BS: Liberal hate

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 May 06 - 05:41 PM

Oh, I forgot - I also wanted to note thata great many of the responses that came from any given blogosphere in all likelihood had not read the columns or even seen the Press Awards show but had read ONLY the blog's take on it. Which is another reason that mot much value is put on such 'opinion'.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Bill D
Date: 09 May 06 - 05:59 PM

My take on the REACTION to Cohen's comments is that it was a VERY heavily biased sample ....mostly of those who LOVE seeing Bush skewered and have a pretty strange notion of 'humor'. I do NOT think it represents a good sample of your average Liberals. Most liberals were probably more amused to see Bush actually have to sit & listen to what so many are coming to believe, than they were at the actual routine.


Oh....I would MUCH rather have seen Jon Stewart do the roast for similar, but 'funny' remarks.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 May 06 - 07:08 PM

I saw the clip of Colbert's routine. It wasn't much different from dozens of similar comedy routines I've heard in which Bush is the subject. What made it a double-barrelled snort is that Bush had to sit there and listen to it. If Cohen thinks it was "rude," well he has a right to his opinion.

Do I hate Bush, BB? You make a lot of assumptions about people. No, I don't hate Bush. I think he's closed-minded, agenda-driven (the agenda fed to him by his puppet-masters), and generally incompetent. He's a lousy president and history will judge him as one of the worst. I can give you a whole litany of reasons, both domestic and foreign, why that's the case, but you already know them, even though you are not willing to accept the obvious. But do I hate him? No. I can't think of anyone I actually hate.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: michaelr
Date: 09 May 06 - 07:19 PM

...the next election is the Democrats to lose

Yep, and they will if they run Hillary.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Bobert
Date: 09 May 06 - 08:45 PM

Well, they won't run Hillary, michael... Even thje Dems recognize that she is too much an inside the beltway'er...Insdide the beltway'ers just don't win the White House these days... I'm seein' an Edwards/Warner ticket, maybe Edwards/Richardson to pick up a couple Sotheast states....

But take it to the bank... No Hillary... Even the dumbass Dems ain't that dumb... They won't evn have her on the ticket at all... No Edwards/Clinton... Heck, why do the Dems need a Senator from New York on the ticket??? They don't... They need to bust the Southern Strategy if thay have any chance to win and that means stack the ticket with Southerners... The blue states are going Dem anyway so why Clinton???

Politics 101...

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: M.Ted
Date: 09 May 06 - 10:02 PM

Sorry, Bruce, I forgot--I think that Cohen is being sanctimonious, and and a bit dishonest--those columnists love it when they get a box full of email--I think Colbert is funny--even when he makes fun of my side--and I think most of the people who wrote him just think Colbert is funny, and thought he was a jerk for busting on him--

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Janie
Date: 09 May 06 - 10:12 PM

Regardless of the likely bias of the sample of those who e-mailed, Cohen is drawing attention to what could be a very real problem for the Democrats if we are not mindful of it. It has happened enough times before! And those who bother to blog and e-mail political sites are also more likely to vote!

And this current Administration and their ilk are as dangerous as Hitler, IMHO. I know that is pretty extreme, but all the evidence points clearly in a rigorously fascist direction. If you have not read Charlie Savage's article in "The Boston Globe" revealing Bush's incredible end-runs around Congressional law (and the constitition) with his unprecedented use of signing statements, read it now, or catch today's edition of "Fresh Air on NPR.

Even if a more progressive Republican regime were voted in, they still have to account to the neo-cons, and would only slow this country's slide in that direction, not halt or reverse it.

