Log in

No account? Create an account


In the spirit of national pride, hope, and cooperation that is sweeping the nation, RedState and Michelle Malkin have decided to throw the weight* of their readership behind Obama, and brainstorm ideas about how to improve the country.

HA HA, no, just kidding. Instead, they've decided to form "Project Leper", the goal of which is to ruin the careers of anyone who badmouths Sarah Palin.


*: Not inconsiderable, I might add.


Nov. 6th, 2008 03:26 pm (UTC)
Re: eh
And there’s no major left-wing website — not even the really nutty ones like Democratic Underground or IndyMedia — that are as consistently horrible as Michelle Malkin. She’s a fucking disgrace.

Without taking anything away from the unapologetic insanity* that is Michelle Malkin, I respectfully disagree.

* I almost said "xenophobia," but at least that's an ethos.
Nov. 6th, 2008 04:11 pm (UTC)
Re: eh
You know, I hate to cave so readily on an argument like this, but...I’m gonna have to take your word for it on this one. I honestly don’t read that many lefty blogs, because I’m the choir they’re preaching to. Mostly, I rely on the news for my news, and only read the right-wing blogs to make fun of them. I read a couple of left-slanting news sites that could scan as blogs, like Raw Story and Crooks & Liars, and a couple of the big mainstream lefties like TPM and Greenwald (who, while occasionally hysterical over his pet issues, doesn’t strike me as all that nutty), and then I read a couple that are funny, like Roy Edroso and Jon Swift. That’s about it.

DU seems more over-the-top than actively malignant, and IndyMedia is just for those burnouts with the big Bush puppets. I tend to avoid the identity-politics ones like BrownFemiPower because they remind me too much of reading Grover Norquist, and beyond that I just can’t be assed. I do remember being taken aback at the widespread craziness that came up in the wake of PUMA, but to this day I’m not convinced that’s not just some G.O.P. dirty trick, because it’s hard to believe that anyone who genuinely cares about liberal principles would do so much shit that actively hurts the party. Maybe I’m wrong.

So, anyway, if you tell me that there’s a bunch of lefty bloggers out there who are as vicious as Malkin and as dishonest as Goldberg, I guess I’ll have to accept that, because I can’t be bothered to find out. I don’t remember any big-time lefty bloggers writing books in which they defended racially-based prison camps, or claimed against all evidence that fascism is exclusively a product of the left, but maybe they did.
Nov. 6th, 2008 04:58 pm (UTC)
Re: eh
From Making Light
"[Nader] did indeed “get things done.” He got us the worst president in our history. He made sure Detroit cars guzzled gas. He kept useful drugs off the market, or once they were there, got them removed.

Does he have a chance in hell of becoming president? No. None at all. Can he play spoiler and get another Republican warhawk in place? He certainly hopes so, or at least his secret backers think he can.

Okay, everyone. Help save America. Work to keep Nader off the ballot in your state."
From DailyKos:
This [other person's] diary is on the top of the recommended list at Daily Kos right now. In it, it explicitly endorses something that is unacceptable: namely, not voting for a potential presidential nominee for the Democratic Party (Hillary Clinton) if she is the victor in the primaries.
And I never said that liberal bloggers endorsed things as explicitly foul as Malkin's defense of interment or Goldberg's "liberal fascism." For one thing, comparing the other side's worst against your side's average isn't a fair fight.

But for another thing, we're talking about something fairly tame by political blogging standards - making sure Republicans who dis a failed VP candidate get all the ire the right-wing blogosphere can muster. Tell me how that's worse than either of the two examples I cited above.
Nov. 6th, 2008 05:19 pm (UTC)
Re: eh
I'm confused a little.

The first example you site, in which somebody claims there's a secret conspiracy to make sure Nader ruins Dem. political chances, is goofy conspiracy theory bunk.

But I'm not sure what the second example is about. I can't tell from what you have here whether the DailyKos was supporting the idea of not voting for anybody but Hillary, or whether they're pointing out that some other dumbass was supporting that idea. And that was a pretty dumbass idea.

Nov. 6th, 2008 05:49 pm (UTC)
Re: eh
It's a rather nested debate by the time I link to it.

Some other Kossack posts a diary suggesting breaking ranks with the Democrats if Hillary got nominated.

The diarist I linked to says that is "unacceptable." That is to say: the notion of voting for a candidate other than a Democrat is unacceptable. Doesn't matter how progressive or socially liberal they are - if they don't have a (D) next to their name, forget it.
Nov. 6th, 2008 05:59 pm (UTC)
Re: eh
If that's what he's saying, that is whacked.

That's not really how I'd interpret that, though. I interpret that as saying that it's unacceptable to refuse to vote for a candidate just because he beat your favorite candidate in the primary and you're pissed off about that, even though their views are pretty much exactly the same. And that is unacceptable. Not to mention whiny and petulant.
Nov. 6th, 2008 06:01 pm (UTC)
Re: eh
even though their views are pretty much exactly the same.

The hardcore progressives apparently found a lot of difference between Obama and Hillary in the primary months.
Nov. 6th, 2008 06:03 pm (UTC)
Re: eh
If it's based on that, fine. Not unacceptable.

I know a retarded number of people though who threatened to not vote for Obama for no other reason than the fact that he wasn't Hillary. And that's just dumb-ass.
Nov. 6th, 2008 05:25 pm (UTC)
Re: eh
I think the real point here is if the left pulled something like this, they'd call it Project Hansen's Disease.
Nov. 6th, 2008 05:47 pm (UTC)
Re: eh
Ha! You win the day.
Nov. 6th, 2008 05:45 pm (UTC)
Re: eh
Gah, don’t even get me started on the Nader thing. I could talk all night...

