Hands across America

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.

…odious insanity…

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

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

“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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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).

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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/?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?