Trust me. I loathe the NYT as much as anyone. But I think you're being irresponsible.
If you really think I am being paranoid, read my previous article that Dean linked to last week. It's not exactly the ravings of a paranoid man.
But with the intense rhetoric and anger of the left toward Bush, I do have concerns about Bush's safety. What I didn't expect was to see the NYT stoking the fire so explicitly.
I happen to agree with the historical parallels drawn in the article to both the Lincoln and McKinley Presidencies. That is one of the reasons I am concerned about the possibility of Bush being assassinated. What really got my blood boiling was not just the factual recitation of historical parallels of the administrations, but
1) the overt appeal to fear on the left of mixing religion and politics.
2) the Headline talking about history "saving" the Democrats.
3) the final line in the article "Until the next act of God, that is."
If the article took the position of warning about how the current divisions in America portend a tragedy, that might be one way to present the same facts, but with a sober tone. But it seemed to me that the NYT was taking the position that a Bush assasination would be a salvation for America, not a tragedy.
We have these things called elections here in the USA. They happen on a regular basis. Unless, that is, you truly believe that Bush = Hitler, and the Bush is truly a fascist who will eliminate democracy in our natino. Then, perhaps, only an act of God can save the union.
C'mon, Michael. Please. Give me an alternate interpretation.
Instead of calling for Divine intervention, why not just call for the Democratic Party to change to appeal to the majority of American voters? How about appealing to the judgment of American voters, not the judgment of God? Unless you don't really trust the American voters.
Acts Of God.
Read any conspiracy into it that you want. Fantasize about loony Democrats and their designs on the presidency and the methods they'll use to attain it. Project your own warped thinking onto a few words written by a reporter who would probably shoot milk out of his nose with laughter at the suggestion you're making (as would most people who don't see Democrat or Republican conspiracies around every corner.)
You're blog entry is designed to inflame, and nothing more. I stand by what I said about how foolish it is, and I stand my criticism of Dean for giving such nonsense an audience.
Whoa, Scott.
Where d'ya get THAT crazy idea?
:)
More Kool-Aid?
Maybe it's just because I grew up in upstate NY but I thought I did see it. It seems like people in my town (decent, sane people) had "Impeach Hillary" bumper stickers out before Clinton was done being sworn in. The hatred of the Clintons (which boiled down to not liking an "ambitious" woman in many cases) turned me away from the Republicans when I was young.
And what about the rage from the lunatic militia groups? They actually acted out violently.
How can you define "the implosion of a social movement under the excesses of its own agenda" as an Act of God?
How can you define "the emergence of an extraordinary political figure" as an Act of God.
Indeed, How can you define "9/11, or WWI, or WWII or Viet Nam, or Korea, or an attack by North Korea" as Acts of God.
All of these are Acts of Men, not God. And tragedies tend to pull the nation together, not tear it apart.
Why the appeal to irrationality? There were some "Acts of God" which might have affected the political race - 4 hurricanes in Florida. But I choose to believe it was President Bush response to those Acts of God that ennamored him to Floridians, not the hurricanes themselves.
The construct of "Acts of God" in the article do not make any sense at all, except in the context of recruiting a potential "Agent of God." How is even an assasination an "Act of God" unless it is perpetrated at his Divine direction by one of his "followers." I suppose killing abortion doctors also qualify as "Acts of God" by this reasoning.
Just exactly what history are they talking about? Please. Inform me.
If you really believe that the fulfillment of McKinley's term would have derailed the New Deal, then I don't know what to say. More likely, Teddy Roosevelt would have succeeded him, and we would not have had a President Taft. But FDR and his New Deal were going to happen.
The proposed catastrophe of missing out on the "progressive" politics of TR and FDR is a foolish extrapolation. It supposes that the country is run by Presidents, not the people. Well, I believe that the American people ultimately decide the direction of the country, and that any politician who tries to thwart that direction will become political roadkill.
If Bush's victory portends a period of Republican hegemony, it is only because the Republican party has tapped into the majority sentiment of the American citizenry. We are not the mindless easily-manipulated robotons many on the left suppose us to be. Many of us come from the same families that supported the New Deal, Civil Rights, etc.