I will argue that, if you remove the conspiracy-mongering aspect, there’s a marked difference between attempting to strategically block a candidate you feel will dilute your party’s chances of winning an election and deliberately blackballing anyone who disagrees with you ideologically. By the same token, that Kos quote says that it’s unacceptable to vote for any candidate other than the one who wins the primary, which is dumb, but to be the level of crazy that “Project Leper” is, it would have to go on to say that anyone who does vote for a non-primary winner should be barred from ever voting again. Which it may do, I dunno — I guess there are crazies of that level on the left, but I don’t seem to encounter them very often. I mean, Malkin and RedState aren’t talking about giving people who don’t like Sarah Palin a bunch of shit on a website; they’re actually organizing a campaign of harassment to keep them from ever working again. That, to me, is a whole different level of doctrinaire.

And I’m not too sure about comparing the other side’s worst against your side’s average; that would be a more compelling argument if the other side’s worst wasn’t also the other side’s most popular. Malkin’s book about internment camps and Golberg’s book about liberal fascism were #1 best-sellers. So was Bernie Goldberg’s book about how there’s a massive liberal conspiracy to skew the news. So was Mark Steyn’s last book, which was filled with completely cooked-up data about how the Muslims are outbreeding us so as to impose sharia law on Europe. That’s my point: it’s hard to find any really popular right-wing pundit — not fringe kooks like Mark Noonan or Dan Riehl, but popular, well-known writers — who haven’t espoused some crazy nonsense. It’s not like I’m cherry-picking here. From Victor Davis Hanson’s “we must attack Iran immediately” stuff to Peggy Noonan’s “Jesus appeared and commanded us to save Elian Gonzalez” stuff to Hugh Hewitt’s “I am on the front lines of terror” to John Derbyshire’s “murder victims are cowards” to Dennis Prager’s “Christians invented morality” to Rush Limbaugh’s “people are afraid to tell black quarterbacks they’re all incompetent” to Michael Ledeen’s “Khameini is dead” to, well, pretty much everything posted on Free Republic and Little Green Footballs, the big, popular, well-known right-wing sites are in the habit of posting crazy bullshit. I’m not just selectively yanking provocative stuff from the marginalized bottom-feeders.

By contrast, I can’t remember, say, Digby or Wolcott or Media Matters or Josh Marshall or even Kos himself (I can’t speak for his commenters) ever saying anything on that level of goofiness. Glenn Greenwald tends to notice threats to our freedom of speech that aren’t really there, and David Niewert overexaggerates the degree of influence native fascism has in America, but they still come across as significantly less hysterical than Hugh Hewitt, who wrote a (best-selling) book in which he literally argued that for the safety of America, we can never let another Democrat take office again at any level. Again, I could be wrong, but it seems like the extremism of the left has seeped into the mainstream leftblogs far less than the extremism of the right has seeped into the mainstream rightblogs. There’s only one famous guy on the left with views as extreme as Michael Moore’s, and that’s Michael Moore; but there are a dozen famous right-wing pundits — again, not fringe nuts, but the mainstream best-seller types — with views as extreme as Rush Limbaugh’s.
Nov. 6th, 2008 05:51 pm (UTC)
Re: eh
That's a fair point with which I cannot, at the moment, contend. Let's pick this discussion up after 8 years of an Obama presidency and a Democratic Congress and see where we stand.
Nov. 6th, 2008 06:19 pm (UTC)
Re: eh
True enough — power brings out the crazy. Still, I think back to the Clinton era: I disliked Clinton, and didn’t vote for him either time (he wasn’t liberal enough for me, and he sold out the unions), but he had tons of avid defenders on the left — he still does. When the shit started to hit the fan with him, I thought, oh, man, we’re really going to see the crazies come out to stick up for him. And yet, in the end, it was the right who came across as the nuttiest, with utter horseshit about Clinton being a serial rapist/political murderer/coke dealer appearing even in the “Wall Street Journal”.

Of course, some of that can be attributed to his having a hostile congress in the latter part of his term, but I honestly believe that radicalism has been mainstreamed on the right to a greater degree than it has on the left, which may be attributable to the deals with the devil the G.O.P. made with the southern racists in 1968 and with religious fundamentalists in the 1980s.

Which isn’t to say the left WOULDN’T do this if they could — it’s just that in America, it pays off demographically to pander to quasi-fascists, religious fundamentalists, and bigots more than it does to pander to genuine Marxists, leftist radicals, and black bloc types. It's easier to mainstream radical rightism in this country than radical leftism.
Nov. 6th, 2008 07:01 pm (UTC)
Re: eh
I read Kos occasionally, although not, I suppose, that often. I tend to find them stupid, windbaggy (word?), and entirely unable to get out of their own echo chamber, but I don't see them spreading hatred the way Malkin does. And I'm pretty sensitive to that kind of thing, because it upsets me a hell of a lot when liberals act like as big assholes as the worst of conservatives -- I take it personally then.


flavored with age
Gun-totin', Chronic-smokin' Hearse Initiator
Ludic Log


Leonard Pierce is a freelance writer wandering around Texas with no sleep or sense of direction. If you give him money he will write something for you. If you are nice to him he may come to your house and get drunk.

Latest Month

December 2016

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow