Hands across America

by Ted on February 16, 2005

Letters are what we get:

Regarding destroying the sun and all—you missed a good one. Power Line’s “Hindrocket” finished off a pessimistic quote on the Iraqi elections from Jimmy Carter by noting: “Jimmy Carter isn’t just misguided or ill-informed. He’s on the other side.”

I gotta say, I’m a conservative and all (of the old-fashioned, pre-Bush type), and I dislike Carter as much as the next conservative, but openly accusing an ex-president of treason is way, way, way, way, way out of @#$@#ing line.

Why, oh why, do left-wing blogs not keep this kind of odious insanity ever before the public eye, like right-wing blogs with their Democratic Underground posts and their Ward Churchill obsession? The past year’s worth of John Derbyshire’s commentary alone would be enough to tar all of wingerdom with the taint of racist, xenophobic idiocy from now until the midterm elections. And this is from the so-called “in-flight magazine of Air Force One.”

The sooner you guys take a breather from pointy-headed debates over “issues” and devote some time to good, old-fashioned propaganda, the quicker we can crush the caricature of conservatism that is the “right-wing movement’ and get back to real left-right debate in this country.

J

I should note that (1) I’ve got to disagree about taking a breather from pointy-headed debates. Personally, I’d like a little from Column A, and a little from Column B; I think that folks like Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum are having a real effect in the debate about Social Security privatization. (2) I don’t know J, and can’t personally vouch for his conservative credentials, and (3) I think we do a reasonable job with the odious insanity. But, “reasonable” doesn’t mean “effective”.

Related post from Digby.

UPDATE: Here’s a good collection from MyDD.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Discover the Network! I’ve been wondering about the connection between the well-known liberals Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Ayatollah Khomeini and Barak Obama. Now I know!

ON A ROLL: David Horowitz, you’ve done it again! So I clicked on Katrina vanden Heuvel, an unambigious liberal and presumably a juicy target. Here’s the beginning of the profile:

· Editor and co-owner of the leftwing magazine The Nation

· Limousine leftwing daughter of William J. vanden Heuvel, who worked for the founder of the CIA and for Robert F. Kennedy, and Jean Stein, whose father founded MCA-Universal.

· Married to New York University Russian scholar and Gorbachev enthusiast Stephen F. Cohen

· Fluent in Russian. Worked as reporter for state-run Moscow Times in U.S.S.R.

AAAH! Teh foregin language knowledge! RUN!

(Incidentally, the Moscow Times is a private English-language newspaper that started in 1992.)

AAAND: Commentor abb1 made the reasonable point that the Moscow Times might have existed in a different incarnation prior to 1992. To confirm, I spoke to Katrina vanden Heuvel, who told me that she worked for a few months in 1989 for the Moscow News covering the first multiparty elections.

{ 61 comments }

1

Brian 02.16.05 at 6:40 am

Maybe it’s because, like Max Sawicky suggested, we dislike being assholes. But that’s probably too easy.

Now that I think of it, right-wing pundits (though not necessarily right-winges in general) seem to get off on character assassination and polemicism. They not only attacked John Kerry for his views on the Iraq War and whatever happened in Vietnam, but they labelled him a traitor then as well as now.

It’s not at all abmirable, but damn, it’s quite effective in many cases.

But as I said, what I first suggested is probably too easy. It’s probablty that we aren’t as mobilized and used to these kinds of tactics.

2

MNPundit 02.16.05 at 7:51 am

I’d also submit that many lefties want to be the better person as our moms always told us, you ignore them because they just want attention.

Unfortunately this doesn’t work.

3

Dave F 02.16.05 at 8:24 am

I think the term “in-flight magazine of Air Force One” refers to New Republic.

4

abb1 02.16.05 at 9:03 am

…odious insanity…

They’re nuts; I might’ve mentioned it before on these pages. What else is there to say?

5

Des von Bladet 02.16.05 at 11:34 am

As a Yoorpean, I am only mildly intrigued by the apparent descent into paranoid psychosis of your once-great nation, so I would ask that if you really want to get stuck into this in a big way, you start a new blog for the purpose.

Free ice-cream notwithstanding, it is a big ask to expect me to give a rat’s arse what Glenn Reynolds has to say about anything, and the news that there are nastier pieces of work has me entirely other than on the edge of my seat. (Thurston Wingnut, who occasionally trolls here, was already more evidence than I needed.)