The Democratic Party has (temporarily??) turned its back on a great portion of America. Any potential Republican hegemony will be due at least as much to this fact as the attractiveness of the Republicans.
There is no need for any Act of God to restore the Democrats to power. Only a sober reflection on how they went wrong, and a long-term plan on how to fix their problems will restore to them the trust of the American electorate. And here are some suggestions for how to do that.
I think that you're reading too much into what is a rhetorical flourish. "What will it take, an act of God?" is just a standard rhetorical flourish for "Is it impossible?"
I suspect that the final reference to "an act of God" was similarly just a rhetorical flourish, referring to the first.
While you're right that it did seem to concentrate on assassinated republicans, it did seem more just about major political shifts which didn't go as they portended; it did make reference to that happening for both democrats and republicans.
There's an old saying: never attribute to malice what can be adaquately explained by incompetence. Certainly times writers seem to not infrequently need to make a word count in excess of what they actually have to say on a subject, and they love sounding good.
I do think that this is far more likely a product of an attempt a literary writing than any actual malice.
Also, the two examples only have the Party of the President and assassination in common. Did America restore slavery after the Assassination of Lincoln? Did the North just say, "My bad" and ship all the darkies back south, and let the southern states go their merry way?
In one case, according to the article, Republican desires were thwarted by assassination (McKinley), in the other case not. Slavery was still abolished, and the South was not allowed to secede after Lincoln's assassination.
Also, there were other Presidents who changed the tide of history that were not assassinated. What about a comparison to FDR who increased his party's representation in the Congress in his reelection. What about the history altering elections of Andrew Jackson, and Ronald Reagan.
And irregardless of the rhetorical flourish in the text of the article, how do you account for the headline, "Can History Save the Democrats?" Again, what history are they referring to. Well, it seems to me they are referring explicitly to the history of two assassinated Presidents.
I'm not typically a conspiracy type of guy, and I don't see any evidence in this article of a conspiracy at all. I just think it is grossly irresponsible, and revelatory of the desperate feelings of the author and the paper itself.
If I completely give in on the "Act of God" point, I still cannot understand what alternative "history" will "save the Democrats" if not an assassination. True, the article does mentions alternatives for changing the political landscape that do not involve killing the President.
But the only historical examples provided in the article, the historical context explicitly referred to in the headline, is assassination. Both of the Presidents cited were assassinated. No other Presidential examples were cited, at all.
1+2=3
1) The New York Times wishes the immediate future could be changed, wondering in their headline if the Democrats can be saved by history.
2) They cite two, and only two, historical examples where the tide of history was changed by assassinating leaders.
3)?????
Just because you got a by-line don't mean some people with those little earphones aren't going to pay you a visit.
I didn't get the sense of urgency from the times that you did; I thought that the citations of clinton and ike were examples of presidents who didn't, after all, do much; it sounded like the Times was offering solace that Bush might not, after he's gone, have achieved anything for his party, much as Clinton didn't.
Frankly, it seemed much more like an attempt at solace — like putting honey on a wound — than like any call to arms. It had much of a feel like, "in the most drastic situations republicans were assasinated, but even short of that politics is unpredictable in the extreme and tidle waves often break before they hit shore"
Perhaps it might help if you try reading the article as if it's not really saying anything at all, though with many words; I find that a fairly satisfactory way of reading it, and we are discussing the work of a member of the chattering classes, after all.
In essence, try giving the author less credit for meaning what he says and more credit for morality; do you still think that's not a realistic way of reading his article?
I do remember that. At the time I thought of such things as humorous but in retrospect it was far too much. Republicans had a right object to a First Lady weilding political power since we don't elect First Ladies (or First Gentlemen) but I have long said that the excesses of anti-Clinton rhetoric reached a disturbing pitch in the 1990s.
And what about the rage from the lunatic militia groups? They actually acted out violently.
I've always felt it's wrong to pin that on Republicans, since those groups were and are still active and have no particular love for people like Bush. Indeed, those groups were among those that went batty at the first Bush's use of the phrase "New World Order" and was a member of the Trilateral Commission and all that other wingnut stuff.
But your point is taken.
I think Middle-America has been pushed as far as it can be pushed without drawing a line in the sand.
