« Risk and Return | Main | The Mechanisms of Denial »
Power Line Speaks
The Power Line gang clarifies after yesterday's queries from me. There was, up until now, a generous construal of their claim that Jimmy Carter is "on the other side," namely that that was a piece of thoughtless and irresponsible rhetorical exaggeration designed simply to make the point that they disapprove of Carter's policy views. Today's post, however, specifically reaffirms the charge that Carter is "on the other side" and states that in earlier posts they have been not just "too kind to Mr. Carter" but much too kind to him. Carter deserves, in other words, allegations that are much more serious than the allegation that he is on the other side in the war on terrorism.
Hindrocket would like to construe this as a dispute between his side and "those who admire Carter" but this is a red herring. I don't admire the Power Line bloggers, but I don't think they're on the other side. I don't admire George W. Bush, but I don't think he's on the other side.
What's being elided here is the all-important distinction between political disagreement and warfare. So I'd be interested in hearing the views of the "responsible" right out there. Power Line is not an obscure site by any means. Indeed, it's become one of the most prominent nodes in the conservative blogosphere. Do others out there think Jimmy Carter is on the other side? Working in league with Osama bin Laden and others who seek the mass murder of American citizens? Or is this more the sort of situation where an increasingly shrill and hysterical right-wing has, despite its monopoly on political power in this country, chosen to adopt a bizarre paranoid worldview in which the fact that many people (including almost half of the American population and an absolute majority of the citizens of the world) think it's policies are misguided is equivalent to the existence of a vast global conspiracy to advance the jihad? David Horowitz's Discover the Network site in which we learn of an undifferentiated left composed, apparently, of John Podest, Mohammed Atta, John Kerry, Ayatollah Khomeini, Rob Reiner, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi might also be relevant here. Or to put it another way: What's wrong with you people?
February 17, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1861634
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Power Line Speaks:
» Speaking for myself... from Notes in Samsara
Sorry Matthew, but I think these neocons, conservatives, theocrats, protofascists, fascists, cryptonazis, and out and out Nazis are the enemy. I think they're the greatest threat to American freedom and democracy. I think they've done considerable da... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 17, 2005 12:26:17 PM
» "Treasonous prick" from QandO
"Treasonous prick"
I also find it odd that Matthew called that charge "unsubstantiated", but has proceeded to ignore the subsequent examples of Carter's (attempted) subversion of the US government. [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 17, 2005 2:52:26 PM
» WAR: Meeting With The Enemy from Baseball Crank
It's time for another episode of "let's make an important distinction here." Matt Yglesias continues to argue that the Powerline guys are way, way out of line to say that Jimmy Carter is "on the other side," contending that this... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 17, 2005 6:34:44 PM
» Networking from Preposterous Universe
Seems like everyone on the left-hand side of the blogosphere is having great fun with David Horowitz's latest misadventure, DiscoverTheNetwork: A Guide to the Political Left. The website tracks the many connections between the vast left-wing conspir... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 18, 2005 7:17:52 AM
» Some dare call it treason from Crooked Timber
I don’t know if we have any readers who don’t also read Fafblog; if there are any out there, they should check out his intervention in the recent blogospheric debate on treason. Treason isn’t just providin aid an comfort to... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 18, 2005 10:38:07 AM
» Sniffing The Trail... from Have Coffee Will Write
In Jimmy Carter Is A Traitor, my friend John Pikes linked earlier this weak to a story from Powerline that claims to support that assertion. The last time I checked, being a Traitor is a capital offense. A quick read of the legal language finds that ... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 23, 2005 8:58:26 PM
Comments
Someone over at Powerline should not be surprised if they get visited by the Secret Service.
Posted by: Rob | Feb 17, 2005 10:34:46 AM
Matt, what's wrong with them is that they are complete, utter shitheads who cannot and will not be reasoned with. Liberals/enemies lurk behind every tree; they and they alone are heirs to the courage and steadfastness that made this country great; criticizing the president or his policies even in mild form is tantamount to treason. They are filled with a curious and dangerous sense of both entitlement and resentment. And even the most moderate left-leaning types are on the enemies list and, in their most fervent dreams, will be dealt with some day.
Posted by: Bgno64 | Feb 17, 2005 10:39:59 AM
Rob:
I hope that wouldn't happen. I think we need robust debate. To me this is part of the Karl Rove playbook: run right at your weaknesses. Bush has coddled the Saudis and Musharraf, who harbors bin Laden and AQ Khan. Iraq is a red herring to divert attention from his failures to confront the sources of terror in our world. If we are going to be frank about Carter's perceived errors, let's do the same for Bush, who is, by the way, actually President right now.
Bush is an apologist for Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The current and former home of bin Laden. His motives are fair game now. About time.
Posted by: epistemology | Feb 17, 2005 10:41:29 AM
I'd likewise like to hear the views of the "responsible" right on this issue, but, honestly, I'm having difficulty thinking of who might fit that description. Seriously, who are you referring to here?
btw, Matt, I'm curious to hear your views on Dubya's decision to nominate Ambassador Death Squad to be our country's first National Intelligence Director.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=508134
Posted by: pat m. | Feb 17, 2005 10:42:54 AM
Yes! Captain Death Squads brings the show on the road to a place called America! Can't wait for the confirmation hearings...
Posted by: fnook | Feb 17, 2005 10:49:41 AM
I'm not a conservative, and yesterday I thought Powerline's rhetoric was excessive. However, if what they posted about Carter's behavior during the 80s is accurate, Carter is a pretty despicable character. Now, I halfway expect politicians, including ex-presidents, to be pretty despicable, so I'm not exactly shocked. Carter's behavior, however, if accurately described, is pretty bad.
Would I say, Carter is "on the other side"? No, because it is a vague phrase that can be interpreted as meaning anything from being a deliberate ally of Al Queda, to being a hackish pol whose self-serving behavior works against the undisputed interests of the United States. Better to avoid such rhetorical excess, like tossing about the label "facist" in a silly fashion, as some Democrats are wont to do. I think there is more to criticize in Carter's behavior, however, than in Powerline's.
Posted by: Will Allen | Feb 17, 2005 10:49:57 AM
I think Krugman's column "The Arabian Candidate" actually makes a good case that Bush *is* on the other side.
It is hard to imagine what more he could have done in the past four years to help Islamic fundamentalism.
Posted by: AlGore | Feb 17, 2005 10:53:21 AM
Jimmy Carter is on the other side.
Posted by: Reg | Feb 17, 2005 10:54:52 AM
I believe you idenitifed it last week; Reynoldsism is widespread, and its proponents appear to believe it sincerely. The most powerful reactionary bloggers are not merely disgraceful McCarthyite hacks; they're very proud of it. The new Powerline post is exceptionally vile discourse, but at least there can no longer be any question about whether it's just strawman building. To the Powerline/Reynolds/Hewitt Axis of Scumbags and their many lickspittles, you either uncritically support Republican foregin policy (whatever it is at the current moment, unrelated to any general principle), or you're a traitor. There's nothing more complex going on here, and this proves it.
Posted by: Scott Lemieux | Feb 17, 2005 10:59:31 AM
Reg is on the other side. I'm on the other side. Ooh, this feels good. Join in. Anyone can play...
Posted by: fnook | Feb 17, 2005 11:01:02 AM
I suggest each of us bombard discoverthenetwork and demand to know why our names aren't on the list!
Cheers,
DMCG
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individual.asp
Posted by: Daniel McGuire | Feb 17, 2005 11:01:45 AM
What a bunch of hacks. It's hard to do anything but laugh. You just can't take seriously the half-baked conspiracy theories and over-the-top rhetoric peddled in this post. I mean, really, this is low-grade schoolyard stuff; it's embarrassing to hear it from three middle-aged lawyers. (One of whom works at a law firm that I used to consider fairly respectable; I'm rethinking that.)
And this is coming from someone who thinks that Carter was pretty close to an unmitigated disaster (the mitigation, if your interested, is provided by his work for Habitat for Humanity).
Incidentally, stating "We could have called that treason, but we didn't" is defamatory per se: they've just accused Carter of a crime, and the context indicates that (a) it's not mere rhetoric and (b) they don't have the evidence to back up the charge (or, at least, they haven't presented it). Whether it's an actionable claim by a public figure that can be proven in a court of law is, of course, open to question.
Posted by: von | Feb 17, 2005 11:03:00 AM
"I don't admire George W. Bush, but I don't think he's on the other side."
- OBL allowed to escape at Tora Bora.
- Anti-Al Qaida governments throughout the Middle East made weaker by the Iraq war.
- Consistent US policies that enhance Tehran's influence in the region.
Is Bush the Texan candidate, or the Tehranian candidate?
We report. You decide.