6

mw 02.16.05 at 12:34 pm

I haven’t kept track of what Carter’s been up to lately, but back in the day, there was this:

“During the buildup to the Gulf War in 1990 and 1991, Carter unsuccessfully worked to undermine the foreign policy of America’s democratically elected president, George Bush. Carter behaved as the Imperial Ex-President, conducting a guerrilla foreign policy operation that competed with the actual president’s. What’s disturbing about this behavior is not that Carter opposed war with Iraq. Many Democrats opposed going to war, and they worked within the American system to try to prevent a war that many predicted would be bloody (which it was, for Iraq). But Carter went further than merely lobbying Congress to oppose military action or speaking out in an effort to tilt popular opinion against the coming war. He used his status as a former president to engage in foreign policy, a deliberate effort to subvert the democratic process.

In November 1990, two months after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, Carter wrote a letter to the heads of state of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. He urged the countries to drop their support for Bush’s proposed military solution. Instead, as Douglas Brinkley outlines in The Unfinished Presidency, his glowing but not uncritical assessment of Carter’s post-presidential years, Carter asked the countries to give “unequivocal support to an Arab League effort” for peace. (As Brinkley notes, Carter’s anti-war position conflicted with the Carter Doctrine he had outlined as president: Any “attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such force will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”) Right up to Bush’s Jan. 15 deadline for war, Carter continued his shadow foreign policy campaign. On Jan. 10, he wrote the leaders of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria and asked them to oppose the impending military action. “I am distressed by the inability of either the international community or the Arab world to find a diplomatic solution to the Gulf crisis,” he wrote. “I urge you to call publicly for a delay in the use of force while Arab leaders seek a peaceful solution to the crisis. You may have to forego approval from the White House, but you will find the French, Soviets, and others fully supportive. Also, most Americans will welcome such a move.” Former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft later accused Carter of violating the Logan Act, the law that prohibits American citizens from conducting unofficial foreign policy.”

Quote from some wild-eyed, right-wing blogger? No:

http://slate.msn.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2065887

7

Nasi Lemak 02.16.05 at 12:38 pm

DvB – is it not of more than mild intruigingness to you that this once-great nation descends into paranoid psychosis with, for example, quite a few of its B52s sitting on the tarmac in Gloucestershire waiting for the “go” signal?

8

Ginger Yellow 02.16.05 at 1:03 pm

“Why, oh why, do left-wing blogs not keep this kind of odious insanity ever before the public eye, like right-wing blogs with their Democratic Underground posts and their Ward Churchill obsession? “

Maybe because when they do, nothing ever happens. Ann Coulter’s well publicised racist bile and eliminationist rhetoric, which would probably get her arrested in some European countries, doesn’t prevent the likes of Fox and CNN from treating her as a serious commentator. Likewise Michelle Malkin, who wrote a book defending internment, for Christ’s sake. “Racist, xenophobic idiocy” is in the public eye every day of the week, and the public likes it.

9

Uncle Kvetch 02.16.05 at 2:04 pm

Quote from some wild-eyed, right-wing blogger?

No, quote from a faux-moderate who spends 90% of his time bashing Democrats, because that’s what passes for free-thinking, skeptical contrarianism at Slate. Remember when William Saletan referred to Howard Dean as a “suicide bomber”?

Nice try, though. Next!

10

mw 02.16.05 at 2:13 pm

“Quote from some wild-eyed, right-wing blogger?”

No, quote from a faux-moderate who spends 90% of his time bashing Democrats, because that’s what passes for free-thinking, skeptical contrarianism at Slate.

Shrug. Slate’s tendencies don’t change the substance of Carter’s actions before the 1991 Gulf War. Based on a record like that, accusing Carter of treason may be…immoderate and impolitic, but it’s not flat-out crazy.

11

Jim Henley 02.16.05 at 2:29 pm

As Brinkley notes, Carter’s anti-war position conflicted with the Carter Doctrine he had outlined as president: Any “attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such force will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”

I know we Americans are weak on geography. But this means a tenured professor of history (or a web journalist anyway) thinks that Iraq was “an outside force” in the Persian Gulf. Whoa!

12

kasei 02.16.05 at 2:55 pm

In what way do Carter’s actions as outlined above or in regards to the recent elections resemble anything approaching ‘treason’. If he were passing intelligence on to the Iraqis in 1990-1, or financing suicide bombers there right now it would be a fair charge; but from what I’ve read, Jimmy Carter has done neither, so yet again we are faced with another unsubstantiated allegation by the right for which we will recieve no apology.

13

Des von Bladet 02.16.05 at 3:01 pm

Nasi Lemak: While I accept of course that our best hope for averting a nuclear catastrophe is to swamp this blog with posts refuting wingnuts, I can’t really say it does much, no.

