View current page
...more recent posts

"Sadly, No!’s responses to Mark Kleiman’s response to Atrios’ response and Digby’s response to Ana Marie Cox’s response to Stephen Colbert’s routine at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner went way over the line of civility."

- dave 5-10-2006 4:54 pm [link] [add a comment]

sometimes people get exactly what they deserve. right, michael kelly? this is what he had to say about a speech al gore gave in the time leading up to the war in iraq. the speech is excerpt in the link, and was dead on. if you recall, kelly was an eager embed who died in an accident in the desert.

Gore's speech was one no decent politician could have delivered. It was dishonest, cheap, low. It was hollow. It was bereft of policy, of solutions, of constructive ideas, very nearly of facts--bereft of anything other than taunts and jibes and embarrassingly obvious lies. It was breathtakingly hypocritical, a naked political assault delivered in tones of moral condescension from a man pretending to be superior to mere politics. It was wretched. It was vile. It was
contemptible.

- dave 5-10-2006 4:51 pm [link] [add a comment]

the new drum beat from the right is that the left is angry. it started with hil and now everyones getting called on it. its too easy. better angry than mad.

But the message in this case truly is the medium. The e-mails pulse in my queue, emanating raw hatred. This spells trouble -- not for Bush or, in 2008, the next GOP presidential candidate, but for Democrats. The anger festering on the Democratic left will be taken out on the Democratic middle. (Watch out, Hillary!) I have seen this anger before -- back in the Vietnam War era. That's when the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated. --r.cohen

and so on.

The whole "angry left" myth is a copout, an escape-hatch for those who are confronted by fact and choose to respond by attacking the messenger rather than the message. It's a cowardly tactic that originated on the radical right (see Malkin and the "moonbats"); lately, we have seen its use on the rise in the traditional media. It is, indeed, a pathetic diversionary tactic. Instead of addressing the substance of the critique, those who use the easy-out "angry left" defense avoid addressing the true issue at hand.

- bill 5-10-2006 12:28 pm [link] [add a comment]