Given the number of votes that progressive third parties like Bobert's "Greens" and progressive independents will draw away from the Dems., it is particularly important that Dems. understand even during the primaries that we are all on the same team.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 09 May 06 - 10:17 PM

Come on, folks, Bruce is just mad that his beloved leader was stupid enough to participate in something like that and was obviously clueless about the stuff Colbert had thrown at him. Nor do I find Cohen particularly liberal, that's Bruce's touch again. Don't let him draw you into this non-issue. Bush once again made bewildering, willing fool of himself at a time when he desperately needs to show people he's serious. It was incomprehensible that Bush would dare come up with something this bizarre as his way of reaching out to America in a time when the country is about to lynch him for killing 2400+ innocent Americans with many, many more on the way. There's nothing wrong with hate provided you know what you're hating.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Bobert
Date: 09 May 06 - 10:29 PM

Yeah, AR...

Everyone allready knew that Bush was a regular guy... So why go to extremenes to point out his regular-ness???

These is some difficult times than need a cut above "regular guys"...

Bad move on Bush's handler's parts....

That is what I have been sayin'... Bush suffers from not enough opinions... But that is very much his, or his daddy's, doin'... In ore ways than one...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 May 06 - 12:13 AM

BB--

Do you have a transcript for what Colbert said at the correspondents' dinner? If not, you are just operating on what Cohen said--which makes your thread premise perilously close to hearsay. As BIll has pointed out, "liberal hate" is your own formulation--not Cohen's words.

As such, it is (unsurprisingly) intellectually dishonest on your part.

I have watched Colbert's show several times. Have you? His MO is an (excellent) parody of a "conservative" fire-eater. By exaggerating the Bushite attitude, he lampoons it--often deftly.

You have no way of knowing if those who criticized Cohen's column will eventually vote Democratic or sit the next election out--and that is a far more significant question than real or imagined "rudeness". Cohen has to write columns. Columnists exaggerate--is this a revelation for you?

I read the column. It was pretty feeble--didn't have the horsepower to leap to Cohen's conclusions. Well, even columnists have bad days. But as has been pointed out, he did get response--and they always like that.

Possible subtexts: As other posters have suggested, Cohen didn't like Colbert's skewering of the press. Also, Cohen wants to be sure Bush invites him to the dinner next year. Mission accomplished.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: M.Ted
Date: 10 May 06 - 12:45 AM

When a president's popularity is down in the Nixon numbers, his party pays the price--and Bush's party knows it. The next election, and the one after, will be a referendum on Bush--political pundits are bandying the term "Perfect Storm" about--there is anger out there, lot's and lots of it--

Janie brought up the inevitable comparison between the current administration and the fascists--remember what happened to them?

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: michaelr
Date: 10 May 06 - 02:33 AM

Hey Bobert -- I don't disagree with any of what you said except "the Dems ain't that dumb". I need to see proof that they ain't, cos I think they is.

As for Colbert's performance, maybe the Brits are right in saying Americans don't get irony...

I say he's a American hero.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 06 - 07:34 AM

Ron,

Read Janie's post. YOU have missed the entire intent of this thread.

"Do you have a transcript for what Colbert said at the correspondents' dinner? If not, you are just operating on what Cohen said--which makes your thread premise perilously close to hearsay. As BIll has pointed out, "liberal hate" is your own formulation--not Cohen's words.

As such, it is (unsurprisingly) intellectually dishonest on your part."

Intellectually dishonest to want to know what people think about the premise that the Democrats will tear themselves apart, rather than take the easy win in the next election?

You, sir, have a problem with comprehension.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: M.Ted
Date: 10 May 06 - 10:19 AM

You can't tell people what to say, Bruce-you have a point of your own that you are trying to leverage people into agreeing with--ain't gonna happen-you're trying to make a point about liberals--wake up and smell the coffee!
This is all about failure, corruption, and incompetence in the Bush administration--Liberals have nothing to do with the President's failure. In fact, as some have pointed out, they've played along with along with the Bushman, way too much--

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Peace
Date: 10 May 06 - 10:28 AM

The failure and corruption M.Ted speaks about has been rampant in Washington for decades. And it hasn't seemed to matter which group was pulling the strings. It has certainly hit new levels under Bush (the national debt comes to mind), but the process has been going on for a heckuva long time. The buck stopped on Truman's desk. It seems to have been stopping there ever since.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 06 - 10:31 AM

MTed,

I DO NOT CARE about what Colbert said, or did not say. IT DOES NOT MATTER.