14

Uncle Kvetch 02.16.05 at 3:08 pm

Based on a record like that, accusing Carter of treason may be…immoderate and impolitic, but it’s not flat-out crazy.

“Hindrocket” (cripes) didn’t make his accusation based on Jimmy Carter’s “record.” He based it on the fact that Jimmy Carter failed to ooh and aah with sufficient gusto before the dazzling magnificence of the Iraqi elections. But I guess by your logic, Carter proved himself to be a borderline traitor 14 years ago, so now just about anything he says that the right doesn’t like can be called treasonous, right?

Immoderate and impolitic, but not necessarily crazy…way to lower the bar, MW. Can I start calling Bush a Nazi with impunity now?

I didn’t think so.

15

mw 02.16.05 at 3:11 pm

In what way do Carter’s actions as outlined above or in regards to the recent elections resemble anything approaching ‘treason’.

In what way? Well, if that information is correct, he was actively (and surreptitiously) trying to subvert the foreign policy goals of the U.S. goverment through back-channel communications with world leaders. Does that approach ‘treason’? For a run-of-the-mill private citizen with no special connections or influence with foreign leaders, I would say no. For an ex-president? I’d still say, no–but it’s pretty bad, and I would not be wholly shocked to hear others give it that label.

Did Carter really write those letters? I have not seen the facts disputed. Douglas Brinkley seems to be both a respected historian (and generally pro-Carter in his book).

16

Brian Weatherson 02.16.05 at 3:16 pm

Kasei seems entirely right. MW blurs the distinction between ‘lobbying foreign governments to take positions contrary to yours’ and ‘treason’. Would anyone from the right even be thinking it was treasonous if a French right-winger was lobbying right-wing governments in Europe to support the US invasion at the UN despite France’s official opposition? Of course not, the very idea is absurd.

By this standard it would be treasonous for an American ex-pat to write an anti-war op-ed in an Australian newspaper, in an attempt to influence public opinion and hence the government to stop supporting the US. That doesn’t sound in the ballpark of treason to me, and it certainly isn’t “supporting the other side”.

If it is supporting the other side, then so is advocating for reducing our forces fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan so we could go conquer Iraq. And I seem to recall one or two on the right engaged in just that ‘treasonous’ enterprise.

17

aspiring libertine 02.16.05 at 3:19 pm

So, to recap, in order to attain credibility with the right wing, left-wing blogs are supposed to keep an eye on anything controversial or stupid that anyone from the far left might say, so as to distance themselves from them in time before outrage explodes, and they are also required to keep an eye on anything controversial or stupid that anyone from the far right might say, so as to… give them exactly the kind of verbal duels they crave.

And a pony?

18

pedro 02.16.05 at 4:08 pm

brian weatherson is absolutely right:

MW blurs the distinction between ‘lobbying foreign governments to take positions contrary to yours’ and ‘treason’. Would anyone from the right even be thinking it was treasonous if a French right-winger was lobbying right-wing governments in Europe to support the US invasion at the UN despite France’s official opposition? Of course not, the very idea is absurd.

I have to applaud the civility of the response. mw is actually arguing that it is appropriate to call Carter a traitor, and that it isn’t appropriate to call those who do so stupid. An isomorphic version of mw on the left would argue that it is appropriate to call Bush a fascist, and that it isn’t appropriate to call those who do so stupid.

19

mw 02.16.05 at 4:17 pm

Would anyone from the right even be thinking it was treasonous if a French right-winger was lobbying right-wing governments in Europe to support the US invasion at the UN despite France’s official opposition? Of course not, the very idea is absurd.

The point is that Jimmy Carter is not was not just any random ordinary American citizen lobbying foreign heads of state–he was an EX-PRESIDENT lobbying foreign heads of state. Telling them, in particular, that if they defied the U.S. as he was recommending, they could count on the support of the Soviet Union.

Ok, now, this does not refer to current events, that is true–but it is relevant to this statement:

“…openly accusing an ex-president of treason is way, way, way, way, way out of @#$@#ing line.”

As far out of line as, in the role of ex-president, surreptitiously lobbying foreign heads of state in order to subvert U.S. foreign policy?

Now, of course, you don’t have to see Carter that way–but is it REALLY such a stretch to grasp how some conservatives, still in full control of their faculties and not named Ann Coulter, might view Carter as having a propensity for treason?

20

J 02.16.05 at 4:33 pm

Maybe because when they do, nothing ever happens. Ann Coulter’s well publicised racist bile and eliminationist rhetoric, which would probably get her arrested in some European countries, doesn’t prevent the likes of Fox and CNN from treating her as a serious commentator. Likewise Michelle Malkin, who wrote a book defending internment, for Christ’s sake. “Racist, xenophobic idiocy” is in the public eye every day of the week, and the public likes it.