Posted by: Petey | Feb 17, 2005 11:03:48 AM
Not to mention Bush destroying the U.S.'s reputation, fiscal solvency, and lead in science and technology
Posted by: AlGore | Feb 17, 2005 11:04:20 AM
I think the Powerline folks believe that Carter wants the U.S. to be less powerful and influential in the world and thus is on the “other side” of what the U.S. is today and what they want it to remain.
That doesn’t make him a “traitor”. In fact, one could root for a defeat in Iraq if one thought that was the route to a weaker U.S. that would make the world as a whole better, and still not be a “traitor”.
Posted by: Robert Brown | Feb 17, 2005 11:06:42 AM
Hinderaker's smear is a pretty good example of the kind of escalating, hysterical attacks that we can expect from the triumphalist Dubya II goons. At some point we should expect it to go beyond words, to prosecutions and physical attacks.
Mainstream Democrats, as far as I can tell, have no idea whatsoever how to respond to this kind of thing. Everywhere I see people making snappy little arguments based on factual points, as if that will make any difference. Ann Coulter has been calling us traitors in the national media for years, as has Rush Limbaugh. Now a lot of the more mainstream people are picking it up.
It really does piss me off to still be the marginal one. I was right about WMD when half the Democratic Party was wrong. I was right about the Swift Boat Veterans when the Democratic pros made the decision to ignore them and wait for them to go away. And now I'm right about what we can expect during Dubya Two, when Norquist and Rove will put into effect their plan to use slander and dirty tricks to totally destroy the Democratic Party as a political force.
And the Democrats will be whimpering "But....but....but...that's just WRONG. It makes me so MAD...."
The Republican Party believes that it is on the point of achieving one-party rule, and they're working toward that goal. Hinderaker and Instapundit are bright guys, but they're on board with the Rove-Norquist plan. They and their kind will use rationality and civil discussion whenever convenient and useful (especially for the purpose of confusing and demoralizing the Democrats), and they'll squeal with rage if any Democrat crosses the line of civility, but they'll also use traditional goon squad tactics whenever those seems useful.
Like whipped dogs hoping for their master to become nice again, for years now Democrats have been looking pitifully to the other side of the line for rational conservatives and moderate Republicans to discuss the issues with. The few that still exist are begging Rove not to hurt them. Rove hates them as much as he hates us.
Sure, we might still win the Social Security battle, but the fact that they even dared to try to destroy Social Security shows how confident they are -- it's the equivalent of Robert E Lee laying siege to Boston. They have other fish to fry which are more important to them -- WWIV, in my guess.
Posted by: John Emerson | Feb 17, 2005 11:06:48 AM
Actually, Scott, Reynolds has been critical of Bush foreign policy on occasion, so I guess by your reasoning, Reynolds is calling himself a member of Al Queda. Powerline has expressed some degree of pessimism on occasion as well, so I guess they have done the same. That you cannot discern the difference between criticizing aspects of Bush Administration policy, and inviting Michael Moore to sit a place of honor at a political convention, indicates a lack of crtitical reasoning.
By the way, if the Republicans were so stupid as to invite Jerry Falwell to sit next to the first George Bush at their convention, in light of Falwell's remarks to the effect that the United States got what it deserved on 9/11, I'd expect, and have no strong objection to, Democrats engaging in great rhetorical excess. Carter, a former President of the United States, has honored, and thus implicitly endorsed the views of, a propagandist who in turn implies that the President of the United States has stronger allegiance to the Bin laden family than to his oath of office. And people are to get all bothered because bloggers say Carter is "on the other side"? Give me a very large break.
Posted by: Will Allen | Feb 17, 2005 11:22:10 AM
Will:
You have an opportunity to distance yourself from Powerline's insanity (and stop lying about why Moore got into the Carter box at the convention). Use it or get the fuck out of here. Nobody's interested in talking to someone who thinks half the country is made up of traitors.
Posted by: Hank Scorpio | Feb 17, 2005 11:25:15 AM
"and stop lying about why Moore got into the Carter box at the convention"
Huh?
Posted by: Petey | Feb 17, 2005 11:27:15 AM
So I'd be interested in hearing the views of the "responsible" right out there.
I suppose, in Matthew's world, this excludes me. Nevertheless, let me add that I find it interesting that the Powerline authors continue to add evidence to back up their claim. So we know about Carter's backing of Castro and Chavez, now we also know about his backing of the Soviets over Reagan in the mid-80s, and his silence with respect to Iraqi democracy. They are piling up a pretty good case against Carter.
Matthew, on the other hand, provides absolutely no evidence at all. Matthew thinks that ad hominem attacks and invective ("increasingly shrill and hysterical right-wing" or "bizarre paranoid worldview") should be sufficient as argument.
As between a well-supported argument backed by copious evidence and simple ad hominem attacks with no evidence at all to back it up, I think the side actually using evidence has the better of the argument. But, as today's left-wing makes absolutely clear, they don't agree; they think that the harsher the ad hominem attack, the more powerful their argument.
Posted by: Al | Feb 17, 2005 11:27:58 AM
Reg, again, you make a thoughtful, well-reasoned, and important contribution to advancing discourse in the U.S.
Posted by: AlGore | Feb 17, 2005 11:28:38 AM
What's being elided here is the all-important distinction between political disagreement and warfare.
Also, this seems to me to be completely wrong. No one is accusing Carter of "warfare" against us. We are saying that, as between our side and the other side, he has made a choice to support one of them. And it isn't our side.
But "support" =/= "warfare".
Posted by: Al | Feb 17, 2005 11:30:45 AM
"I suppose, in Matthew's world, this excludes me."
No one would ever accuse you of being responsible, Al. Or sensible. Or coherent. Or intellectually honest.
Posted by: Petey | Feb 17, 2005 11:31:13 AM
Yes, it does exclude you, Al.
Posted by: John Emerson | Feb 17, 2005 11:31:25 AM
Al, are you capable of having the slightest bit of doubt about any claim that supports your world-view? Or do you just assume anything that you like must automatically be proven fact?
Posted by: AlGore | Feb 17, 2005 11:33:27 AM
It's worth noting that FrontPageMag has a known propensity for just making stuff up, so I'll need a better source there.
Posted by: praktike | Feb 17, 2005 11:37:24 AM
Al, you are a moron.
To you, "Us" = right wingers. No one can have a different opinion about what is the best course of action unless it aligns with your narrow, jingoistic, macho, arrogant worldview.
You *know* that Bush turned record surpluses into record deficits.
You *know* Bush did nothing to try to stop 9/11, despite all the warnings.
You *know* Bush didn't get ObL, 'dead or alive.'
You *know* the "we know where the weapons are," etc were all lies to get us to expend hundreds of billions of dollars and closing in on 2,000 American lives to install a pro-Iran government in Iraq.
You *know* Bush has destroyed America's reputation throughout much of the world.
You *know* all that (and everything else mentioned above.
Yet you ignore all that and harp on Jimmy Carter?
Way to love the U.S.!
Posted by: AlGore | Feb 17, 2005 11:38:52 AM
""and stop lying about why Moore got into the Carter box at the convention"
Huh?"
Ditto. Huh? I'm genuinely curious.
Posted by: JBT | Feb 17, 2005 11:39:26 AM
Or to put it another way: What's wrong with you people?
Well said. This is what separates MY from Kevin Drum. A willingness to see the insanity for what it is.
A wise man once said, "You might not like the guys you're flying with and they might not like you, but whose side are you on?"
Okay, it was Ice Man from Top Gun. But words to live by.
Posted by: space | Feb 17, 2005 11:40:30 AM
Gosh, hank, I was unaware that Moore forced his way into Carter's box, or that Carter's Secret Service escort was taking the day off, thus rendering it impossible for Carter to have Tubby Riefenstahl removed.
When an ex-President tolerates the presence of the likes of Michael Moore, that ex-President, or his defenders, completely lose any credibility regarding complaints pertaining to the rhetorical excesses of others. Completely. Would I have used Powerline's rhetoric? No, but then I wouldn't be seen in public with Michael Moore either, much less grant him a place of honor, under any circumstances short of Moore's life being in danger, which I would then follow with a public denunciation of Moore's work, lest anyone think that a former President of the United States was associating himself with Moore's views, or even conceding that Moore's views were worthy of consideration.
Quit infantalizing Carter and Moore. They chose to associate with each other, and their choice is worthy of being examined on it's merits.
Posted by: Will Allen | Feb 17, 2005 11:41:13 AM
The stuff about Carter that powerline references comes from Peter Schweitzer's book "Reagan's War." Here's the URL to a review of the book printed in The Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030203&c=1&s=uhler
Posted by: Jon K | Feb 17, 2005 11:41:29 AM
I hope Powerline will lengthen his list. Who else is on the other side? Stephen Walt? Andrew Sullivan? Matt Yglesias? Dan Drezner? Greg Djerejian? Samantha Power? Kenneth Waltz? Those who've sponsored torture since 9/11? Those who've adduced evidence of torture? Those who are responsible for the recruitment of so many jihadists in Iraq as reported by the new director of the CIA? Just what are the criteria that distinguish their evil side from Our Good Side? And what penalties, other than scorn and obloquy, should be visited upon those on the other side? Should Mr. Gonzales be called on to look to ask his criminal division to bring treason charges against Carter and other Other Siders?
