Defining Us By Our Extremes, Revealing their Prejudices
In the mid-1990s, when I was working on a Republican campaign in Arlington County and dating a Democrat, I took said Democrat to a social function for the campaign, a pot-luck dinner in a volunteer’s home. My date had a good time and appreciated the warm welcome he received (both as an out-Democrat and an out-gay man).
One thing which struck me was his comment as we were leaving. He said the gathering reminded him of similar such gatherings for Democrats in Denver (where he had grown up and first became active in politics). Most of the people were decent folk, but there were a few overly obsessed with politics and burning with bile. I try to keep that notion in mind every time I hear some harangue from an angry left-winger. That person doesn’t define their movement, but represents its extremes.
This notion came to mind as I reflect on my post on Tom Campbell. I probably should have given it a different title because I did not mean to suggest that the candidate is himself anti-Semitic. There is no evidence that he is. But, he does have some strange associations.
And said associations reminded me of some of the freaks and fanatics who frequent libertarian conclaves. And now is that given the Tea Party’s prominence, Democrats have suddenly determined that such freaks in GOP circles define the party, yet they — and their media allies — were strangely silent about such freaks in the anti-war movement.
Now, there’s even a movement afoot to crash the tea party and “propagate their pre-existing propensity for paranoia”. They define us by their prejudices and attempt to make them real by pretending to act on behalf of the movement by acting, not as do most Tea Party protesters, but as left-wingers believe we behave. They need to crash the tea party to make it fit their twisted perception of the reality of our rallies.
Can you imagine how, during the Bush era, the MSM would have reacted (and with good reason) if right-wingers had attempted to crash the anti-war rallies?
29 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Compared to this administration, no one on the right is an extremist.
Obama stiffed the MSM again, they chuckly, He is acting more and more like a dictator, they laugh it off.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0410/president_ditches_press_b52b56dc-bb69-4730-b538-b01cfc83f2b7.html
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — April 10, 2010 @ 6:51 pm - April 10, 2010
I’m not sure I get your last question about right-wingers attempting to crash anti-war rallies. To some extent, there was such a movement, and it was affiliated with the website protestwarrior.com. Partly inspired by Evan Coyne Maloney’s mini-documentaries about anti-war protestors, they started showing up at rallies and carrying clever signs that undermined the anti-war message. If the press knew about them, they kept silent. I suspect that’s because any mention of them would have meant the press would have had to provide a more accurate depiction of what really went on at most of the rallies, anyway, and there was no way they were going to do that.
Comment by Kurt — April 10, 2010 @ 7:05 pm - April 10, 2010
Kurt, the hypothetical would be about right-wingers carrying signs making the left-wingers look even more venomous than they actually are.
But, then again, given the left-wing venom, such signs weren’t necessary. So, what if I right-winger spiked the punch so to speak, with a sign saying “Bush=Hitler,” then some in the media might have focused not on the left-wingers hoisting signs saying as much, but on right-wingers trying to make left-wingers look loony.
Any clearer?
If not, let me know. And let know if you think I should attach the explanation above as an update to the post.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 10, 2010 @ 7:27 pm - April 10, 2010
Barack Obama ditches press to see daughter’s soccer game, right-wing newspaper gets a sore arse about it. He’s a dictator!
There’s a reason no one else reported on it. No one else is dumb enough to imply that he should’ve spent his limited time with the press pool rather than with one of his children.
[We performed a surgical strike-through here because the comment had nothing to do with the post to which it was attached. --Eds.]
Comment by Serenity — April 10, 2010 @ 7:35 pm - April 10, 2010
ahh but was he at his daughters soccer game? You are so gullable.
He could have been meeting a mistress confiring with George Soros or attending a secret anti semite conclave. By ditching the press pool, we will never really know.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — April 10, 2010 @ 8:04 pm - April 10, 2010
Well Serenity, what I must say to you then sound offensive, but after hearing Obama’s rant about black fathers and responsibility during the election, it needs to be said: would a responsible father forget about his daughter’s soccer game and schedule a press pool at the same time? That being said, he should have a date planner or something on the blackberry we hear he is constantly glued to; wouldn’t a responsible father have the date of his daughter’s game handy so that he could work around it?