I think you have it exactly backwards. Coulter’s and Malkin’s “serious commentator” status is of a piece with the fact that their more noxious comments and positions don’t follow them around outside of hardcore ‘winger circles. Let me give you an example of what I mean by this.

I lived in Louisiana during and after the David Duke gubernatorial campaign. Duke was routinely introduced by newspeople as “former Klansman David Duke.” When an interviewer would do this on live TV, Duke would stop the interview right there and refuse to proceed until they reintroduced him as “former Louisiana Senator David Duke.” I saw one interview, hosted by an African American woman, that simply didn’t get any further than that. My point is that the stink of Duke’s past followed him everywhere, because the local news media (God bless them) made sure that everyone knew what he stood for every time he appeared on the screen. This wasn’t so much because they hated him, which they probably did, but because his former Klansman status was always “news.”

Is Malkin ever introduced as “racial profiling and Muslim/Japanese internment advocate and author Michelle Malkin”? No. Is Coulter ever introduced as “anti-liberal author and activist Anne Coulter”? No. Are either Coulter and Malkin ever put on the spot on any of these shows by a host who drags out some of their greatest hits and holds them accountable? No. The worst parts of these folks’ rhetoric is reserved mainly for people who seek it out, i.e. hardcore ‘wingnuts and angry liberals. To the rest of CNN-watching America, they’re just “conservative commentators” who maybe get a little bit over the top every now and then on TV–but of course, we expect people to “perform” a bit when put in front of the camera, so the occasional outburst of on-air idiocy can be winked at as TV theatrics. But these peoples’ general identity, well-documented in print, as racist, sexist, xenophobic Huns never follows them on TV as “news.” For whatever reason, it’s not “news” that Malkin advocates preemptively locking up certain ethnic/religious groups in internment camps. It’s not “news” that Coulter advocates physical violence against people who disagree ideologically with her.

The Democrats’ job #1, as I see it, is to make such things “news.” In fact, maybe try taking a page from David Duke’s playbook, but in reverse, and refuse to go further with any of these folks on an on-air discussion panel until they’re reintroduced for what they really are.

21

BigMacAttack 02.16.05 at 4:38 pm

h lk mrl vnty crcl jrk!

wnn jn. hhhh h H why r w s mch bttr thn cnsrvtvs? HHHH GHHHH! Ww. Tht ws gd. Smn pls hnd m cgrtt.

(Editors note: Not today.)

22

John Isbell 02.16.05 at 4:47 pm

“An isomorphic version of mw on the left would argue that it is appropriate to call Bush a fascist, and that it isn’t appropriate to call those who do so stupid.”
Traitor is far stronger than fascist. Can GWB reasonably be called a traitor? We might review how often he has violated the Constitution. I suspect we will find more meat than clean Carter offers.

23

washerdreyer 02.16.05 at 5:18 pm

Treason is a capital crime in the U.S.
Two things follow from this: facist is a much less serious charge, “War criminal” is a charge of equivalent seriousness. Also, if, as mw thinks, it is reasonable to call Carter a traitor, it is reasonable to think that he should be put on trial where death would be a possible sentence.

24

Sven 02.16.05 at 5:19 pm

Re: Discover the Network

I thought I’d seen everything until I saw Mike Farrell and Mohammed Atta next to each other in a lineup of America’s Most Hated.

Worth a thousand words.

25

j 02.16.05 at 5:26 pm

Oh look a moral vanity circle jerk!

There is that aspect to some of the liberal self-righteousness reluctance to engage in “the politics of personal destruction.” Liberals prefer to think of it as high-mindedness, while it smells like weakness to true ‘wingers.

The problem is that Democrats don’t have the institutional stomach to invest in the kind of long-term, dirty but effective propaganda campaign that the right has been mounting since Clinton took office. The right is willing to do more than just kill the enemy’s general–they’ll also tie his corpse to the back of the chariot and drag it around the city walls a few laps. This kind of display may be offensive to both gods and men, but the Greeks did win in the end.

You may or may not agree that the West is locked in a full-blown culture war with Islamofascism, but insofar as the voting public is now convinced that we are they’re going to vote for the party that knows how to fight and win culture wars by any means necessary. If you can’t fight and win a culture war at home, the how is the public going to trust you to fight and win a culture war abroad?