Powerline is quite right, he's just begun to explore the implications of his contribution to the standads of public debate in America today. He and his allies have just begun to fight. And agreeing with him that Carter has crossed to the Other Side, those Matt calls on to speak out will either candidly agree or tacitly acquiesce in this exercise in verbal civil war. After all, traitors have no arguments worth answering, and if one is on the side of those who favored the measures that have weakened America's position in the world in the way Stephen Walt and others have described, not having to deal with such arguments is a great convenience.
Posted by: Cheerleader | Feb 17, 2005 11:41:53 AM
I think what's being elided is the difference between political disagreement, and this:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000953----000-.html
Which isn't "treason", but IS a "crime".
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Feb 17, 2005 11:42:15 AM
I was stationed in the Pentagon when Carter was elected. There were grown men, Colonels and such, in shock. They were vocal in their belief that Carter (and more than likely Democrats in general) was going to sell out the country to the Communists. We were all dead.
Obviously that crowd is still vocal.
Posted by: majkia | Feb 17, 2005 11:43:49 AM
Matthew, on the other hand, provides absolutely no evidence at all.
No. Matt just realizes that having a debate about whether a former President is a traitor borders on schizophrenia.
Posted by: tom | Feb 17, 2005 11:44:41 AM
"which I would then follow with a public denunciation of Moore's work"
Too bad you weren't advising John Kerry. I believe Kerry would've won the election had he done exactly that.
Posted by: Petey | Feb 17, 2005 11:47:32 AM
Alan Keyes has disowned his lesbian daughter, turned her out of the house, and no longer pays her tuition at Brown.
It is quite simple. We have to increase the costs for moderates. Democrats and lefty-moderates have very little in the way of benefits to offer, and I see little prospect of us gaining enough power to do so. So all we have left is ostracism and public condemnation. It will do no good to attack Powerline and Reynolds, they are beyond reach. But as long as moderates achieve benefits from sucking up to Republicans and pay no price, they won't change their behavior.
In the early thirties reasonable people invited Nazis to their dinner parties, where not only the Nazis received some validification, but those undecided and on the fence saw that it was ok to be a Nazi. By 1935 it was too late.
a) Don't socialize with Republicans or conservatives
b) Don't socialize with people who socialize with Republicans or conservatives.
c) Attack as if your life were at stake, because it is.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Feb 17, 2005 11:47:40 AM
Bush is destroying the American economy. He is inserting torture lovers and death squad bosses into the highest reaches of the admin. He lies "like a rug". He is subverting the constitution in order for Mr. Death Squads and company to more effectively spy on us (or worse).
When we look at this fundamental "anchor point" it becomes clear that Carter IS, in fact, on "the other side"....OUR SIDE. The Powerline fascists are, in fact, correct in saying that Carter is NOT on their side. I congratulate Mr. Carter on his achievements and note that an accusation like that from Powerline Brownshirts is a SERIOUS compliment.
Posted by: 1MaNLan | Feb 17, 2005 11:50:45 AM
On to the next one! Down with Soros!
Posted by: praktike | Feb 17, 2005 11:51:02 AM
"Matt just realizes that having a debate about whether a former President is a traitor borders on schizophrenia."
If you're handling both sides of the debate, maybe. Otherwise, I'm somewhat averse to labeling arguments which might have some factual basis as mental illness.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Feb 17, 2005 11:51:02 AM
When an ex-President tolerates the presence of the likes of Michael Moore
Hasn't Rush Limbaugh actually been on the stage at past Republican conventions?
Pot, meet kettle.
Posted by: Bgno64 | Feb 17, 2005 11:53:13 AM
What's wrong with you people?
First, many of them are frauds who simply don't believe what they are saying. But they are sincerely obsessed with a phantom menace of their own creation that they call collectively "liberals", and they seem to blame these imaginary foes for some personal pains or slights in their pasts. What they have discovered is that these sorts of rhetorical tactics are an effective and predictable way of eliciting squeals of anguish from progressives, leftists, liberals, what have you. Since they live to enjoy such squeals, obsessed as they are with exacting sadistic revenge for some imagined humiliations in their past, they will keep pushing the buttons until the squeals stop. Advice to their targets: stop squealing.
Evidence from the case before us: PowerLine seemed poised to moderate their attack on Carter, until they realized the attack was getting a rise out of Matthew and others, at which point they decided to redouble the attack.
Many on the left, who are of a naturally internationalist bent, but who remember the earlier pogroms, persecutions and purges of ultranationalist, super-sovereigntist zealots in the century just past, constantly have their antennae out for scary accusations of treason and the like. But the loud and angry protests from sensible internationalists only play into the ultranationalist game. Throwing out random accusations of treason is the way these miserable little fascisti engage in range-finding. Like an air incursion designed to light up ground defenses, this is their way of identifying sensitive and vulnerable targets for more focussed belligerancy later. For those bothered by these attacks: your opponents are not serious people and they are only empowered by hot resposnes; just tell these little Hitlers to fuck off and get on with your work.
So, many of would-be scourges of the left are posers and frauds. Some of them, however, are quite sincere. They honestly believe that there is one grand, all-encompassing global conflict underway, that their favorite conlict is more important than all others, that there are only two sides in that conflict, and that all other conflicts are subsidiary to the grand conflict. They also believe that it is somehow existentially unavoidable that each individual work for one side in this conflict or the other - perhaps thy believe along with Bob Dylan that you have to serve somebody, and it is either the Devil or the Lord - adding only that the Lord lives on Pennsylvania Avenue. As a consequence, they believe that you are either on their side, or the other side as either a willing accomplice or a useful idiot.
This is such a stupid, unfounded worldview that one needs only state it to see its manifest stupidity shine forth.
There is also some easily discernable projection in some of these attacks, at least from people like Horowitz. Many are converts from some earlier, youthful, leftwing ideology, and they seem to find the "despiser of America" label an acccurate description of that earlier incarnation of themselves. So they project it onto others with whom they disagree. But they haven't really changed much. They were fanatical simpletons then; they are fanatical simpletons now. They have always had a dull and crude view of the world, and struggle to find meaningful categories to apply to diverse and complex body of those with whom they disagree; so they find the simplest label they can handle and apply it universally.
In conclusion, these attackers are either frauds or simpletons. I think the left would do better by making fun of them than by responding with smarting indignation. A campaign of derision and calm contempt won't defeat them quickly, but in the long run it will marginalize them. These jokers need to be put back in the ridiculous little corner they once inhabited.
Posted by: Dan Kervick | Feb 17, 2005 11:53:20 AM
"Don't socialize with people who socialize with Republicans or conservatives."
You must lead a glorious social life, Bob.
I wouldn't break bread with Al, but I'd certainly do so with Will Allen.
Posted by: Petey | Feb 17, 2005 11:54:38 AM
Another lovely debate with Al, Brett, and Will. certainly a profitable use of everyone's time.
Posted by: John Emerson | Feb 17, 2005 11:55:05 AM
You might be right, Petey. Yglesias' attitude towards Powerline's rhetoric is amusingly ironic. A propagandist makes a film that grosses over 100 million dollars, a film which implies that the President of the United States has greater loyalty to the Bin laden family than to his oath of office. Prominent Democrats gather in Washington for an uncritical premier of the film. The leader of the Democrats in the Senate publicly embraces the propagandist. A former Democratic President of the United States grants the propagandist a seat of honor at their political convention. And Matthew gets all bent out of shape when some bloggers say that the former President is "on the other side"? Aye, yi, yi.....
Posted by: Will Allen | Feb 17, 2005 11:59:04 AM
"Another lovely debate with Al, Brett, and Will. certainly a profitable use of everyone's time."
There's a place called Daily Kos where you can avoid them pesky dissenting opinions...
Posted by: Petey | Feb 17, 2005 11:59:44 AM
"When an ex-President tolerates the presence of the likes of Michael Moore, that ex-President, or his defenders, completely lose any credibility regarding complaints pertaining to the rhetorical excesses of others. Completely." -- Will Allen
Will, speaking in absolutes does not make your judgments absolutely correct. What do we, er, you, gain by hanging Carter in effigy at this specific point in time?
Posted by: fnook | Feb 17, 2005 12:00:42 PM
Dan Kervick has made the smartest post I've read in a while.