One of the key voting issues that seemed to surprise pollsters this election was that "morality" was important to a large percentage of voters. I think that will increase proportionally to the percieved deterioration of MSM. In effect, the more agressively liberal the media becomes, the more conservative the population will vote.
From a conservative point of view, morality used to be something personal. Now it seems that our morals are attacked on all sides from the media and the entertainment culture.
I'm sure many liberals feel like their morals are under attack, too. Perhaps they are, in a way. Afterall, they didn't win the election. Ironically, displays of rage and fury will only drive the moderates away, weakening the group. Making the next defeat more likely.
Maybe implying that the NYT is inciting an assassination is going too far. But the article is still irresponsible, in my opinion. Even if it is only expressing a passing wish, the NYT editors should understand their place in our society - especially their place in the hearts of liberals. To openly express such a wish with the bullhorn of the NYT cannot be viewed as healthy. There is a big difference between impeachment, the cry of conservatives in 1996, and assassination.
Like I said, I don't think any NYT reporters are undergo sniper training. But not everyone is rational.
I do include Nicholas Baker's recent novel Checkpoint among those hints, as well as the "humor" article in the Guardian. It adds up, even if I don't see the tipping point yet.
I will grant you that not everyone is rational, but then again we can't live our lives afraid of saying anything for fear some idiot is going to misinterpret it; down that path lies censorship and gun control.
On the other hand, they could certainly have waited a bit untill passions were cooler, I'll happily grant you that.
And frankly, I think it would work more solace to point out that the world didn't end during the first four years of the Bush administration, but then the wingnut fringe of the democratic party (i.e. those who would need such a consolation because they can't figure out on their own that does not, actually, equal hitler) have never seemed much interested in learning from history anyway.
And if they kill Bush, we get Cheney, plus he's eligible to run for 8 more years when Bush's term is done, ask LBJ. Don't misunderestimate the sympathy vote, at least the first time, in such a case....
So why kill GWB?
Its not about logic. Its about emotion.
I'm amazed that you'd even say that, Dean. I remember Clinton being absolutely SKEWERED, along with everyone who voted for him. And I was in Canada for God's sake!!!!
And, by the way, as is typical when someone wants to make their point, you failed to mention that Kerry was also burned in effigy at the same headquarters - making it more likely that this was just a bunch of vandals who didn't care whose campaign headquarters it was. But then, given the purpose of this post - to try to paint Democrats as lunatics - I can see why you would find it fitting not to mention that.
Honestly Dean. You and I agree on way more things than we disagree on, but when you write a post like this, and try to create an issue where there is none, it really brings down the BlogIQ.
People have legitimate criticisms of the left. This borders on being the idealogical equivalent of Michael Savage.
I went to your Google link. Let me get this straight. Clinton was burned in effigy by LEFTISTS, and that is somehow the fault of Republicans?
This might be the closest thing and its not even in the same universe.
I wasn't really paying attention to politics during Clinton's administration. Which mass murderer(s) did the protestors' signs equate Clinton to?
Note: this is a serious question. I didn't really pay attention back then.
I've never listened to Sean Hannity and never liked him. I never even knew who Coulter was until shortly after 9/11 and she always offended me. Although she occasionally gets off a good line that's worth a chuckle, in general she's so hateful and nasty she embarasses me.
The National Review, on the other hand, I've read on and off for years, and I always found it a quite reasonable and unusually rational publication. The print edition was always better than the online edition, though. In any case, I never saw much of "fuck everybody who voted for Clinton" and "let's secede" out of them, nor so much as a hint that the country and the world would be better off if he were killed. Nor have I heard that sort of thing out of anyone on the right.
As I've already said though, I do think the anti-Clinton rhetoric got way too extreme in the '90s and it did turn me off. As I've gotten older I look at it with even more discomfort; some of it that I chuckled at then I now look back at and wince. But it was a different time, a less serious time. 9/11 changed everything for me in that regard; I know for some people that's a stereotype but it's absolutely how I feel.
Thank you for your irrelevant comment.
You've obviously mistaken me for a Bush-hater. I'm not, and never have been. I never said anything about anyone on the right equating Clinton with a mass murderer, and I despise people who do that to Bush. What I despise even more though, is when people cannot argue with me in a rational way and, instead, try to find a way to put words in my mouth that I would never say. Those people are immature and couldn't win an argument with a piece of celery.