There’s a time and a season for everything. Think tanks and left-right policy dialogues about tweaking the system to remove this or that bit of injustice are fine for times of peace, but in a time of war you have demonstrate that you’re willing and able to fight and win. Either that, or you have to convince the public that we’re not at war anymore (good luck with that!). Again, my suggestion is to start by beating up on individual targets here at home. And do like the right does, and pick victims both obscure and well-known that no average American could possibly identify with (e.g. Ward Churchill, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, etc…. oh, waitaminute, some of these folks I’m listing are people you’ve either ran or probably will run for president… hahaha, yet another problem with the Democratic party, but that’s for another post).

26

Nabakov 02.16.05 at 5:30 pm

If mw is really worried about US citizens with influence that may be comprised by foreign entanglements and so not have the nation’s best interests at heart, I’d submit that Jimmy Carter would be of less of a worry than Neil or Marvin Bush – two presidental brothers who have made millions opening up conduits for defence-sensitive US technology into China.

Why this isn’t a major scandal in the States, like say an Oval Office blowjob, is another reason mw that the rest of the world doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry over your once fair land.

27

John Isbell 02.16.05 at 5:36 pm

GWB’s grandfather Prescott Bush is of course explicitly a traitor; the Sensator financed the Nazi regime until his bank was seized by the US Government in Autumn 1942, a year into treason.

28

Uncle Kvetch 02.16.05 at 5:42 pm

Woo-hoo! “Discover the Network” is a veritable treasure trove of comedy gold! Roger Ebert! Bruce Springsteen! (Not to mention Bonnie Raitt, REM, and Pearl Jam!) Scum-sucking traitors, every last one of ’em!

And to think I was about to waste more time responding to MW’s cryptofascist inanities. Big ups to Ted for providing me with a much more entertaining way to spend my afternoon.

29

Walt Pohl 02.16.05 at 5:42 pm

mw: This Carter line you’re pushing is about as well-documented as the fact that Nixon deliberately sabotaged Johnson’s last-minute negotiations with the North Vietnamese, and that Reagan negotiated with the Iranians to prevent the hostages from being released until he was safely ensconced in the White House. So I’ll take you seriously when you’re prepared to call Nixon and Reagan traitors.

30

Nabakov 02.16.05 at 5:43 pm

Re: Discover the Network

So it’s true. Soros, Khomeini, Danny Glover, Castro, Robert Scheer and Roger Ebert are working hand in glove to bring about our doom. Always suspected as much.

Can you imagine the cocktail chatter after a hard days seminaring on overthrowing the west, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?

31

LizardBreath 02.16.05 at 6:07 pm

This is probably the least silly thing about it, but I was wildly entertained by the fact that the linked “Discover the Network” page had the leftist miscreants alphebetized by first name. It just gives the whole thing a charmingly grade-school air.

32

mw 02.16.05 at 6:22 pm

mw: This Carter line you’re pushing is about as well-documented as the fact that Nixon deliberately sabotaged Johnson’s last-minute negotiations with the North Vietnamese, and that Reagan negotiated with the Iranians to prevent the hostages from being released until he was safely ensconced in the White House. So I’ll take you seriously when you’re prepared to call Nixon and Reagan traitors.

Well, I’d be happy to call Nixon any name I could justify. And if I ever see solid evidence of Reagan and the ‘October Surprise’, ditto (but what I have seen seems not at all convincing).

Cryptofascist? What you’re all missing is that, in my family, I’m the ‘crazy liberal’ because I’m not religious, haven’t baptized my kids, my wife kept her own name, I support gay rights, oppose the war on drugs, and live in one of ‘those’ university towns. Are my family all red-state rednecks? Hardly–all northerners, all college educated.

What’s the point? The point is trying to paint bloggers like the Powerline guys and Glen Reynolds as so far right that they’re beyond the pale just isn’t going to work. You can certainly draw the us-them line there if you want to, but if you do that, there are going to be damn few U.S. voters standing on your side of it (even fewer than there were in November).

33

abb1 02.16.05 at 6:48 pm

Incidentally, the Moscow Times is a private English-language newspaper that started in 1992.

I think there might’ve been also pre-1992 ‘Moscow Times’ state-run English-language newspaper in the USSR. I am pretty sure. Not that anything’s wrong with that.

34

Chris 02.16.05 at 7:02 pm

Two comments (john isbell and washerdreyer) have claimed that “traitor” is a more serious charge than “fascist.” That seems quite wrong to me. Treason is a betrayal of one’s nation — but one can imagine situations in which such a betrayal would be justified. Calling someone a traitor, then, just leads to the question, “a traitor to what? or to whom?” And depending on the answer, it may not be so bad to be a “traitor” after all.

In contrast, I cannot imagine circumstances in which one would be justified in being a fascist.