Posted by: space | Feb 17, 2005 12:02:43 PM
Horowitz went from the far left to the far right without getting any more decent. Once a goon, always a goon. I remember thinking at the time that his slick magazine, Ramparts, was sort of creepy. My politics was reasonably close to Ramparts', but their arrogance, slickness, dogmatism, and realpolitik bothered me.
Posted by: John Emerson | Feb 17, 2005 12:02:57 PM
Having John Emerson complain about dogmatism is the funniest post I've read in a while.
Posted by: Will Allen | Feb 17, 2005 12:06:20 PM
"And Matthew gets all bent out of shape when some bloggers say that the former President is "on the other side?"
Well...
I share Matthew's indignation at the Carter smear. It's out-of-bounds discourse that should be punished through that kind of outrage.
It's a perfectly legitimate political tool to try to force Republicans into taking a stand on whether they agree with that kind of smear. Just as it was a legitimate political tool for the Republicans to try to tie the Kerry campaign to Moore's rhetoric.
I'm very conflicted about "Tubby Riefenstahl". I enjoy his movies, and happily give him my money. But I cringed when I saw him in Carter's box, and waited in vain all campaign long for Kerry to take the obvious step of Sister Souljah-ing him.
But none of that means the outrage over the Powerline Carter comments is unjustified.
Posted by: Petey | Feb 17, 2005 12:08:12 PM
Q: Why did the inoffensively liberal chicken not cross the road?
A: It was already on the other side. Ha! Ha! Ha! [silence] What, you don't think that's funny? Hey, boys, this terrorsymp doesn't think that's funny. Let's show him some funny...
Posted by: DonBoy | Feb 17, 2005 12:08:54 PM
fnook, if Matthew wasn't posting on Carter, I'd be ignoring him. It's just a little rich for anybody to complain about rhetorical excess directed at Carter, given Carter's chosen associations.
Posted by: Will Allen | Feb 17, 2005 12:09:43 PM
The problem, Dan Kervick, is that these sniveling little frauds have no intention of going quietly. Dave Niewert has done an exhaustive job chronicling what he calls the "eliminationist rhetoric" of certain types on the right, and by all measures it's increasing; the labeling of Carter as on the "other side" is a milder version of this, but a version of it nonetheless. For if he's a traitor, what's the penalty for treason? It's death, isn't it?
There is a great frustration and resentment fueling this sort of rhetoric; Paul Craig Roberts has suggested that the Iraq war is serving as a catharsis for multiple conservative frustrations, from job loss to Darwinism, homosexuality to abortion; and indeed, it's really been since the advent of the war that this sort of rhetoric really began to increase.
Adding to it, of course, is the fact that the war itself has gone far less well than they assured us it would. In their world, this, of course, is no fault of the administration, has nothing to do with too few troops or failure to plan for the post-war; it's the liberals. The liberals are at fault, the liberals are against America.
It's "You are with us or you are against us" taken to its logical (or illogical, as the case may be) extreme.
These people now feel empowered with the reelection of the president; they are louder than ever. They mean business. The question becomes, at what point does rhetorical violence, explicit or implicit, become the real thing?
This overwhelming resentment, this sense of being beseiged, with liberals/traitors behind every tree, can it be contained and marginalized? Or does it go the next step?
At what point do they stop merely inveighing against those "on the other side" and try to do something about it?
Posted by: Bgno64 | Feb 17, 2005 12:12:05 PM
Petey, Al is endorsing the conclusion that we are almost all traitors here. Is this a subject for civil discussion? Isn't there any cutoff point for you? (Except for "fuck the hippies", I mean.)
If you can't see what Al is and where this is going, for all your supposed realism and toughmindedness you're a lamb to the slaughter. This isn't normal politics any more.
By sheer persistence Al can dominate any thread, as he has this one. His discourse is insulting and often fact-free.
When he's not around, there's a much higher possibility that something productive will be said. Productive argument requires good will and willingness to be persuaded on both sides of the line. Al doesn't ever have either.
Our two one-man libertarian splinter groups here, Brett and Will, aren't as nasty as Al, but neither one has much to learn or to teach. Wouldn't most of us be libertarians already by now if we ever were going to be?
Look over the posts here already and ask yourself whether you might not be interested in what these posters would have to say on a thread not hijacked by Al, Brett, and Will. Wouldn't that be a more productive thread?
I guess the Democrat's epitaph should read "Polite to the End".
Posted by: John Emerson | Feb 17, 2005 12:17:54 PM
Well, Petey, like I said, I wouldn't employ Powerline's words, but it is always amusing how people are selectively outraged about use of such excessive rhetoric. The belief that one's side is devoid of the qualities that are intolerable in one's opponents is a fairly constant component in the political partisan's pathetic attempt to achieve an unearned sense of superiority.
Posted by: Will Allen | Feb 17, 2005 12:18:16 PM
Whatever happens, the wise and noble Will Allen will certainly be amused.
Posted by: John Emerson | Feb 17, 2005 12:21:20 PM
John: I agree with what you're saying, but what can we do that would make a difference? I suspect the answer is nothing, other than buy a gun.
Posted by: Walt Pohl | Feb 17, 2005 12:22:32 PM
Will. I'm not as dogmatic as I seem. I just don't like you personally. You seem to be a waste of time.
Posted by: John Emerson | Feb 17, 2005 12:23:18 PM
Certainly by you, John.
Posted by: Will Allen | Feb 17, 2005 12:24:08 PM
OK. Fair enough Will. Matt's excitable I suppose. From now on, whenever I run in to loud belligerent Republicans at the airport I'll be careful to overlook their rhetorical excesses. They're a little excitable too I suppose. However, I'm confident that I'd be willing to register an appropriate amount of rhetorical disapproval if I walked into a bar and entered into a conversation with someone trying to convince me that Carter was a traitor, and hence I too was a traitor because I was unwillinng to scream as loud as them about how bad Carter was. What a joke. People pay this guy to do legal work for them?
Posted by: fnook | Feb 17, 2005 12:26:50 PM
It's a bit rich for anyone who voted for George Bush, the man who allowed 9/11 to happen, to accuse _anyone_ of being on the other side. But let's be honest -- for any Bush supporter, like PowerLine -- 9/11 is the best thing ever to happen to them. Before the bodies were even cold, they began to turn their attention away from the real people responsible (both the actions of Osama bin Laden and his network of Saudi bankrollers, the negligence of the Bush administration) and towards score-settling with their neighbors. PowerLine should quit dissembling, and just send a donation to al Queda.
Posted by: Walt Pohl | Feb 17, 2005 12:27:39 PM
Walt, I don't know either. Getting Al's nasty ass out of here wouldn't have any productive political effect, but having him here gloating and sniping is like having a Nazi member in a Jewish group. He and his kind really hate us, and dirty work is in the offing, and we're supposed to sit and chat with him.
Al, of course, will deny that he hates us, and will deny that there's any dirty work afoot, but whatever happens will be OK with him.
Posted by: John Emerson | Feb 17, 2005 12:29:38 PM
Golly gee, John, why do you then make such a habit of addressing me personally? In any case, I'll renew an offer I've made before. I'll gladly be amused by your unintentionally ironic yammerings without ever addressing you again, if you wish. You can refrain from addressing me again, and thus signal that this is your desire. I do so hate wasting your time.....
Posted by: Will Allen | Feb 17, 2005 12:30:26 PM
Here's Dan Perkins (aka Tom Tomorrow) and his account of how Moore got into Carter's box at the convention.
"The mundane truth, if anyone's in the least interested, is that we were on the skybox level of the Fleet Center because Michael had just done O'Reilly's show in the Fox booth, and we were making our way down the hallway and Michael was getting mobbed, and one of the Carters happened to see us and invited us to take refuge in their skybox. So, if the question is, "Was a liberal/left filmmaker shown spur-of-the-moment hospitality by a once-prominent political family which has very little power or influence over the modern-day Democratic party?", then the answer is "Yes." But that's where it ends. There were no signals being sent, there was no greater meaning implied. It was a completely random event, utterly lacking the significance some people insist on reading into it."
This is the thin reed that Will is trying to hang his Powerline/Michael Moore moral equivalence on.
Posted by: Hank Scorpio | Feb 17, 2005 12:32:43 PM
Yeah, damn that traitorous Carter! And then he had the audacity to secretly and illegally trade arms to those Iranian terrorists, too!
Oh wait a sec...
Posted by: BeingThere | Feb 17, 2005 12:34:38 PM
Will, it's obvious you only play a thinking conservative on TV.
Posted by: Will Allen | Feb 17, 2005 12:37:25 PM
fnook, people who talk politics to strangers in drinking establishments are to be avoided, period. If ya' can't find some other topic to use as an icebreaker with a stranger while enjoying hooch, the hooch is wasted on ya'.
Posted by: Will Allen | Feb 17, 2005 12:39:40 PM
Will Allen:
The problem is your posts waste bandwidth. You're a troll. With unusually good spelling.