I DO NOT CARE what percentage of the people emailing Cohen thought what. IT DOES NOT MATTER.



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

The hatred is back. I know it's only words now appearing on my computer screen, but the words are so angry, so roiled with rage, that they are the functional equivalent of rocks once so furiously hurled during antiwar demonstrations. I can appreciate some of it. Institution after institution failed America -- the presidency, Congress and the press. They all endorsed a war to rid Iraq of what it did not have. Now, though, that gullibility is being matched by war critics who are so hyped on their own sanctimony that they will obliterate distinctions, punishing their friends for apostasy and, by so doing, aiding their enemies. If that's going to be the case, then Iraq is a war its critics will lose twice -- once because they couldn't stop it and once more at the polls."


Is this really such a subtle point? Or are SOME of the Liberals here SO kneejerk and lockstep that they cannot understand?

Amos has an excelent thread about people's opinion of Bush- THIS IS
NOT IT.


As for " you are trying to leverage people into agreeing with"

I DO NOT CARE if you agree with me or not- I WANT TO KNOW ***OTHER'S*** OPINIONS ON THE THREAD TOPIC- "war critics who are so hyped on their own sanctimony that they will obliterate distinctions, punishing their friends for apostasy and, by so doing, aiding their enemies."


I think I can make a good guess at many people's opinions on Bush, any criticism of him, and any attempt to keep discorse on a polite level. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE THREAD TOPIC- NOR HAVE MANY OF YOU MADE THE ATTEMPT TO PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSION.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Bobert
Date: 10 May 06 - 10:32 AM

Well, MTed, the Bush folks have always had to have someone else to blame... This is the Karl Rove approach to all failures... I remember during the 1st term that they blamed Clinton for just about everything.. They rode that horse into the ground just as the pigs drove the horses into the ground in "Animal Farm"...

Then came the 2nd term with scandals and failing policies under every rock and since they had worn out poor 'ol Clinton, Bush revived his daddy's ol' stratergy of making, ahhhhh, Intellegent people (intellectuals) the new boogie man de joir and that's seems to be the evolving stategy for the Bush folks...

Even the skit with Bush playin' to be a dumb as is really is was kinda a pea-ender-the-shell reverse psychology attack on intellectuals... Yeah, Bush was sayin' to his base, "This is what them intellectuals think I'm like... Hahahah..." Very clever, if all yer tryin' to do is entertain folks who really aren't thet bright...

Daddy Bush taught his boys well...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 06 - 10:34 AM

"Seeing that most, though not all, people who have posted here so far have REACTED rather than responded only adds to that fear."


Be afraid, Janie. Be VERY afraid.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: freda underhill
Date: 10 May 06 - 10:46 AM

and here you've neatly summed up the message of the Right, bb! :-)

freda
(not scared)

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 06 - 10:49 AM

freda,

Have you bothered to read this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 06 - 10:55 AM

"Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Janie - PM
Date: 09 May 06 - 04:17 PM

Bruce--It doesn't sound like many here are understanding your question. I HOPE his assessment that we liberals and progressives will do ourselves more damage than good is incorrect. I FEAR, however, that he is right on the money. Seeing that most, though not all, people who have posted here so far have REACTED rather than responded only adds to that fear.

Janie "



In case it is too much to ask that people posting actually try to READ the thread...