Comment by That Guy — April 10, 2010 @ 9:07 pm - April 10, 2010
Remember during the campaign when Obama was supposed to be going to the gym? It turned out he was really meeting with potential running mates?
Sure, maybe he went to his daughters match. But who was there with him, and what were they talking about?
That’s why presidents DON’T ditch the press corps. Hiding from the press reeks of dishonesty.
Comment by American Elephant — April 10, 2010 @ 10:57 pm - April 10, 2010
Can you imagine how, during the Bush era, the MSM would have reacted (and with good reason) if right-wingers had attempted to crash the anti-war rallies?
Well, it’s not like the anti-war rallies and the media were on the same side. The media was on the side of the war, because war provides lots of coverage opportunities. I’ll never understand why conservatives believe the media is some hopelessly leftist, anti-war, anti-Bush institution; news executives are glad the war started, they’re glad it dragged on as long as it did, and they would like more wars to happen, so they can continue making money off of them. UNITED STATES DOESN’T INVADE IRAQ isn’t a headline that sells newspapers, you know?
I don’t think anyone would have cared if right-wingers infiltrated anti-war groups. But at least that was a legitimate issue of significance in the country, not like the teabaggers, who are pretty much just throwing hysterical pity parties for themselves because they lost an election. Your whole little movement is a total joke that lots of people just can’t take seriously – so prepare to get crashed. That’s kind of the way things go when a group of people gets as annoying and mean as the tea partiers have gotten.
Comment by Levi — April 10, 2010 @ 11:07 pm - April 10, 2010
Kurt, the hypothetical would be about right-wingers carrying signs making the left-wingers look even more venomous than they actually are.
But, then again, given the left-wing venom, such signs weren’t necessary. So, what if I right-winger spiked the punch so to speak, with a sign saying “Bush=Hitler,” then some in the media might have focused not on the left-wingers hoisting signs saying as much, but on right-wingers trying to make left-wingers look loony.
Any clearer?
If not, let me know. And let know if you think I should attach the explanation above as an update to the post.
Wow, if I may, don’t bother. That couldn’t be any less interesting or more irrelevant. With all the news about the Bush administration this week (the Iraq Wikileaks video, Bush’s wiretapping programs being ruled illegal, Obama’s continued copying of Bush’s insane legal arguments), you’re actually thinking of updating this post to include a longer explanation of how the media might react to some hypothetical situation that could have happened 5 years ago, but didn’t? Hey, it’s your blog.
I haven’t seen word one around here about the Wikileaks video – do you even know what that is? I would like to talk to some conservatives about it if I could, but no, I have to wade through posts praising Sarah Palin and more of these non sequitor challenges you’re so fond of offering.
[We performed a surgical strike-through to those parts of the comment which had nothing to do with the post to which it was attached. --Eds.]
Comment by Levi — April 10, 2010 @ 11:16 pm - April 10, 2010
Well, the problem with the hypothetical is that lots of folks at the anti-war rallies already carried those kinds of signs, but mostly those details were left out by the media who wanted to make the protestors seem as normal as possible. I don’t remember who it was who did an analysis of a photo that appeared in the SF Chronicle, but which turned out to be seriously cropped to hide the details of the sign the protestor was really carrying.
Another complicating issue is that the people with the Obama=Hitler signs at rallies and townhall meetings are usually Lyndon LaRouche supporters, and LaRouche, of course, is or was a Democrat, however a most unconventional one. But of course that detail is also left out of stories.
The biggest problem with the coverage of rallies is that the media has shown time and again that they are going to be dishonest in their coverage of any sort of political rally in a way that best suits their biases and their pre-conceived narrative.
Comment by Kurt — April 11, 2010 @ 1:14 am - April 11, 2010
Aha, here is the article I alluded to in my very poorly-worded first paragraph. I sometimes don’t know why I attempt to write comments late at night when I’m, evidently, not able to edit them as well as I should!
Comment by Kurt — April 11, 2010 @ 1:31 am - April 11, 2010
Your whole little movement is a total joke that lots of people just can’t take seriously – so prepare to get crashed. That’s kind of the way things go when a group of people gets as annoying and mean as the tea partiers have gotten.