Like the rest of the trolls, your purported righteous indignation at Michael Moore really stems from the fact that he had the gall to show what an incompetent bufoon Bush was on 9/11.
I have no doubt that you disagree on issues. But the idea that all this Moore-hatred stems from anything other than a desire to repress the images contained in F9/11 is just silly.
Posted by: space | Feb 17, 2005 12:41:16 PM
"Our two one-man libertarian splinter groups here, Brett and Will, aren't as nasty as Al, but neither one has much to learn or to teach. Wouldn't most of us be libertarians already by now if we ever were going to be?"
I find Al's presence objectionable not because of his views or because of any nastiness, but instead because of his utter lack of intellectual honesty. The other two folks you mention don't share that failing in my book.
Posted by: Petey | Feb 17, 2005 12:41:32 PM
Al is endorsing the conclusion that we are almost all traitors here
No, that's not correct at all. For one, I didn't endorse the use of the word "traitor". Indeed, Powerline didn't use "treason" or "traitor" either (in fact, Hindrocket notes that he deliberately did NOT call Carter's actions with respect to the Soviets "treason"). There is quite a difference, to my mind, between being "on the other side" and treason. That Matthew deliberately obfuscates this is, I think, to his detriment.
Moreover, I certainly don't know the extent to which others posting agree with Carter. But I don't think it is fair to say that I am referring to anyone here except to the extent they agree with Carter in his support for the Soviets, Castro, Chavez, and Saddam and in their indifference to the Iraqis.
Posted by: Al | Feb 17, 2005 12:42:08 PM
Will Allen:
And Bush counts as his supporters Falwell who said that 9/11 is god's judgment against us for abortion, feminism, etc. This was said the week after 9/11; the same week the Whitehouse took time out to attack Bill Maher for saying suicide bombers weren't cowards, but had no complaint about Falwell and Pat Robertson.
Indeed Bush thinks abortion is murder, and thus believes the US mass murders its innocent children. Maybe this is why he is coddling the dictatorships in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Why does GW Bush hate America? Because he thinks we murder our babies and need to go back to a more fundamentalist society.
Posted by: epistemology | Feb 17, 2005 12:42:20 PM
because of his utter lack of intellectual honesty
Huh. That one stumps me. You sure you're not confusing "lack of intellectual honesty" with "conservatism"? Or are they the same thing?
Posted by: Al | Feb 17, 2005 12:45:01 PM
Will Allen:
Bush associates with the enemy spy Chalabi.
If Carter was free to exclude Moore from his box at the Democrat convention, then why is Bush lying about his close association with the spy Chalabi? And what other spies are there in the Whitehouse? I mean the ones that gave up Plame. Bush doesn't associate with traitors and spies: he hires them and gives them access to the CIA.
Posted by: epistemology | Feb 17, 2005 12:45:35 PM
Al:
Don't be disingenuous. Have the courage of your convictions. Being on the other side in times of war is a pretty good definition of traitor.
Posted by: epistemology | Feb 17, 2005 12:47:10 PM
having him here gloating and sniping is like having a Nazi member in a Jewish group
I'd invoke Godwin's Law if it weren't for the fact that Matthew doesn't believe in it.
Posted by: Al | Feb 17, 2005 12:47:25 PM
Well golly gee, hank, that certainly settles it. Tom Tomorrow says so! And really, it is soooooo unusual for prominent people to be mobbed at a political convention; otherwise there'd be 3 dozen people gaining refuge from the Carters!
I also heard that Tomorrow can verify that Daschle was merely expressing his latent carnal desire for obese middle-aged men!
Posted by: Will Allen | Feb 17, 2005 12:48:45 PM
Being on the other side in times of war is a pretty good definition of traitor.
No, it's not. Seems to me you'd actually have to do something to give aid and comfort to be a "traitor".
Posted by: Al | Feb 17, 2005 12:49:08 PM
"There is quite a difference, to my mind, between being "on the other side" and treason."
No, in a war there isn't.
What a stupid piece of shit you are.
Posted by: John Emerson | Feb 17, 2005 12:49:20 PM
You sure you're not confusing "lack of intellectual honesty" with "conservatism"? Or are they the same thing?
Conservatism, or those that have appropriated the term?
For the latter group: yes.
Posted by: 2shoes | Feb 17, 2005 12:50:01 PM
Al [insert name of troll here] is a troll. He is not here to engage in discussion, to convince anyone of anything, or even to convince himself of his own superiority. He has the function of draining away discussion and thus draining away the lifeblood of the American Dream. When you respond to Al [insert name of troll here] you are aiding the enemies [active enemies and ignorant enemies] of everything you care about.
All of us would love to be able to have some simple task we could do that would make the world better. Put a barbell in our bedrooms and tell us that each time we lift it the world will become .000001% better and all of us would look like bodybuilders. The whole question of politics is how one translates one’s beliefs into effective action. Discussion is how we try to answer that question.
Responding to a post by Al [insert name of troll here] is the intellectual equivalent of sniffing glue. It does not make you feel all that good even when you are doing it, and it makes you feel a whole lot worse afterwards. If you want a simple, effective way to make the world a better place, never respond to a post by Al [insert name of troll here].
Posted by: AlanB. | Feb 17, 2005 12:50:09 PM
Al:
Do something like give access to CIA operatives' identities?
Posted by: epistemology | Feb 17, 2005 12:51:18 PM
"Like the rest of the trolls, your purported righteous indignation at Michael Moore really stems from the fact that he had the gall to show what an incompetent bufoon Bush was on 9/11."
How bout my righteous indignation at the allegations in Bowling for Columbine that attributed sinister motivations to Clinton's Kosovo war?
How bout my righteous indignation at Moore's allegations that the Afghanistan war was all about a Unocal pipeline?
Moore is a flat-out pacifist. Good for him. But I don't share his pacifism personally. And I certainly don't want my political party associated with his pacifism.
Posted by: Petey | Feb 17, 2005 12:52:42 PM
Look, guys, Al is driving the discussion. Hijacking was his goal. He's as happy as a pig in shit now.
Don't we have anything to say except about Al? As long as he has an iron butt and a modem, that's what we're going to be talking about.
Ignoring him doesn't work.
My own first post had a fairly substantive message that I was trying to communicate to the Democrats and liberals here. But this is Al's thread.
Posted by: John Emerson | Feb 17, 2005 12:54:35 PM
Epistemology, if you read the thread, you'll see where I commented that if the Republicans were so stupid as to allow Falwell to sit next to the first Geroge Bush at a political convention, I'd expect Democrats to make rhetorical hay about Falwell's post 9/11 remarks. As to the rest of your remarks, I fully understand that you believe Republicans in general, and Bush in particular, are traitors.
Posted by: Will Allen | Feb 17, 2005 12:54:47 PM
"You must lead a glorious social life, Bob."
What's a social life? I interact with strangers well enough, and I frequent mixed blogs more than I should, but I haven't talked to most of my extended family for twenty years.
"Dan Kervick has made the smartest post I've read in a while."
With all respect and gratitude to Wampum, that Kervick or praktike weren't nominated for best commenter was a real disappointment. I must frequent ther wrong blogs, the only name I recognized was Meteor Blades.
There is a thread over at Steve Clemon's place about Tom Delay and, umm, tolerance where Mr Kervick amazed. I would go to blogs simply for his comments, if he would point them out to me.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Feb 17, 2005 12:55:29 PM
Seems to me that Horowitz's "network" is just a right-wing version of this:
http://www.mediatransparency.org/
So, what's the problem? Indeed, if there is a problem, I detect more than a whiff of hypocrisy around here. The left has been banging on about "nefarious connections" on the right for decades in an effort to link mainstream conservatives with all kinds of vile people.
Sauce for the goose, etc.
Posted by: Joey | Feb 17, 2005 12:56:43 PM
A former Democratic President of the United States grants the propagandist a seat of honor at their political convention.
Anyone notice that this charge gets repeated as about as much as the one in which "Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of the United States." I mean, sure, Saddam surely didn't like us much after we whipped his army's ass over Kuwait, particularly since he thought he was our bulwark against the Persians and would forgive a little invasion of his irritating Arab neighbor, but is there a ceremony for that kind of oath? Does "Sworn Enemies of the USA, LLC" have a website with, you know, an interactive registry database or something? Maybe you fill out a form, enter your credit card particulars, and you get back a customized Adobe Acrobat certificate that will be suitable for framing when printed on the office LaserJet? Or do you think that the charge just gets made not so much because it's literally true, but because it just sounds so terrible?