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 May 06 - 11:29 AM

Here is one answer:

Whence It Came

    "This isn't Vietnam, Mr. Cohen. This is a whole new ballgame, and the stakes are higher by orders of magnitude. It took almost ten years of Vietnam for people to reach the boiling point you are so apparently horrified by (and worthy of note, that rage may have elected Nixon, but also served to stop the killing in Southeast Asia). Should those of us who are angry today wait until 2013 to raise hell?
    "At a minimum, I suggest you head down to your local hardware store and buy a few sheets of 40-grit sandpaper. Apply it liberally - pardon the pun - to any and all parts of your body that may be exposed to the scary anger of the anti-war Left. Toughen up that hide of yours, and greet the coming days with a leathery mien impervious to a few angry emails.
    "Afterwards, you could perhaps figure out why the anger of those who see this war as a crime and this administration as a disaster is so terribly threatening to you. Anger is a gift, after all, one that inspires change. If you don't think we need a change, real change, I can only shake my head.
    "P.S. Another reason for the anger you have absorbed can be laid, frankly, at your own feet. There are enough of us around who can still remember your words from November of 2000: "Given the present bitterness, given the angry irresponsible charges being hurled by both camps, the nation will be in dire need of a conciliator, a likable guy who will make things better and not worse. That man is not Al Gore. That man is George W. Bush."
    "Locate a mirror, Mr. Cohen. Stare deep within it. Know full well that today, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, will recast all your yesterdays as having passed like a comforting dream. Your ability to remain within the safe bubble of the beltway clubhouse, drifting this way and that in some meandering, rudderless fog, has ended."

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Janie
Date: 10 May 06 - 11:52 AM

Hello? Fellow Liberals & Progressives? I don't participate much in the political discussions here, but I think about this stuff alot, and I vote.

I continue to think Bruce (and Cohen) are raising an issue that is important for the Dems. to address (even if it is a bad example--I don't know--I don't know Colbert or Cohen from Adam--no TV.)

Not all Democrats are liberal Democrats. The majority of those who vote in presidential elections in this country (I think) are pretty moderate. If Democrats in general, and liberal Democrats in particular, do not take care to modulate the differences within our ranks, but instead rip each other apart in the national media and on the trail of the primaries, then the Democratic nominee, and Democratic candidates for Congress, will not garner the swing votes and otherwise third party votes that will be needed to win both the Presidency and Congress. Keep in mind that MOST people in this country who are eligible to vote--DON'T vote.

Keep in mind, also, that we probably all tend to associate with like-minded people. We liberals, therefore, are probably not in a good position to judge how most moderates will perceive the choices.

Also keep in mind that failing to listen and then RESPOND thoughtfully and intelligently to concerns of moderates and moderate conservatives is not likely to influence people to vote as we might like.

Reactionary is reactionary--whether it is reactionary left or reactionary right. When the emotions get behind the wheel of the bus, the bus is liable to wreck. The emotions belong ON the bus--but not in the driver's seat.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: M.Ted
Date: 10 May 06 - 12:39 PM

Kneejerking and lockstepping are mutually exclusive, Bruce--you can't march in a lockstep if your knees are jerking--You have been listening to the empty rhetoric the right for so long that you actually think that it means something-it doesn't--

The idea that the Democrats are just hurting themselves by being angry at all things Bush is the last desperate ditch effort of a failed administration to silence it's critics. It is a bit like telling a lynch mob that they are only hurting themselves.

Cohen's contention is wrong for a lot of other reasons--for instance, if only 38% of the populace identify themselves as Democrats( and an even smaller number of those as liberals) the 70% disapproval can't very well be "partisan politics", can it? No--the anger isn't coming from Liberal spin doctors--the anger is coming from those who bought the program--

Judging by the all of the anti-Hilary talk, she is the one that the right fear most--and they should fear her, because she can keep the 70% together--

As to Cohen, he's a Washington journalist--this essay was a bone thrown to the Rove team--The press do that, in exchange for access--

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 06 - 12:48 PM

kneejerk- "If I did not like Colbert, I must like Bush. If I write for The Post, I must be a mainstream media warmonger. If I was over a certain age -- which I am -- I am simply out of it, wherever "it" may be. All in all, I was -- I am, and I guess I remain -- the worthy object of ignorant, false and downright idiotic vituperation."