35

Ted Barlow 02.16.05 at 7:07 pm

Abb1,

I didn’t know that. If vanden Heuvel worked for a Soviet Moscow Times, I’ll be duly embarassed. I’ve called The Nation to double-check.

36

chris 02.16.05 at 7:11 pm

To clarify: I do not mean to suggest that Carter or anyone else would be justified in committing treason against the United States.

37

washerdreyer 02.16.05 at 7:15 pm

Chris:
I said calling someone a traitor is worse because I think the statement “x is a traitor” commmitts the speaker to the belief “x should be imprisoned or killed.” On the other hand, I’m not really sure what “X is a facist” committs you to, probably something like, “Vigorous efforts must be made to prevent x from gaining political power.”

38

aspiring libertine 02.16.05 at 7:51 pm

Oh that site is a treasure of delights.
Rob Reiner:
#
Anti-smoking, anti-war, anti-Bush activist

Why is anti-smoking in the same category as anti-war and anti-Bush?
Because the Marines smoke even more than Iraqis?

39

abb1 02.16.05 at 7:51 pm

Right. ‘Traitor’ is someone who’s actually committed a criminal act, while a ‘fascist’ is just a fella whose opinions we don’t approve of.

40

Ginger Yellow 02.16.05 at 8:08 pm

j, you’re just proving my point. It isn’t because of a lack of publicity from left-wing blogs that the mainstream media indulges the likes of Coulter. The media doesn’t take its cues from lefty blogs in the way it does from righty ones like Drudge. It’s not as if Bush is ever introduced as “pathological liar George Bush”, is it? Have you ever been to World O’Crap? Or David Neiwert’s blog? They do nothing but highlight rightwing extremism. Atrios and Kos and MediaMatters and all sorts of big lefty blogs quote righties’ beyond-the-pale comments all the time. But we don’t have the Drudge->New York Times message pump that the right has. You can debate the reasons behind that, but it’s not for lack of attention from lefty blogs.

41

Bithead 02.16.05 at 8:19 pm

All I need to see the quote from Hindrocket about Carter is right on the beam, is when I se him sitting next to Rotundo Moore at the DNC.

Tell me, please;
Where are the Democrats objecting to such as Moore, Stewart, Whoopie Goldberg, Chevy Chase, Green “Bush is Hitler” Day, and so on? Where are the Dmeocrats objecting to being connected with the madness that is Err America? Democratic Underground? Etc, etc.

Sorry, guys, but the only assuption one can make is that, barring seeing any Democrats objecting to these radicals, that the rank and file Democrats AGREE with these anti-American nitwits; that they are in fact part and parcel of the Demorcatic Party.

42

Uncle Kvetch 02.16.05 at 8:25 pm

The media doesn’t take its cues from lefty blogs in the way it does from righty ones like Drudge.

And speaking of everybody’s favorite fedora-sporting closet case, how long before DtN takes a cue from Matt and updates the site to include Chris Rock?

43

sluggo 02.16.05 at 8:27 pm

http://discoverthenetwork.org/guideDesc.asp?type=gov&subtype=shadowparty

Horowitz, Poe:

“”Barely noticed by political observers, an activist juggernaut has seized control of the party’s national electoral apparatus, organized, financed and directed by the left.””

Spooky!

44

sluggo 02.16.05 at 8:44 pm

“”Barely noticed by noble commentators, a lumpenproletariat juggernaut has seized control of the monarchy’s seigneurial apparatus, organized, financed and directed by the bourgeoisie.”“

45

abb1 02.16.05 at 8:53 pm

Ted,
I don’t see any reason for you to be embarassed, however:
Princeton website:

Editor of The Nation since January 1995, Katrina vanden Heuvel joined the staff as an assistant editor in 1984 and served as acting editor in 1994. She previously worked at ABC in the network’s documentary “Closeup” division, and also worked as a reporter for the Moscow Times covering the 1989 elections during the perestroika era.

1989 – that was a good year, the Berlin wall went down.

46

Xavier 02.16.05 at 8:54 pm

That Hinderaker quote is already posted on just about every liberal blog out there. I agree that the quote is indefensible, but I don’t agree with the implication that the left isn’t pushing it just as hard as the right pushes those silly DU posts.

I can’t imagine why J thinks it would be a good idea for the left to call attention to the right’s treatment of Ward Churchill. On the Ward Churchill controversy, the right is doing exactly what J suggests that the left should be doing. They’re calling attention to lunacy on the other side. The left can’t focus public attention on the right’s reaction to Ward Churchill without focusing attention on Churchill himself. That keeps more leftwing nuttiness in the public eye, not less.