Michael Moore crashes Carter's post-convention party, and Carter becomes a criminal. What did that bad, bad Mr. Moore do? Well, dammit, he...made a movie, which was so very outrageous, um, your friends and neighbors went to see it. In droves. Wrote a couple of books, which, er, sold well. Meanwhile, those who twist the Constitution to admit torture, who ignore alarms that warn of impending terrorist attack in order to pursue a great diplomatic game, who launch misbegotten military occupations--fruit of a war built on exaggerated dangers--that may cause America more harm than do it good, they are to be quietly accorded a place of genuine power. Hundreds of thousands at their bidding speed, billions of dollars flood their coffers. Who cares? But, hey, sit next to a man who turned being an asshole, and good with a movie camera and running a production company, into a highly remunerative trade, and you're to be despised. Unfettered command over one's seating arrangements is apparently the deciding element in one's honor. Bush may have just nominated to intelligence director a man who may have a more than passing aquaintance with sacrificing innocents on the altar of conservative foreign policy, and lying about it, but Bush makes damn sure he's not photographed in a chair next to James Dobson.
Matt, we're not the audience for these extreme charges against this former president. The guys at Powerline, are engaged in the self-purifying ritual that is true belief. They are addressing those with whom they are in general sympathy. It happens in every cult, whether it be early Christianity, early Islam, early Communism or fascism or, now, the cult that is the Bush faction of the GOP. They're ratcheting in the orthodoxy, making sure that, as the circle tightens, they stay on the inside. It's a contest with rival true believers to see who among them can be the most pure, the most loyal, who can most thoroughly insinuate themselves into the very fiber of the cult. If they can unite with it, lose themselves inside it, no one can cast them into the outer darkness. You know, where they'd be lumped together, in the eyes of the faithful, with us, out here on "the other side".
Posted by: Brian C.B. | Feb 17, 2005 12:57:28 PM
You see, Petey, the only thing that matters is that Moore attacks Bush. Thus, the content of Moore's attacks are not to be examined. All for the greater good doncha' know, and howz'a'bout those dastardly Republicans with their vile, paranoid, rhetorical excesses!!!!
Posted by: Will Allen | Feb 17, 2005 1:00:53 PM
Okay, Will, you're Al with slightly better manners. We get it. Taking John Emerson's advice and moving on....
As useful as Matt's outrage was in getting Powerline to justify and even amplify their insanity, is it now time for us to move on to the next stage, ridicule? After all, there's a reason why the Simpsons line "He's history's greatest monster" is such a reliable laugh getter.
Because outside the sewers of the far right, Jimmy Carter is pretty universally regarded as a bumbling but well-meaning old guy who builds houses for poor people. By highlighting and loudly mocking this kind of rhetoric, we've got a great opportunity to discredit and marginalize the Powerline people, which can only be a good thing. So when Al or Brett or Will Allen starts yapping about Michael Moore in Carter's skybox or whatever, it's time for a simple eye roll and "Jimmy Carter? Don't you mean 'history's greatest monster'?"
Posted by: Hank Scorpio | Feb 17, 2005 1:02:37 PM
Do something like give access to CIA operatives' identities?
It could be, depending on the circumstances. In the case of Plame, though, given her position as a long-time Virginia-based desk jockey who had likely been "outed" by Aldrich Ames a decade ago, I don't think that's the case.
Posted by: Al | Feb 17, 2005 1:03:36 PM
"and howz'a'bout those dastardly Republicans with their vile, paranoid, rhetorical excesses!!!! "
Ann Coulter, Fox News, Oct. 6: "I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days" to talk to liberals.
I don't know that Moore ever suggested physically assaulting conservatives.
But maybe he should.
Posted by: Bgno64 | Feb 17, 2005 1:04:32 PM
I'd humbly nominate G-Scobe as a center-right blog not in the grip of that form of Horowitzian hysteria.
Posted by: Gregory Scoblete | Feb 17, 2005 1:06:06 PM
MY beef with Moore dates back to Bowling for Columbine, when he used dishonest editing to make it look like several Charton Heston speeches, (A couple of which I was at, BTW.) that took place over the course of over a year, were actually one remarkably inflamitory speech given right after Columbine. You may be cool with that sort of thing, but I'm not.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Feb 17, 2005 1:07:04 PM
Obviously, the guys at Powerline are a bunch of fruitloops.
Posted by: Chad | Feb 17, 2005 1:07:11 PM
Hank,
Dan's narrative rings true. Carter is one of the most deeply Christian (in the old sense of the word) people around, and probably would have invited Karl Rove himself into his skybox to escape a howling crowd. His compulsion to do the right thing, regardless of appearances, is one of the factors that has led to his being so demonized (and, alas, was also a big reason he was so ineffectual as president).
Posted by: modus potus | Feb 17, 2005 1:07:20 PM
Al:
Sorry, but the law is not that the courts consult you on if you think it's a big deal. Plame was an undercover operative, and thus her outing was illegal. Nice try. I give you guys credit for staying on the message of your Republican masters.
Posted by: epistemology | Feb 17, 2005 1:09:09 PM
Will Allen:
the only thing that matters is that Moore attacks Bush. Thus, the content of Moore's attacks are not to be examined
Exactly. Moore attacked Bush, therefore he is evil. Let's ignore the fact that the most devastating attack consisted of showing Bush "in action" during the most critical moment of his life. Let's ignore the fact that Bush did in fact sit in that classroom like a statue while New Yorkers leaped to their deaths. Let's ignore the fact that Bush (and Rice and Ashcroft) had plenty of forewarning and failed to act on it. No, the fact is that he attacked Bush. Therefore, he is on "the other side".
Brian C.B.:
The fun part is watching the FReepers and Sean Hannity try and squeeze each other out.
Posted by: space | Feb 17, 2005 1:09:59 PM
No, Brian, Moore made a movie in which he implied, among other things, that the current President of the United States has greater loyalty to the Bin Laden family than to his oath of office. A former President of the United States, among other things, decided to grant that person a place of honor at a political convention, and has made no subsequent effort to disassociate himself from the propagandist. You, in turn, are bothered, along with Matthew, that a blog has said the former President is "on the other side". O.K., whatever.
Posted by: Will Allen | Feb 17, 2005 1:10:24 PM
Does the fact that Jimmy Carter is "on the other side" transfer to the voters who voted for him in 1980, when it he had by then obviously shown his true America hating colors. I only ask because I believe Professor Reynolds admits to voting for him in 1980? Treason by the ballot box?
Posted by: Mikequinlivan | Feb 17, 2005 1:10:55 PM
In the case of Plame, though, given her position as a long-time Virginia-based desk jockey who had likely been "outed" by Aldrich Ames a decade ago, I don't think that's the case.
A thought, it would seem, that was officially discarded about the time that the CIA referred the matter to the Department of Justice. Or, at the time that the DoJ itself launched an investigation and began presenting evidence to a grand jury.
Posted by: Brian C.B. | Feb 17, 2005 1:11:46 PM
Ok, powerline has gone off the deep end on this one. I think that Carter is highly dangerous because he is ridiculously naive is easy for our enemies to manipulate. But that it isn't the same as saying that he is on the other side.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | Feb 17, 2005 1:11:46 PM
"Thus, the content of Moore's attacks are not to be examined. All for the greater good doncha' know, and howz'a'bout those dastardly Republicans with their vile, paranoid, rhetorical excesses!!!!"
You lose me when your logic ends up at:
Carter once sat next to a pacifist filmmaker prone to rhetorical excess. Therefore, it's bizarre to be outraged when Carter is called a traitor.
Posted by: Petey | Feb 17, 2005 1:13:12 PM
Everyone knows Hindrocket was the mysterious third man involved with the OKC bombing.
Talk about being on the 'other side', he's part of a violent right-wing traitorous anti-American movement.
Posted by: Jon H | Feb 17, 2005 1:14:15 PM
"No, Brian, Moore made a movie in which he implied, among other things, that the current President of the United States has greater loyalty to the Bin Laden family than to his oath of office."
Er, this is trivially true.
Bush has no loyalty to his oath of office. He has greater loyalty to a cheeseburger than to his oath of office.
Posted by: Jon H | Feb 17, 2005 1:15:45 PM
I too would like to hear from "the 'responsible' right", does anyone know where they hang out?
Believe me I have searched far and wide amongst the political blogosphere to no avail, do they still exist?
My suspicion is that they have been cowed into silence by the nascent rise of far right represented here by the usual suspects.
Posted by: postit | Feb 17, 2005 1:18:42 PM
"Ok, powerline has gone off the deep end on this one. I think that Carter is highly dangerous because he is ridiculously naive is easy for our enemies to manipulate. But that it isn't the same as saying that he is on the other side."
I understand why the right might think Carter is "highly dangerous". He's a bit of a loose cannon. There's a reason the Clinton administration always tried to hold him at arm's length.
But I also think he's provided a valuable service to the US by his efforts at democracy promotion, and by his international credibility - which is specifically tied to his independence from US administrations. In that way, Carter plays a similar role to the UN. But, of course, the right doesn't think the UN is useful either...