Lockstep- all running together in the same direction, regardless of where it leads to



You are still missing the point.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 May 06 - 01:32 PM

Bruce, have you followed my link? I'd like your ideas on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: John Hardly
Date: 10 May 06 - 02:14 PM

"The Democrats lost because Bobby Kennedy was dead, and there was no other peace candidate with acceptance outside of the peace movement. Humphrey , as LBJ's VP, he couldn't credibly run against his own boss's foreign policies, so the "peace" vote was lost--Even at that, Nixon, who had a "secret peace plan", nearly defeated himself, and ended up with fewer votes than he'd gotten in 1960, and was saved by third party canditate George Wallace who pulled conservative voters from the Democrats(sounds funny to say that today)--

Vietnam was the Democrats war, and the party was split because it was a disaster. This time around, it is the Republican party that is split by a war. Oddly enough, the conservative Democrats who stood by LBJ are now the conservative Republicans who now stand by Bush--and, just like then, they feel angry and alienated by their party--

If we use the 1968 election as a bellwether for this next one, the years ahead may be bleak indeed-- "

I agree with much of this. I differ in the notion that conservative Republicans back Bush. They really never have. The most that can be said is that Bush successfully divided Republicans (as nobody before had) into conservatives -- as had always been defined that way, and neo-conservatives which are, in effect, pro-war liberals. :^)

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 May 06 - 02:39 PM

lol, John. Them's fightin' words.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Bill D
Date: 10 May 06 - 02:50 PM

gee, bruce...you need a new career-- interviewing politicians and asking them interesting questions, then TRYING to get them to answer the question you asked, instead of plugging in their favorite answers and changing the subject.

You are working WAY too hard at asking a multi-layer question with embedded referential meanings. Most people, from professional politicians to press sectretaries to opinionated Mudcatters, would rather have a simpler, direct question..."Do you think that Democrats really ARE shooting themselves in the foot?" "Do you think Colbert's respondents represent an accurate cross-section?"...etc.

You began by "inviting comment" and the C&P, and that's what you got. It took you half a dozen posts to clarify the direction you intended. Most folks read these posts FAST, whether you do or not, and you gotta make your intent clear. Even then, you really can't control someone wanting to bounce off at a different angle with THEIR concern about an event.

You remind me of Cris Matthews trying to interview Trent Lott...*grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 06 - 03:17 PM

BillD

I made the error of thinking that there were thinking people here. In all but a few cases, I have been proven wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 06 - 04:11 PM

Ebbie,

I did read to site. I don't agree with all of it, but understand the anger. Now, please let me know why you think that anger is worth losing the election over?

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 May 06 - 04:39 PM

BB, isn't it possible that what you and Cohen are assuming is anger and hatred is actually motivation, and that, far from liberals losing the next presidential election, this indicates that there is a substantial number of people in this counrty who are sufficiently fed up with the Bush administration and are eager to throw the bums out? It certainly shows that a lot of people tend to agree with the things Colbert was saying.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: CarolC
Date: 10 May 06 - 05:00 PM

I differ in the notion that conservative Republicans back Bush. They really never have. The most that can be said is that Bush successfully divided Republicans (as nobody before had) into conservatives -- as had always been defined that way, and neo-conservatives which are, in effect, pro-war liberals. :^)

I agree with a lot of this. But I do know several "old school" (paleo) conservatives who backed GW Bush (and still do), because he was on their "team" and they felt he could win. For many people (on both sides, really), that is enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Bill D
Date: 10 May 06 - 05:28 PM

" error of thinking that there were thinking people here."

sorry, bruce, but that is condescending and verging on supercilious.

If you take NO responsibility for a rocky start to your theme, then I suggest that castigating folks instead of just explaining is not likely to get them to bow to your superior wisdom. Try "I may not have made my point clear, let me try again...."