I'm a huge supporter of Bush's foreign policy, even if I don't always agree with everything he's done to advance it (heaven forbid!) I just hate to see people so blinded by partisanship, on either side. I hate it when people take stories like the one Dean has linked to, and make it out to be something it is not. I think it makes every one of us, who are right of center or moderates, look absolutely like the people we criticize. I would say it makes us look silly. So, I call it when I see it.
Now, I understand people like you, Chris. When I criticize someone with whom you agree, it's an offense to you. So you jump into the argument, hoping to get a "zinger" in. You sit back, and feel proud of yourself that you "got me," when all you've done is made yourself look like an idiot. You can't see past the "Democrats can do no right. Republicans can do no wrong" mantra. Heaven forbid anyone criticise another who agrees with you. The wagons are circled. What a shame that you cannot have a debate, but rather, make up shit that I supposedly said, hoping to discredit an argument I've made.
In other words, Chris, you can take your non-argument, against something I never said, and, in the words of Terayyyyzaaaa Heinz, "shove it."
[/rant]
A.K.A. I just did that.
I assumed something about how Chris thought, and in response wrote a snarky post.
To be honest, I hadn't read anything in this thread but the comments of Scott Harris, and I responded to them. Didn't take the time to read others.
So Chris, I am sorry about the above comments. I stand by what I said about putting words in my mouth, but very little of the rest. I made assumptions about your motives that weren't true upon reading the entire thread and, for that, I apologize to you.
You are obviously not familiar with me. I have been a commenter on this site for almost two years, and others can attest that I don't jump to conclusions. I also am a regular visitor to liberal blogs, including the one run by Kevin Drum.
I am also not one to assert that Republicans are ALWAYS right, or that Democrats are ALWAYS wrong. I was alarmed by what I interpreted to be the implication of the article.
Perhaps my rhetorical fisking was a little over the top. I don't think there is any "conspiracy" to assassinate the President. But I stand by my interpretation of the article.
FYI, I emailed some other bloggers, like Michael Totten, and asked them if I was overreacting. Totten said yes, he thought I was overreacting, but also that the combination of the passage about McKinley's term in office, combined with the last sentence almost begged for my interpretation. He called the article "sloppy." And he didn't automatically assign me "moonbat" status.
Again, I am not saying that the NYT is involved in any conspiracy. But I have asked a question you have not yet answered.
What "History" referred to in the headline can "Save the Democrats" if not the history detailed in the article?
If the other "possibilities for a major reshaping event - a national calamity, a deep schism in the ruling party, the implosion of a social movement under the excesses of its own agenda or the emergence of an extraordinary political figure" was the main point, then why not discuss how the Whig party self-destructed, or other historical references? What exactly was the point of specifically referencing two Republican President's who were assassinated? Is it a warning to Bush to tread softly, lest he inflame his opponents? What is it.
You say it was innoccuous. Ok, it's innoccuous. So then what was the purpose of the article? Seriously.
One more thing. I didn't automatically assume your politics. I don't care for conspiracy theories either, and have been known to verbally chastise those on "my side" for seeing conspiracies where none exist. But you don't need to believe in a conspiracy to interpret the NYT article as grossly inappropriate.
Maybe you are afraid Bush will be assassinated, I don't know.
But there is nothing in that story to encourage one to assassinate the president.
Maybe, just maybe it had something to do with my email to the White House about the article - who knows. But here is their canned response
I am truly astounded that the attack of 9/11 was an Act of God. Maybe Bin Laden really is a prophet of God - at least the NYT seems to think so.
No problem, and I apologize for misunderstanding you and thinking that you were making a broader claim than you were (i.e. I thought that you were discussing all of the anti-bush vs. anti-clinton rhetoric, not merely the post-election anti-voting-for-the-other-guy rhetoric).
I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, and it was an honest misunderstanding of what you meant. But I don't think it matters for my question whether you support Bush or Clinton, and what I thought you meant certainly didn't presuppose either.
I voted for Bush and I'm no fan of Bill Clinton but I'll defend his signing of NAFTA any day. People don't necessarily like those that they defend; that's the curious situation that honest people sometimes find themselves in.