Posted by: Petey | Feb 17, 2005 1:19:00 PM
How about this?: We (left and right) are all on the same side, but we disagree mightily on who the other side is and what to do about them.
Posted by: Dave S. | Feb 17, 2005 1:22:33 PM
Sebastian Holsclaw: I think that Carter is highly dangerous because he is ridiculously naive is easy for our enemies to manipulate.
Two words: Ahmed Chalabi.
Game. Set. Match.
Posted by: space | Feb 17, 2005 1:24:29 PM
We (left and right) are all on the same side...
I am certainly not on the same side with, say, David Horowitz, no matter if he's left or right at the moment. I am with Jimmy Carter and other rational people and he is with the crazies.
Posted by: abb1 | Feb 17, 2005 1:30:41 PM
Hey, 99 posts and one right-winger disavowed the vile treason slander. Good things come to those who wait.
Posted by: John Isbell | Feb 17, 2005 1:34:41 PM
Aren't trolls here flirting with secret forcible separation from the Bush-beatifying sect merely by posting on a site like Matthew's? Perhaps they are already tainted, in the eyes of those who make doctrine, by treating with Internauts who appear to be "on the other side", and with Matt. There is a continual reckoning within the Bush brotherhood at which sins against the its vision for the Grand Old Party weighed, and one day soon a Party member who willingly exposes himself to taint from the sort doubt expressed in this thread will be viewed suspiciously. Indulgences are already being tightly husbanded, and will no doubt dry up altogether for those of modest means or who are not yet entirely shorn of scruples. Skepticism is increasingly a luxury reserved for a handful within the GOP power structure. Save yourselves.
Posted by: Brian C.B. | Feb 17, 2005 1:36:45 PM
Space
Ref. your Holsclaw quote, I don't think Chalabi could be considered naive - not in the slightest. Rather the people who intended to use him were naive ie. our government!
BBC News Headline
"Iraqi officials announce final election results giving the main Shia party 140 of 275 seats in the new parliament."
Ahmed Chalabi, ah yes, those were the heddy post 'Mission Accomplished' days, before the 'traitors' started to appear and the whole design crumbled before our very lyin' eyes.
Posted by: postit | Feb 17, 2005 1:38:20 PM
Sebastian Holsclaw mistakes militarism for sophistication apparently.
Bush is dangerously naive: he takes Musharraf's word that he is hunting bin Laden (he clearly does not want to find him), that he had nothing to do with AQ Khan's nuclear arms bazaar. Bush apparently looked into Musharraf''s eyes and seen his soul, as he naively claimed to do with Putin.
This is sophistication? Give me Carter's "naivete".
Posted by: epistemology | Feb 17, 2005 1:39:52 PM
No, Petey, Jimmy Carter did not attend an Usher concert, and find himslef sitting next to Michael Moore. Jimmy Carter is a former President of the United States. One does not sit next to a former President of the United States at a political convention without the former President's consent, and without some implied endorsement. Furthermore, if this was all some manner of weird coincidence, as those who attempt to infantalize Carter, and thus defend him, say, a former President of the United States must realize that his association carries that implication, and has the opportunity to disassociate himself from that person's views. Carter has implicitly endorsed Moore's propaganda, so I find it ironic when people get all bothered when excessive rhetoric is directed at Carter.
Posted by: Will Allen | Feb 17, 2005 1:40:19 PM
"Aren't trolls here flirting with secret forcible separation from the Bush-beatifying sect merely by posting on a site like Matthew's?"
What, I wasn't already an apostate for considering Bush to be only slightly less loathsome than Kerry?
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Feb 17, 2005 1:43:34 PM
"Carter has implicitly endorsed Moore's propaganda..."
Sure. In the limited sense that doing a photo op is a form of implicit endorsement, sure.
...so I find it ironic when people get all bothered when excessive rhetoric is directed at Carter."
That's where you lose me. I'll rephrase your logic this way:
Carter once implicitly endorsed a pacifist filmmaker prone to rhetorical excess. Therefore, it's bizarre to be outraged when Carter is called a traitor.
Posted by: Petey | Feb 17, 2005 1:48:38 PM
Seriously guys, the other side is preparing a witchhunt / purge. The hard core of the right is willing to start a civil war. How should we respond? Why are we chatting with Al and Will and Brett? Al is pro-witch hunt, and Brett and Will are, at the very least, perfectly safe. Shouldn't those of us who are targetted be talking to one another?
Posted by: John Emerson | Feb 17, 2005 1:56:17 PM
No, Petey, Carter implicitly endorsed the views of a propagandist who accused the current President of the United States of being traitorous, thus it is ironic that others get bothered when the same charge is hurled at Carter.
Posted by: Will Allen | Feb 17, 2005 2:10:32 PM
Al is pro-witch hunt, and Brett and Will are, at the very least, perfectly safe.
Hmm, I dunno. Normally, when a purge starts, no one is perfectly safe. If you're my boss and I'm not getting a promotion - you're going to Gitmo, baby.
Posted by: abb1 | Feb 17, 2005 2:15:33 PM
Excellent, excellent posts, Brian C.B.
And I'm inclined to agree with Jonn Emerson. What is happening to the Right is scary -- they are, literally, going the way of the Nazis in the late 20s, Godwin's law be damned (it's a fucking stupid law, anyway). They see enemies behind every tree; they make little to no distinction between "liberal" and "terrorist." These people are ripe for the plucking: all they need is some crazy, well-spoken megalomaniac to lead them, and they will make the leap to actual violence against the "enemies" at home.
I don't think these are good American times. We are in an era of irrational paranoia far greater than the McCarthy era.
What are we going to do about it?
Posted by: Timothy Klein | Feb 17, 2005 2:18:47 PM
The traitor 'bomb' cannot be disarmed merely by appling logic, there's a demagogary circuit you must disable 1st, if you don't want to end up as dead meat in electoral politics.
I learned this from discussions with Mr Allen yesterday on a similar thread.
Posted by: postit | Feb 17, 2005 2:20:10 PM
"No, Petey, Carter implicitly endorsed the views of a propagandist who accused the current President of the United States of being traitorous, thus it is ironic that others get bothered when the same charge is hurled at Carter."
OK. I've still got quibbles, but at least I can follow you now.
Posted by: Petey | Feb 17, 2005 2:22:55 PM
Will Allen:
Chalabi sat next to Bush's wife at the SOTU address. Bush claimed he didn't know him personally. Is Bush a liar?
Posted by: epistemology | Feb 17, 2005 2:23:24 PM
demagoguery
oops my bad!
Posted by: postit | Feb 17, 2005 2:24:28 PM
"Chalabi sat next to Bush's wife at the SOTU address. Bush claimed he didn't know him personally. Is Bush a liar?"
Or even better, is Bush an Iranian agent?
Posted by: Petey | Feb 17, 2005 2:30:05 PM
Yes, epistemology, Bush is a liar. If you want to rip Bush for seating Chalabi next to his wife, I don't care.
Posted by: Will Allen | Feb 17, 2005 2:39:01 PM
"Seriously guys, the other side is preparing a witchhunt / purge."
Well, I read more of the comments here and will withdraw my proposal. Clearly we are not all on the same side. Some of us live on the sane side of life and some of you are just plain nuts. The idea that there can be reasonable discussion on most of these comments section is not realistic when half the commenters are paranoid conspiricy theorists.
Posted by: Dave S. | Feb 17, 2005 2:48:10 PM
No, Will Allen, I want Republicans to stop impugning the motives of everyone who disagrees with their wacko foreign policy.
And an honest acknowledgment that Carter performed what Bush says is his prime responsibility: keeping Americans safe from our enemies, better than Bush has.
Posted by: epistemology | Feb 17, 2005 2:50:03 PM
Whatever, epistemology. Wipe the spittle from your chin.
Posted by: Will Allen | Feb 17, 2005 2:56:08 PM
Yes, epistemology, Bush is a liar. If you want to rip Bush for seating Chalabi next to his wife, I don't care.
Which is why you are something of a fool, Mr. Allen. Chalabi is an actual foreign agent of an avowed US enemy (at least allegedly; he's almost certainly a criminal and a con-man of giant proportions). Moore is a propagandistic film-maker. Sorry, the former given a good seat is SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE greater in discursive value. You damn well should care if epistemology "rips" Bush for that, as it has, you know, real implications about the state of American politics. Unlike the pretend implication you see in the Moore fracas.
Posted by: Timothy Klein | Feb 17, 2005 2:57:15 PM
ABB1 "gets it". If there is a purge, only the most demonstrably devoted of Bush sycophants, or only the most generous of financial backers, are safe. Being one of Matt's house trolls, no matter how sincere, or uncivil, or just plain irritating to the liberals who stop here one's trolling has been, is hardly going to be much protection. In fact, hanging out with us skeptics might just as readily be an indictment. If you're interested in brutally stamping out an infection, you're not going to wait until something gives a clear sign of being infected. Your going to go after the organisms that have merely been exposed to the agent.