Three words: Senator Scott Brown.
Your messiah Obama got up and said, in numerous speeches, that anyone who voted for Scott Brown was a racist, misogynist, Nazi teabagger who wanted people to die for lack of health insurance.
And your Obama and your Obama Party got crushed.
In Massachusetts.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 11, 2010 @ 1:32 am - April 11, 2010
Obama, his wife and his family have HUGE targets on them. Sometimes his whereabouts are not really ‘advertised or announced’ to not only keep the family safe but of those around him and his family. Plus it is alot easier to keep things simple for the secret service.
Comment by rusty — April 11, 2010 @ 1:35 am - April 11, 2010
Kurt, my point exactly.
Levi, if the media were on the side of the war, they sure had a strange way of showing it.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 11, 2010 @ 1:35 am - April 11, 2010
Bring video cameras to every Tea party event that you may attend. In the event that an LGBT left (progressive) protester oversteps the customary method of LGBT individuals arguing (invasion of one’s personal space and standing toe to toe attempting to provoke retaliation), be there to record every potential altercation of borderline confrontational behavior by the LGBT progressives. Conservatives did not know how to react when Kenneth Gladney was assaulted by SEIU members. Flying spittle is the mark of the LGBT progressive. Stand your ground unless they are foolish enough to physically assault you or another Tea Partier.
Comment by RJLigier — April 11, 2010 @ 9:00 am - April 11, 2010
As is true for all previous presidents and their families. There is an attempt to gin up assassination because of race by the whimpering leftists, but there is no statistical evidence to affirm what comes out of the mouths of sycophants.
Comment by heliotrope — April 11, 2010 @ 9:53 am - April 11, 2010
Helio –
” but there is no statistical evidence to affirm what comes out of the mouths of sycophants”
“Since Mr Obama took office, the rate of threats against the president has increased 400 per cent from the 3,000 a year or so under President George W. Bush, according to Ronald Kessler, author of In the President’s Secret Service.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5967942/Barack-Obama-faces-30-death-threats-a-day-stretching-US-Secret-Service.html
Try agian?
Comment by gillie — April 11, 2010 @ 12:13 pm - April 11, 2010
Funny:
Dan keeps hiseyes closed to reality by saying in the post “They define us by their prejudices and attempt to make them real by pretending to act on behalf of the movement by acting, not as do most Tea Party protesters, but as left-wingers believe we behave. ”
Then pooh-pooh the same act by the right and you show your own prejudices:
“But, then again, given the left-wing venom, such signs weren’t necessary.”
Comment by gillie — April 11, 2010 @ 12:19 pm - April 11, 2010
I thought these threats were all rendered moot with the words “President Biden”, and/or the elevation of Madam Speaker Pelosi?
Comment by Jax Dancer — April 11, 2010 @ 1:16 pm - April 11, 2010
“Since Mr Obama took office, the rate of threats against the president has increased 400 per cent from the 3,000 a year or so under President George W. Bush, according to Ronald Kessler, author of In the President’s Secret Service.”
Gillie, did you look at the date on the article you quoted?
It was from August, 2009 — and Obama did not take office until late January, 2009.
So how were they making projections of Obama receiving more threats “per year” when a year had not even passed yet?
Even more hilariously, you are quoting Ronald Kessler — who, in his role as editor of Newsmax, you have previously castigated for being an inaccurate liar.
Your desperation to protect your fellow racist and Jew-hater Barack Obama has made you look like a fool again, gillie. Do you realize how much your racist beliefs that black skin and supporting Jewish genocide make a person right and good are ruining the credibility of yourself and the Obama Party you represent?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 11, 2010 @ 3:15 pm - April 11, 2010
It is an interesting post.
There certainly are inconsistencies between what Dems think they should be able to do VS what they feel their opposition should be allowed to do.
Now, MSNBC did a LONG article about the horrible mistreatment of gays in Africa.
The buried the lede.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36376840/ns/world_news-africa/
After over 600 words of blah-blah-blah they finally got to the problem: Islam’s growing power/influence in Africa.