As you may have noticed, a lot of people in here 'think' a lot. Sometimes they think faster than they read....that is not being stupid or inept, it is partly a function of internet hurrying. Not thinking in YOUR patterns is not a sin....and there are better ways to make your different views known. I submit that you may not have paused to absorb the entire thrust of MY earlier post...*grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 May 06 - 05:52 PM

Exactly right, Carol- a goodly number of the brain-dead view national and international politics as some sort of football match devoid of real consequances. They've never developed past the stage of pre-adolescence.

Hence the state the U.S. is in today.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 10 May 06 - 07:32 PM

>>Also keep in mind that failing to listen and then RESPOND thoughtfully and intelligently to concerns of moderates and moderate conservatives is not likely to influence people to vote as we might like.<<

You make it sound as though moderates don't think for themselves but only react to how they perceive liberals to be behaving towards them. That's actually quite insulting. I think moderates are intelligent enough to make up their minds about Bush quite apart from what anyone else thinks. If they have had enough of Bush, then they have had enough of Bush. If they have had enough of GOP scandals, then they have had enough--period. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks of moderates at this point. Moderates have to vote their hearts and minds like everyone else.

Do you care how moderates feel about you or act towards you when you vote for a president or do you vote based on how you feel about that person and what you believe that person stands for and can accomplish? I voted for Kerry not because I gave two shits what conservatives or republicans think of me, but because I wanted Bush out of there. This Congress is a disgrace and the bums have to go and I don't care if moderates or republicans or conservatives are with me or not. That is how I will vote. If they disagree, that is their right but they do not influence my vote in any way. And I think any moderate would tell you much the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Bobert
Date: 10 May 06 - 08:22 PM

I ain't buyin' Cohen's line here... Every election cycle progressives gotta go thru this same ol' crap of being made the scapegoats of the Dems...

Yo, DNC: Bite me...

Yo, Richie Cohen: Bite me...

In these 49/48/3% elections it would seem that the Dems would do a little courtin' an' less blamin'...

Sure, we don't like Bush...

But we don't like you being in bed with the corporatists either...

Yer move and trying to make us the bad guys ain't gonna win nuthin'...

Grow some friggin' balls...

Bobert (Green and proud of it, gol danged it...)

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: CarolC
Date: 10 May 06 - 08:42 PM

Nice rant, Bobert!

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Bobert
Date: 10 May 06 - 08:45 PM

Thanks...

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 May 06 - 08:54 PM

I note that BB has lumped me and a whole bunch of others together with what he considers to be "knee-jerk liberals." That shows how wrong one can be when trying to pigeon-hole someone in order to simply dismissing their opinion as not worth listening to.

I used to be a conservative. Not a neo-conservative, but what some have characterized as a paleo-conservative. Then, I became a moderate. Recently I've been regarded as a liberal. And there are those here who, I am sure, consider me to be a flaming, knee-jerk, frothing-at-the-mouth liberal.

Well, let me put it this way:   my political/philosophical position hasn't really changed all that much. But the country has shifted way to the Right. And I know enough history, and can read the signs well enough to know where that's taking us. So if the fact that I object to many of the actions of the Bush administration makes me a "knee-jerk liberal" in the minds of some folks here, then so be it!

Responding quickly to something does not necessarily mean that one is "unthinking." It may indicate that one has thought already. If I respond very quickly (to cite only one example of the many possible) when it's revealed that detainees are being tortured, and the president, instead of rising up in fury, putting an immediate stop to it, and prosecuting those who both authorized and committed the atrocities, he, at the very least, merely mumbles and looks the other way, then I don't think that's because I'm just another of those "knee-jerk liberals."

That sort of thing—and quite a number of others that the Bush administration is not just allowing, but instigating—are not permitted to happen in MY America!!