47

Ted Barlow 02.16.05 at 9:15 pm

I spoke to Katrina vanden Heuvel, who says that she worked for the Moscow News. I don’t know what to tell you about that link you found, abb1.

48

Henry 02.16.05 at 9:37 pm

bq. Soros, Khomeini, Danny Glover, Castro, Robert Scheer and Roger Ebert are working hand in glove to bring about our doom.

Didn’t the South Park guys “make a movie about this”:http://www.teamamerica.com/?

49

BeingThere 02.16.05 at 10:13 pm

Thanks to Discover the Network!, it’s become clear to me that the person Mohammad Atta was secretly meeting with in Prague prior to 9/11 was in fact none other than than the leftist radical Pete Seeger.

Oh Pete, where have all the flowers gone?

50

aspiring libertine 02.17.05 at 1:08 am

It’s not as if Bush is ever introduced as “pathological liar George Bush”, is it?

No, but one can always dream of that moment. I believe it will come the same day as the Queen is introduced as “that useless tourist attraction” on BBC News.

On the other hand, today, clandestine euromembers of the Environmental category in The Discovered Network had the pleasure of hearing the whole of the United States – yes, all you people there, too, no matter who you voted for – introduced on the news as “the worst polluter in the world”. Very matter of fact. Preceded by the words: Kyoto protocol, take effect, except in.

Someone should be outraged, I guess.

51

John Emerson 02.17.05 at 4:12 am

“Maybe it’s because, like Max Sawicky suggested, we dislike being assholes.”

Max should speak for himself.

I’ve thought for a decade that civil disussion of politics is no longer impossible in the US. Liberals pitifully look around for dialogue partners, and what they get is stubborn, incorrigible gameplayers who are willing to affirm any sophistry and deny any fact. As here.

In other circumstances the odious bigmacattack will self-righteously demand fairness and civility from others, but he personally is not capable of it and doesn’t try. Mentally the guy seems to function at the level of a football fan talking trash.

I date the end of civility from Newt Gingrich’s accession as Speaker of the House. newt made a large number of over-the-top, scurrilous, ludicrous, dishonest smears of the Democratic Party, and it worked very well for him.

Some purported Republican moderates and rational conservatives are just stealth Republicans doing as much damage as possible in disguise. Others are pitiful lackeys who are in denial about the actual nature of their own party. Cutthroat movement conservatives run the Republican Party and the US, and the rest of them are just deluded irrelevancies.

52

John Emerson 02.17.05 at 4:25 am

My favorite example of Gingich’s nastiness was his attempt to blame the Democrats for the fact that Susan Smith murdered who two children.

Completely unjustified and loathsome, of course, but the kicker is that Smith’s had been sexually molested by her stepfather, Beverly (sic) Russell, who was a Moral Majority functionary on the South Carolina Republican Party Central Committee.

Except for Robert Scheer, no one picked up the story. If the party affiliations had been the opposite, Gingrich and Smith would be linked like Mary Jo Kopechne and Ted Kennedy.

I, personally, like the odious micmacattack, am willing to be an asshole. But the Democratic party to which I nominally belong is incapable of functioning in the real world of today.

53

John Emerson 02.17.05 at 4:38 am

The treason talk is not new. But since Bush won, it’s spreading into more respectable conservative circles. There’s blood in the water, and the people who call themselves conservatives want it all. Now.

Talk to me in a couple years, but I expect that the treason talk is going to become reality, with actual prosecutions (not necessarily specifically for treason) and physical attacks. It will start with strongly antiwar people who aren’t even Democrats, but the Democratic Party will always be in the sights.

I don’t actually think at all well of Ward Churchill, but I now regret attacking him a week or so ago. He’s just the first of a long list of names that they’re going to go after. they’re smart enough to attack the least appealing individuals first, in a classic salami-slice operation.

If I turn out to be wrong in this, I will be very happy and will let the whole world insult me with impunity.

54

John Emerson 02.17.05 at 4:58 am

“no longer possible” or “now impossible”. Take your pick.

55

Walt Pohl 02.17.05 at 9:40 am

mw: In my family, I am the one who has the highest opinion of George Bush, since I think he’s too incompetent to completely destroy America, and since I’m less than 100% sure we’re going to war with Iraq or Syria. My family is just as typical of America as yours.

John of course is right. The comment here by bithead is typical of the kind of discourse we’re seeing from movement conservatives — a meaningless list of names of today’s “enemies” (Chevy Chase?). 9/11 has empowered people who could care less about terrorism or foreign policy, who only care about their imaginary internal enemies, and not any real external ones. Now that they are in power, and now power does not bring them any of the satisfaction they imagined it would, they have nothing left to fall back on than their hatred of liberalism.