SCARY stuff.
(Too Off Topic???)
Comment by Nan G — April 11, 2010 @ 4:16 pm - April 11, 2010
So why are they barely covering it?
Pr0n for liberal sickos who get off watching brown people die.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 11, 2010 @ 5:09 pm - April 11, 2010
And yet Il Douche’s staff let in whomever into the WH.
BTW ghillie, where’s that statistical evidence?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 11, 2010 @ 5:18 pm - April 11, 2010
Kurt, my point exactly.
Levi, if the media were on the side of the war, they sure had a strange way of showing it.
Well, how do you mean? They were crawling all over each other to give platforms to Bush administration talking points. Dick Cheney said they would go on Tim Russert’s show whenever they wanted to ‘control the message.’ The tendency to trade access for favorable coverage had always been present in journalism, but it exploded during the Bush years. All the reasons we went in turned out to be false, and the media wasn’t able to pick up on any of it. The press was used extensively to disseminate rank propaganda, like stories about Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman. Does that sound like a hyper-critical anti-war institution do you?
Additionally, just think about this in business terms. Do you think news executives would rather have a war going on or not? News executives have a lot more people watch there their shows when there is any kind of conflict, war especially, versus, say, covering trade negotiations. Nowadays, the war isn’t popular, it’s dragged on, it’s pretty embarrassing, so its been pushed off the airwaves. But they’ll be there to go wall-to-wall when the next war breaks out, ready to sacrifice their already decimated credibility for a more viewers.
The belief that the media is a big liberal institution that is in on the all liberal plots and helps the liberal politicians is totally delusional – there really isn’t anything that is more beneficial to the Republican Party than the media. The insistence is that it is not is without any evidence whatsoever and reminds me of Oceania’s departments in 1984, they torture you in the Ministry of Love, the Ministry of Truth is where history is literally rewritten, etc. Your labeling of the media as liberal is exactly opposite, a lie so big that the more simple-minded among us will have a harder time not believing it.
Comment by Levi — April 12, 2010 @ 1:43 am - April 12, 2010
Is “delusional” newspeak for reality backed up with documented examples? I suppose their complete disinterest in Obama’s background while invading Wasilla, AK. and digging into Joe the Plumber’s background was a “Vast Rightwing Conspiracy” to make folks believe that they’re actually a liberal media?
And how do you explain “Fake, but accurate” military documents, but ZERO interest in digging into Obama’s transcripts or the lack of published articles? Or how do you explain their giggling like school girls every time they call American citizens “teabaggers”? Or how do you explain the networks hemorrhaging viewers while FNC gains them?
Most of all, how do you explain that whenever a Republican screws up, his party affiliation is in the headline while when a liberal screws up, his party affiliation is never mentioned? Please explain how all of these point to a Republican media.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 12, 2010 @ 7:28 am - April 12, 2010
TGC,
You’re asking Levi to back up his points. That’s like asking William Ayers not to blow up something.
Heck, he still can’t name any of those successful socialist countries, or understand the constitution.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 12, 2010 @ 9:33 am - April 12, 2010
Its not a new tactic and its one that can work, though it doesn’t seem to be working so far for opponents of the Tea Party movement. I would say its probably because Fox News takes a neutral, though some might say sympathetic, stance when it reports on them. Yes, MSNBC might point out extremist parts of the movement and then Fox News will go and run a story about how its not extreme.
I personally find the polling on the Tea Party fascinating, I know Politico ran some articles on how many women were involved and it did dispel the idea of it all being white men.
Comment by Darkeyedresolve — April 12, 2010 @ 11:40 am - April 12, 2010
Dick Cheney said they would go on Tim Russert’s show whenever they wanted to ‘control the message.’
Actually, that is a lie spread by paid Obama Party hack Dana Milbank.
That’s a new one even for the ignorant Levi: we’re used to him citing lies, but to misquote even one of the lies he’s cited, that goes well beyond.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 12, 2010 @ 3:08 pm - April 12, 2010
What? Levi lied? I’m shocked, shocked.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 12, 2010 @ 9:22 pm - April 12, 2010