Posted by: Brian C.B. | Feb 17, 2005 3:00:19 PM
Okay, let's resort to reductio ad absurdum and assume for the moment that Carter IS "on the other side". Ergo, Carter must:
(1) Believe in outlawing every religion except Islam.
(2) Believe that women should be brutally repressed, to the point of being forbidden to hold jobs and being physically attacked if they show their faces in public.
(3) Oppose the idea of democracy completely.
Clearly this is the Jimmy Carter we all know so well. Oops, it's not. So, therefore, he must have been skeptical about the Iraq elections and the Iraq war, and allowed Michael Moore into his box, for other reasons -- which means, whether he's right or stupidly wrong, that he's no more of a traitor to the US and to democracy than Abe Lincoln was when he publicly accused James K. Polk (correctly) of starting the Mexican War as a trumped-up land grab. (Oops, that analogy won't work either, since Carter -- unlike Moore -- has never said that the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq as an oil grab.)
Actually, the best historical analogy to what we're seeing right now is the Wilson era, in which anyone who opposed our entry into WW I -- for ANY reason, including purely strategic ones -- was "objectively pro-German", therefore treasonous, and therefore worthy of imprisonment.
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw | Feb 17, 2005 3:03:03 PM
Dave S, what were you trying to say?
Posted by: John Emerson | Feb 17, 2005 3:03:37 PM
I'd be interested in the evidence of this impending "witchunt/ purge." Or is it speculation?
Posted by: Dave S. | Feb 17, 2005 3:04:19 PM
Will Allen thinks he wins as soon as he can accuse someone of being angry at him. This is one weird puppy we're dealing with. The Faction of One.
Posted by: John Emerson | Feb 17, 2005 3:04:45 PM
Will Allen:
That's not spittle, that's your wife's...
Oh, never mind, I've spent enough time in the mud with you.
Like they say: wrestle with the pigs, you both get muddy, but the pigs enjoy it.
Posted by: epistemology | Feb 17, 2005 3:05:25 PM
We need a better class of trolls around here.
Posted by: epistemology | Feb 17, 2005 3:06:21 PM
Dave S., the word "traitor" has been tossed around for years. Words have meanings; "traitor" is not just a slur. Action can be taken. they've already started hounding people from the media.
Go to the far right blogosphere and see what they're saying, and then realize that the far right is not marginal to the Republican Party. The Republican moderates are marginal; the far right is core.
Look at Gonzales' record and his statements. And Ashcroft's, and Roves's, and Norquist's, and Woo's. look at the new powers of the Patriot Act.
Look at what Horowitz is saying. He's mainstream now. So is Coulter.
Since you were so kind as to accuse me of being a paranoid conspiracy theorist, I'll equally kindly request that you pull your head from your butt and open your fucking eyes.
What I have been calling myself for over a year is a sensible conspiracy theorist. In this world, wometimes there are conspiracies. They don't teach you that in kindergarten, but you should have grown up by now.
Posted by: John Emerson | Feb 17, 2005 3:13:47 PM
"I'd be interested in the evidence of this impending "witchunt/ purge." Or is it speculation?"
The Hamdi and Padilla detentions were pretty creepy...
But I don't see the Republicans as fundamentally anti-constitutional. They're wrong on almost every policy detail, but the allegations of proto-Nazi tendencies say more about the accusers than about the Republicans. Just like the Carter smear says more about the Powerline folks than it does about Carter.
Posted by: Petey | Feb 17, 2005 3:14:01 PM
I'd be interested in the evidence of this impending "witchunt/ purge." Or is it speculation?
Of course it is speculation, Dave S. I have not read anyone claiming to have a crystal ball or the voice of God on their side.
As for your evidence, first go read up on how the Nazis came to power in Germany. Second, listen to Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh et. al, read LGF or Free Republic or Powerline or ... You will either a) cheer at what you hear, or b) see the completely obvious parallels between late 20s / early 30s German thinking and 2005 American thinking.
Hopefully this current phase of irrational paranoia in America will fizzle out a la McCarthy. But there are never any guarantees in life.
Also, look up how an anthropologist defines the word "war." You will find that the American right has very much "declared war" on the Left, and that there is little rhetorical difference whether they are talking about terrorists or leftists. That's a difference of degree, not kind, and a difference that can be eliminated.
Posted by: Timothy Klein | Feb 17, 2005 3:15:58 PM
John Emerson-
At 1:22 p.m., I proposed that the political differences between the American right and left were small in comparison to the similarities.
At 2:48 p.m., I suggested that some of the conspiracy theories here were over the top and blocked rational discussion.
At 3:04 p.m., I asked for someone to back up their ridiculous claims that a purge was coming. I hope that clarifies things.
Posted by: Dave S. | Feb 17, 2005 3:19:20 PM
"Nazi" is going a little too far - but "fascist" is not. Nazism = fascism + racial supremism + concentration camps. There are real similarities between today's far right and the fascists who took power in Italy and Spain.
Posted by: JP | Feb 17, 2005 3:20:06 PM
"but the allegations of proto-Nazi tendencies say more about the accusers than about the Republicans."
Hardly.
The Ward Churchill saga here is a case in point. After the outrage machine gets hold of him and shakes, not only does Churchill get death threats - the president of Hamilton College in upstate NY, where he was scheduled to speak, gets "several credible" death threats.
Michelle Malkin goes to bat for internment camps.
Michael Savage routinely fantasizes about atomizing Arab cities.
Ann Coulter thinks Timothy McVeigh should've parked his truck in front of the New York Times building.
Does this sound like the stuff of conspiracy to you, Petey? Is it just "rhetorical excess?" Tell me again, how many books has Coulter sold?
Sooner or later those who employ the rhetoric of violence have to either put up or shut up. And as we've seen, they've no intention whatsover of shutting up.
Posted by: Bgno64 | Feb 17, 2005 3:20:30 PM
So under this presumption that nasty comments on the internet mean that those who are politically aligned with the commenters are planning a purge, couldn't the rhetoric on this site be interpreted to mean that the left is planning a purge of the right as soon as they regain power? After all, the new DNC chairman did say that he hates Republicans and all they stand for. Shouldn't that make Republicans paranoid?
Posted by: Dave S. | Feb 17, 2005 3:28:48 PM
Thanks, Petey.
With the Patriot Act and control of the Supreme Court, they won't have to do anything extra-constitutional. The McCarthy witch-hunt was not extra-constitutional.
And hey, I don't like you either. You can go back to smooching with the estimable Will Allen now.
Posted by: John Emerson | Feb 17, 2005 3:32:12 PM
""Nazi" is going a little too far - but "fascist" is not. Nazism = fascism + racial supremism + concentration camps. There are real similarities between today's far right and the fascists who took power in Italy and Spain."
That's only true if you think the Republicans are planning on suspending the Constitution, and I don't lose any sleep worry about that one.
---
"Michael Savage routinely fantasizes about atomizing Arab cities."
Same as it ever was. The far right in this country has always had more than its fair share of mouth-breathers.
I'd suggest reading up on the John Birch society, Joseph McCarthy, and the Red Scare of the 20's. And check out the rhetoric routinely directed at FDR while you're at it.
That's what the far right does, and what it's always done. But it's instructive to note that with the singular exception of Reagan, Republicans can only get elected when they appropriate "compassionate conservative" style rhetoric.
The far right can fulminate, but they can't put together a majority.
Posted by: Petey | Feb 17, 2005 3:32:59 PM
"mean that the left is planning a purge of the right as soon as they regain power?"
You betcha! Although there are going to be two important differences, because we're civilized people (as Republicans are not):
1. You'll get liars I mean lawyers and jury trials.
2. You won't be tortured.
Posted by: Russell L. Carter | Feb 17, 2005 3:36:14 PM
Where are the specific, enunciated threats of physical violence, Dave? Because I can point you to LITERALLY HUNDREDS of murderous musings from the right.
When Dean says he wants to use a baseball bat to make a point with conservatives, when Michael Moore suggests that we need to start shooting right-wingers soon, call me.
Gee, do you think the wingers would make a big deal of such pronouncements? Do you think they would assert, loudly and at every possibile opportunity, that this shows the murderous nature of liberalism?
No one is saying all conservatives harbor such sympathies. What we are saying is that there is undeniably an outspoken component of conservatism that views critics of this president as the enemy, to be treated as such.
Posted by: Bgno64 | Feb 17, 2005 3:36:18 PM
John, I thought you had agreed to not have me waste your time? Oh well. No, I have no idea whether epistemology is angry with me, and really have no interest as well. I advised epistemology to wipe away the spittle because it has been my e