Angry? You're damned straight I'm angry!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Arne
Date: 10 May 06 - 09:14 PM

Here ya go, BB. A compendium of long tales of wankery from the gifted wanker Richard Cohen.

Just to save you time in perusing the enormity of Cohen's wankery, there's this and this and this and this and this and this.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Arne
Date: 10 May 06 - 09:34 PM

BTW, I think some person or organisation ought to institute a Jonathan Swift prize for the best political satire of the year. For the inaugural year, I'd nominate Colbert, hands down. I suspect that Swift's "A Modest Proposal" didn't get too many chuckles from his contemporaries either, but it's an acknowledged masterpiece. As was Colbert's number there.

Cohen seems to think that he deserves to be humoured, even impelled to guffaws of gentle-natured laughter, by the reigning "comedian" who makes light of such innocuous subjects as the lack of WoMDs that were to be the cause celebre for an unprovoked invasion that has cost well over 2400 servicemen's families the ultimate price in the last couple of years. Sorry to say, Colbert, some things just ain't too funny ... you know, like roasted infants ... but Cohen may not be too aware of this, being seemingly on the short end of the stick as far as literacy goes. Cohen got his own balls toasted good, and he comes out and whines, "That's not funny!!!!" It's about time that Cohen figured that out, and when (and if) he ever does, he might be a better person for it.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 10 May 06 - 10:09 PM

Wow, Cohen is a bigger moron than I initially gave him credit for:

>>>A cabdriver who passes up a young black male is seeing more than race. He is also seeing sex and age. The three together fit the profile of the most common type of Washington criminal, and the cabdriver acts accordingly. In a different city, a different kind of person would be passed up. The thinking that goes into that decision is quite different from the thinking that made white cabdrivers of old Washington pass up blacks of any sex or any age simply because they were black. It does no good to simply label as racist those whose motives are otherwise, those, in fact, who may be of the same race.<<<

Some might agree with this thinking it sounds reasonable. After all, racism between black and white has left whites jaded. Black commit a lot of crime in America so there you have it. Can't blame whites for being antsy. But let me introduce you to America's institutionalized racism when it is directed at Asian-Americans and let me do it by rephrasing Cohen's words. This form of racism is so touchy and so ingrained that many whites (males in particular) swear it does not exist or is at best merely a mild "cultural bias":

"A white man who sexualizes young Asian females is seeing more than race. He is also seeing sex and age. The three together fit the profile of the most common fantasy of a desirable female, and the white man acts accordingly. In a different country, a different kind of women would be sexualized. The thinking that goes into that decision is quite different from the thinking of white men who, say, sexualize Asians of any sex or any age simply because they are Asian. It does no good to simply label as racist those whose motives are otherwise, those, in fact, who may be of the same race."

Or let's word it another way:

"A white man who desexualizes the young Asian male is seeing more than race. He is also seeing sex and age. The three together fit the profile of the most common type of geek or nerd, and the white man acts accordingly. In a different country, a different kind of male would be desexualized. The thinking that goes into that decision is quite different from the thinking of white men who, say, desexualize Asians of any sex or any age simply because they are Asian. It does no good to simply label as racist those whose motives are otherwise, those, in fact, who may be of the same race."

IOW, it doesn't matter why it is done, it based on race—period—and is therefore racism. Cohen doesn't seem to get it and his reasoning doesn't sound liberal to me. It sounds perfectly colonialist and patronizing. Let's see how he likes being passed up on the streets or shooed from stores knowing it is because he is white. Let's see how he likes being bombarded by images of white women lusting after non-white men in movie, television, magazine, advertisements because they are clearly seen as sex toys for non-white men while white men are almost never shown at all and when they are, they are always sexless geeks who don't/can't date anyway. And I'll tell him, it's not just his race but his age and sex too. I'm sure he'll feel a whole lot better about it. IOW—that's just how it is so accept it and shut up and some of your kind even agree with me. Thanks for that oh-so-liberal perspective, Mr. Cohen.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 10 May 06 - 10:17 PM

BB-
I think Mr. Cohen voiced an opinion. With which I happen to disagree. The thing that interests me is WHY, if Colbert's shtick offended the Administration, he was hired (or invited or whatever) in the first place. Surely, anyone who's seen his show would know what to expect. Any public person exposes his/herself to often-pointed criticism--W just seems to have exposed himself more han most.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 06 - 10:51 PM

I believe whoever invited him to present at the event was NOT actually familiar with the contents of this show, but only with his general reputation. Unfortunately I forget where I gathered this impression,

A

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Bill D
Date: 10 May 06 - 10:55 PM

Ar282...lemme get this right- you want to rewrite the man's words in a different context, claim they mean basically the same thing, then shoot down his original point based on YOUR rewrite? The situations you use to parody Cohen simply are not comparable.

" it doesn't matter why it is done, it based on race—period—and is therefore racism."

total nonsense! It...(meaning the process of instant 'profiling' by someone like a cabdriver) IS based on more than race...which is all Cohen was saying. They don't fret about young, black women, or even OLD black men. Is race partly involved? Of course it is, as a huge majority of holdups of cab drivers IS committed by young men of ethnic minorities. The cab drivers are playing the odds...breaking the law, but making bets on what potential customers look dangerous to them.

Further, you are severely distorting the concept of racism when you profile any remark or action 'seeming' to be related to race that way.
Racism, properly considered, is generalized opposition to and denegration OF a group based solely on race and, usually, ranking one race as intrinsicly better than another....not just 'noticing' characteristics. I could easily decide to be careful about entering certain neighborhoods without making wholesale judgments about the race of the folks there. My actions would be 'taking race into account', but not necessarily be racist.

You can disagree with Cohen's analysis,,,but do it fairly!

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Janie
Date: 10 May 06 - 11:27 PM

AR282--Huh? Doing a little projecting, friend? I'm talking about the power of effective listening and communication vs. ranting and venting. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I completely fail to see how that insults anyone's intelligence or ability to think for themselves.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Arne
Date: 10 May 06 - 11:31 PM

Bill D:

Ar282...lemme get this right- you want to rewrite the man's words in a different context,....

He quoted Cohen. You can go check out the wankery for yourself if you want; enlightenment is just a blue click away (in my previous post). Say what you want about Ar282's "rewrite", the original's there ... and Cohen is hoist on his own petard. Read 'em all ... and weep for the state of our so-called MSM punditry.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Arne
Date: 10 May 06 - 11:51 PM

Here's some more perspective on Wanker Supreme (not to mention clueless berk; see above links) Cohen. And a bit of insight as to why he was so popular with e-mailers....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal hate
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 May 06 - 11:54 PM

BB--

The phrase "liberal hate" is, in fact and unsurprisingly, intellectually dishonest--as I said. Cohen never said it. You did.

Sorry if you don't like the description. Pobre cito.

If you want to discuss his column please be so good as to refrain from inventing your own incendiary phrases. Or be a little more accurate. "Radical leftist hate" is plausible. Even that is probably off--radical leftists are more likely to be blinded by idealism than hate--if the candidate is not perfect, they may well stay home.

But after all, in 2008 Bush will be a bad dream--to Republicans as well as Democrats. Liberals will recognize this. Cohen's 1968 parallel fails. Sorry.

Liberals can--and do--think--and are not blinded by hate.   They recognize that the best is sometimes the enemy of the good. The lesser of 2 weevils. Etc. You may possibly recall that not every liberal thought John Kerry was the answer to all prayers. But they voted--in large numbers--for him. Had it not been for the Bush regime's mastery of the hate and fear approach in a spectacularly successful--and despicable--propaganda campaign--including the smearing of a good man----Kerry would have won. But I'm sure it was fine with you.

It's a long way to 2008 yet. Cohen wrote a feeble column. Interesting that you seem to think it's significant.