56

mark 02.17.05 at 2:06 pm

Both my senators and my congressman are among those 72 dastardly bastards! And honestly, I’m pretty proud of that. Hooray for Massachusetts!

57

Uncle Kvetch 02.17.05 at 3:30 pm

Now that they are in power, and now power does not bring them any of the satisfaction they imagined it would, they have nothing left to fall back on than their hatred of liberalism.

Yep. That’s how I’ve attempted to make sense of the blustering and venom. To draw on a popular bit of CT semiotics: How can it be that my side is now fully in charge, and I still haven’t gotten my goddamn pony? It must be somebody’s fault, and it sure as hell ain’t my side’s, because they’re on my side.

58

Paul 02.17.05 at 3:38 pm

Where are the Dmeocrats objecting to being connected with the madness that is Err America? Democratic Underground? Etc, etc.

Would you like those disavowals in the form of Congressional resolutions or a Constitutional amendments?

Dude, take the red pill, really. Here’s the problem with the blogosphere (and the country)–too many people like Eric Florack (aka Bithead). One in every server room in America as far as I can tell; small men with loud voices, who can’t tell the difference between the outside world and the imaginary world on their computer screen.

59

2late2theparty 02.18.05 at 1:56 am

I have seen it pointed out, that it has been a general principle that ex-presidents do not criticize the foreign policy of the sitting president, especially when in other countries. Criticism certainly does not mean the ex-president is playing for the other side, but negotiating with other countries’ leaders in a way that is at odds with US govt policy can reasonably be construed as such.

Here is some discussion on the MCLAUGHLIN GROUP about President Carter’s criticism of US foreign policy in his Nobel Peace Prize Speech:

***

FORMER PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: (From videotape.) For powerful countries to adopt a principle of preventative war may well set an example that can have catastrophic consequences.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Jimmy Carter took aim at the heart of Bush’s national security strategy, the preemptive strike, this week in Oslo, where he was belatedly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in brokering the Camp David accords between Egypt and Israel nearly a quarter of a century ago. The former president described President Bush’s new strategic preemptive strike doctrine, quoting approvingly the words of Ralph Bunche, the revered U.S. government official and U.N. diplomat, the first Black to be a division head in the Department of State and a Nobel Peace Prize winner himself.

FORMER PRESIDENT CARTER: (From videotape.) “To suggest that war can prevent war is a base play on words and a despicable form of war mongering. The world has had ample evidence that war begets only conditions that beget further war,” unquote. We must remember that today there are at least eight nuclear nations on earth, and three of these are threatening to their own neighbors in areas of great international tension.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You have thoughts on this?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Yes, I do. I mean, I must say to you I find his sermonizing on foreign policy to be slightly repellant to me. This is man who sent letters to every country in the Security Council in 1990 opposing the United States going to war against Saddam Hussein, back in 1990, 1991. He actually sent those letters, and sent a copy of the letter, he maintains, to the White House. That, to my mind, is not the role of an ex-president of the United States. Now, he is being a good ex-president, and a much better ex-president than he was a president. But his attitudes towards the defense of this country and the defense of our interests, in my judgment, is wrong-headed. It was —

***

Because President Carter lobbied Security Council members against US policy, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft accused Carter of violating the Logan Act, the law that prohibits American citizens from conducting unofficial foreign policy.

***

President Carter did not only interfere with President George H W Bush foreign policy. He interfered with President Clinton’s North Korea policy by personally visiting with Kim Il Sung and praising North Korea. Carter wrote speeches for Yassir Arafat during the time Clinton was negotiating between Israel and the PA. Carter visited Castro in Cuba during the current Bush administration, and attempted unofficial diplomacy there without consulting the White House.

***

To this day the Carter Center website has no comments about the Iraq elections.

***

In 1980, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) of President Carter: “Unable to distinguish between our friends and our enemies, he has essentially adopted our enemies’ view of the world.”

60

kasei 02.18.05 at 2:29 am

I don’t get this – why shouldn’t an ex-President say what he thinks (and yes, even ‘lobby’ for it) on foreign affairs? Most countries don’t seem to have problems with former leaders making pronouncements on policies (whether anybody listens to/reads them or not is another matter…) why do some Americans see it as unacceptable, bordering on treason?

61

Ginger Yellow 02.18.05 at 8:37 am

I can see a strong argument for Logan Act violations, but as has been pointed out, there are very few presidents that doesn’t apply to. But there’s a world of difference between hindering GOVERNMENT policy and aiding and abetting the enemies of a COUNTRY.

Comments on this entry are closed.