Just When You Thought Partisan Demonization Can’t Go Any Lower

Joe,

The link you provided went to some unrelated story. Here is the correct one:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/200...

Examples by Joe and jwest are both sickening examples of partisan demonization. And it just gets weirder and dumber.

This shouldn't really surprise anyone. However, it seems to me that all the garbage coming from that minority party on the right is nothing more than a sideshow to give us a bit of a chuckle from time to time and wonder aloud how much lower the bar could go.

Focusing on the foibles of the Right has truly become a sport here. But perhaps its time to start focusing on all of this wonderful tension brewing within the party in power. For example, Maxine Waters is certainly showing a lot of love to those in her own party. There has been no shortage of advice from folks on the Left about how the Repubs need to appeal to more people. Maybe the folks on the left should heed some of their own advice, or maybe they will now welcome advice from those misfits on the Right.

The link I have up there is the correct one. And this really isn't a matter of focusing on the right. When you spread as a fact the assertion that the health care reform being proposed means the government is going to have the power to end your life and assert it as a fact when it is not, it is reprehensible. This isn't a matter of "the right". Or "the left does that too!" This is a matter of this assertion being spread when it is patently false. People on both sides excuse this kind of politics, figuring that the ends justify the means. It is reprehensible. Some voters won't mind and some independent voters won't mind. And some will. It also brings up the issue of credibility. It IS the bar being lowered and it is again and again. It's not a matter of fudging the facts...it's how our politics has now veered into sheer propaganda where anything will be said to undercut or boost.

You've outdone yourself again jwest.

So this time you're'a thinkin' that a "nutter" website that's bitching about Saturday Night Live teasing "Trixie" Palin is more important than another "nutter" website that presents AS NEWS (and goes along with) the latest rightwing "Health reform in America = Euthanasia" talking point (nee LIE).

Well, I think we can all stop wondering why the Republicans are held in such low esteem by the majority of the American Electorate... the "nutters" have won and taken over the once honorable party.

It appears the toxic legacy of Rush Limbaugh (along with his various clones and disciples) is nearly complete. It's hard to see how the standards for dialogue between competing ideologies could get much lower. Sadly, even some on the left eventually started adopting similar techniques. The old adage, "united we stand, divided we fall" comes to mind, and it seems that some folks no longer care whether we "stand" or not. I've always thought and said that the key to acquiring an effective BS detector is education, and that education should never be thought of as complete. I believe this applies now more than ever.

Joe, just a few posts down you highlight for the quote of the day Dowd's column that if Sarah Palin looked like Golda Meir, would we even be talking about her. With no other comment from you I think its safe to say the implication is that you feel Sarah Palin is only being talked about because of her looks. You don't think that's demonizing? That this small snippet somehow adds to the collective intelligence of the readers and commenters here?

I agree with your comment that this isn't a left/right or they do it to so we can do it better type issue. They all do it. And they get away with it because partisans on either side champion it. But you know what? It wouldn't surprise me in the least that the voters will send these hacks back to Washington. So let's hold them all up for a public scolding, and while we are at it, let's hold the Politico up for a public scolding as well. And later in the day, you can go back to linking to them, and we'll be back to business as usual until we can highlight this same episode all over again.

Well, perhaps it's a bit one sided to post examples of that come from the right without also pointing out examples of the left lowering the bar, even though you admit that it happens on both sides.

After all, although I agree that this was a dishonest attack on the current healthcare proposal, it's also dishonest when liberals routinely demonize all opponents of the current reform efforts by saying that they would just as soon let all poor people die. Having a principled opposition to a particular method of reform is certainly not the same as 'wanting people to die', yet that's how many paint the picture of conservatives who oppose government run plans.

Democrats and Republicans in power want all of us to die.... of complete and utter disgust of them.

CStanley -- Where did left-leaning journalists say that the right wants poor people to die? Sure, it's something that's thrown around by people arguing for health care in a perhaps hyperbolic attempt to remind opponents that this isn't just some silly spending program as people DO actually die from lack of adequate healthcare. However, I've never seen a headline on any major news site or paper saying something like "Does the GOP want poor people to die?". That would be on roughly the same level as the dissention behind, "Does Obama's Health Care Plan Promote Euthanasia?"

Democrats and Republicans in power want all of us to die.... of complete and utter disgust of them.

T, you just made me laugh out loud in the public library. Stop that.

roro- you've artificially narrowed the basis of the analogy. Many, many commentators from the left have portrayed the GOP's opposition to the Dem public healthcare proposal by use of demonization (this happened previously during the debate over SCHIP expansion as well.) I don't have to find a headline with fill in the blank equivalency to prove that.

“Where did left-leaning journalists say that the right wants poor people to die?”

Roro, surely you jest.

Has there ever been a point brought up by the Democrats that didn’t suggest or implicitly say that the right wants people (seniors, children, the poor, blacks, Hispanics, etc.) to starve, sleep in the street, suffer without care, die, do without and on and on.

If you eliminated this central theme of every liberal speech or advertisement, backed by the leftist lapdogs in the press, no one would even know the Democrat party existed.

CStanley -- I'm certainly not saying that the left doesn't employ tactics of demonization to win whatever national debate is going on. Obviously, it happens on both sides. This post, however, talks about the bar being lowered, the falsities becoming more and more blatant, going from misleading to outright lying, and of course the media's willingness to take that lie and run with it. In this context of looking at the particular level of discourse, I think it is appropriate to narrow that anaology to avoid false equivalencies . Just saying "the left use demonization tactics too" misses the point -- I doubt anyone on this board would disagree that they do, I just haven't seen it to this level. It reminds me of when the right was saying that letting a bunch of monkeys out of a lab was equivalent to shooting and killing an abortion doctor.

At the very least, there's a big difference between jwest's dumb article telling us that someone yet again made fun of Sarah Palin and a large group of right-wing pundits and congresspeople trying to stymie health care reform by saying it will mean your grandmother might be coerced into offing herself if the bill passes. Sure, we should lay off Palin, don't really care, but outright lies about what is really a very good idea to help the elderly have their end-of-life wishes carried out for the explicit purpose of trashing the entire bill? The scale's a bit different.

Roro,

The all-time, lowest, most despicable lie ever told by any individual or political party was Michael J. Fox promising quadriplegics that they would walk again if only people voted against Republicans.

Scum doesn’t get much lower than that.

"The all-time, lowest, most despicable lie ever told by any individual or political party was Michael J. Fox promising quadriplegics that they would walk again if only people voted against Republicans.

Scum doesn’t get much lower than that."


What about the scum who no doubt thought about this and solicited Fox to craft this sickening appeal?

It's similar to the pre-emptive stuff we saw that any criticism of Sotomayor would no doubt be "racist."

Look at what Democrats and the most agitated on the Left have done to Washington and to political discussion.

All that's missing is the televised lib-versus-con-female nude hot mud and oil wrestling (better than the worst of the talking head or barking dog shows, admittedly).

jwest -- I don't know why I continue to be pulled in by you, but I'll bite on this one. First: I'm in the process of looking for that quote; I can't find it yet, but I'm looking. Secondly, MJF is actually not a politician, nor a newspaper, nor anyone who can talk about anything but his own experiences with authority. He'd probably like to see some of the promising work on stemcells come to fruition. I don't have any major diseases, but I'd still like to see that work continue, and I think it's stupid that righties won't let it happen. But I'm looking for that quote -- if it does actually exist.

Ok jwest, I found a commercial he did endorsing McCaskill and saying that her opponent did not support stem cell research. Is that what you're talking about? He didn't say any of the words in your quote, meaning that the quote isn't actually a quote, which is entirely unsurprising given the stupidity of "promising quadriplegics that they would walk again" under any circumstances. So, either give me a link to that quote, plus something that says that MJF has somehow become a policy-maker or journalist instead of just a famous dude with a disease he'd like to see research into, or please try again with a real example.

jwest wrote: "The all-time, lowest, most despicable lie ever told by any individual or political party was Michael J. Fox promising quadriplegics that they would walk again if only people voted against Republicans."

jwest that's an outright lie. It's people like you that continue pushing intentional lies that are flushing the toilet on the republicans... As I've said before, Keep up the good work.

"We may as well copy this headline and this first short paragraph (and we will) since we will likely have to use it again and again — as the political bar with what constitutes debate in our country goes lower and lower:"

I read the article. I don't understand why you're so outraged.

"Nor is there any reasonable basis for believing that these consultations, if chosen, would do anything to promote euthanasia"

Obama stated that there would be no consultations. This report seems to contradict his statement. The euthanasia part is referring to the fact that most socialized health care systems deny prostate cancer treatments.

Many, many commentators from the left have portrayed the GOP's opposition to the Dem public healthcare proposal by use of demonization (this happened previously during the debate over SCHIP expansion as well.)

Christine. There is a difference between saying that Republican opposition to the expansion of SCHIP would result in real harm to real children, and saying that the Democratic health care reform proposal promotes euthanasia. The first is an opinion that is strongly supportable by facts, and the second is a flat-out lie.

"The euthanasia part is referring to the fact that most socialized health care systems deny prostate cancer treatments."

The Left has been in support of actual euthenasia for a long time now. It would be no surprise to see not only more federal action on this matter someday for its own sake, but (along with gun control and other bogus measures, but for more real reasons) as a "health care" and "quality of life and care" issue in the future. Only fools cannot already recognize that.

As to withholding of treatment, we already have ethics boards at some hospitals doing this in the name of futility (expect the word "futility" to be more widely used in this regard in the future, in case you haven't realized that already), and we will see this done more and more eventually in the name of cost controls or their rationalization -- this is not only obvious, but predictable.

Add to that various preferences on the Left for this or that program and you can easily see a future where liver transplants are no longer paid for (i.e., provided), and the money redirected instead to drug rehab and other drug abuse programs, for example. There's nothing surprising about anything so obvious like this.

"I read the article. I don't understand why you're so outraged."

Lefties on this Web site are frequently outraged or alarmed illogically or for no valid reason whatsoever.

"This report seems to contradict his statement."

A lot of Obama's statements are contradicted, notably these days when it comes to federal health care.

I wonder just why the statements are being made and how much they really are meant to be believed.

J. West -- at least they don't have Christopher Reeve to exploit any longer.

CS,

Do modern conservatives want the poor to die? Not necessarily. Would they leave in place policies that have that result if the only way to help doesn't fit into their ideology. Of course. They would rationalize it. They would make excuses for why nothing can change in any meaningful way. But in the end ideology trumps all for them.

Roro,

You should know that the actual statement doesn’t matter – it’s the impression left by the message.

Fox was lying on behalf of Democrats across the country, he knew exactly what he was doing and so did the Soros financed scum who paid for the commercials.

If it’s facts you like, you should avoid statements like this: “I don't have any major diseases, but I'd still like to see that work continue, and I think it's stupid that righties won't let it happen.”

George Bush was a “righty” and he was the first President to overturn Clinton’s ban on government funding of embryonic stem cell research. Bush allowed federal funds to be used on existing lines, something that Democrats were too scared to do.

What? Michael J. Fox didn’t tell you that?

>>You should know that the actual statement doesn’t matter – it’s the impression left by the message.

So let me get this right.

You made an outright, bald-faced lie. Someone called you out on it, asking you to back it up. You couldn't, so instead, you say the actual words don't matter, it's your incorrect interpretation that really counts.

Ah. I see why no one takes you seriously.

@ Jim- fine, conservatives rationalize leaving policies in place that are ineffective at solving certain problems.

On the flip side, liberal progressive politicians push policies that often don't solve the problem they are intended to solve, and even if there is some improvement or resolution there are often other harmful unintended consequences.

And liberal progressive voters rationalize their unwillingness to consider these possible consequences by saying that at least the progressive politician cares so we should give him a chance- actual consequences be damned.

For some reason some people seem to have a hard time grasping that all change is not good, and that sometimes conservatives have reasons for asking you to back up your belief that a particular change will result in positive results rather than a net negative, before we can consider supporting it.

@ Kathy re:
Christine. There is a difference between saying that Republican opposition to the expansion of SCHIP would result in real harm to real children, and saying that the Democratic health care reform proposal promotes euthanasia. The first is an opinion that is strongly supportable by facts, and the second is a flat-out lie.

Actually, not so much, Kathy, except that the second case does involve a hot button term, "euthanasia" and that term probably does go too far, especially in describing the current plan as it will be enacted right now. The plan does, though, contain provisions which will limit certain treatments for the elderly and over time, there's a structure being put in place which can do that more and more (and will have to do it more and more) as the costs become more prohibitive for the standard of care that our elder citizens currently enjoy.

And in the case of the demonization of the GOP for opposing SCHIP expansion, there was also the hot button emotional ploy of using children as anecdotes for how they'd be harmed, even though many of the examples were not even accurate.

Both forms of attack rely on stretching the truth based on projections of what MIGHT happen if legislation either passes or fails to pass. Both rely on the false dichotomy which says that ONLY this particular plan can solve the particular problem at hand (the Dem's frequent use of dishonest argument that the only choices are the status quo or the plan they favor.) Both rely on demonization of the opponents motives (Either "the Dems don't really care enough, they just want to get credit for passing legislation even though it will have this disastrous result" or "The GOP is a bunch of heartless corporate bastards who care only about protecting their own interests and private industry profits, rather than helping the poor get health care for their kids.") And both rely on emotional tugs at our natural inclination to protect grandma and the kids.

The reasons conservatives have in many modern debates for saying that we shouldn't change the status quo are based on consequences they make up in their own heads from no data that they have no proof of because they just don't want to have anything contrary to their ideology to be implemented. As of 6 months ago the primary reason for everything in the Republican Party is to simply oppose anything Obama proposes no matter what.

Actually, Jim, when we do present evidence, you summarily reject it. Usually because such evidence is..gasp...published by sources like Heritage, CATO, etc. But instead of evaluating the data and the analysis provided and showing why you might believe it's inaccurate or poorly supportive of the conclusion, you refuse to even look at information from such 'tainted' sources.

As of 6 months ago the primary reason for everything in the Republican Party is to simply oppose anything Obama proposes no matter what.
Well, let's see. Obama proposed a stimulus package that would be 'temporary, targeted, and timely' but then he turned the legislation over to Pelosi and Reid and we got a large package which met none of those criteria.

Obama promised healthcare reform which would 'bend the cost curve', while the CBO analysis shows that the Dem legislation bends it in the wrong direction.

I'd say that if Obama would get the Dems in Congress on board with writing legislation that actually does what he proposes, the GOP then should start working with him. Until then, there is no 'him' to work with- they're only dealing with the left wing leadership in Congress.

jwest -- It's scarcely worth it to dissect your most recent comment, but as an apparent glutton for punishment, here we go.

First, MJF said nothing remotely similar to a promise that quadraplegics would walk if America voted for Dems instead of Reps. He endorsed *one* candidate in *one* election, and he did so because that one candidate supported stem cell research while the other did not. Stem cell research, he said, gives him "hope". What in that even resembles a lie? It appeals to emotion, sure, but since when is that off limits? People with Parkinsons might actually have some emotion about the subject. Shocking, I know. Have you ever even met a person with Parkinsons?

Second, your assertion that the statement doesn't matter, only the impression it left -- that you could see that commercial and read his statement as "I promise all quadraplegics will walk if you vote for Democrats instead of Republicans" is evidence of a deep-seated problem with *you*. How in the name of all things holy can that be the "impression" you got?

Third: regarding your factoid about GWB and his funding of stem cell research. Are you saying that Republicans and people on the right DO want stem cell research to go ahead full force? Great! Because most lefties also want the same thing, so it must be happening, right? No? Something about "snowflake babies" you say? Huh. Of course, jwest, in the context of the MJF issue, which was, again, a person giving an endorsment to a single candidate, he was simply supporting the one that supported stem cell research, and that person happened to have been a Democrat.

Basically, your whole argument makes zero sense. So lying about dead grandmas isn't bad, because this dude is a liar because he gave you an impression, but he wants all Dems to win and Reps to lose, even though Reps are just as awesome with this one person's pet issue as Dems, but George Bush is the BEST! Also Delorians and Teen Wolf sux! Or something.

Are you saying that Republicans and people on the right DO want stem cell research to go ahead full force?

There's no reason that stem cell research shouldn't bypass the moral issue and go ahead full force with iPSC's instead of embryonic cells, especially since there's plenty of evidence that direct therapies are resulting from that research faster than anything from the ESC lines (since the problems of tumorgenicity haven't been overcome there.)

I think jwest goes too far in criticism of Fox, but there is in fact reason to criticize the general rhetoric that surrounded the stem cell debate. Proponents never bothered to clarify and inform the public that cures were coming from adult stem cell research, which virtually no one opposes. It's actually a lot like when people on your side of the aisle criticized the Bush administration rhetoric on WMD and links between Iraq and al Qaeda. When pointed out that Bush himself never said there were direct links (beyond the few trivial links that were real), Dems pointed out that he also never bothered to correct other people who did assert more linkage (and quoted poll numbers of percent of the population who believed there was a connection.) Similarly, poll numbers show that the American public still doesn't really know the facts in the stem cell debate, and proponents like Fox added to the confusion because it conveniently helped build public support for their preferred policy.

Sorry, CS, but the Republican Party will not work with Obama on anything. Some might break away but not many. Look at the Sotomayor confirmation and how votes are lining up on that.

And yes, CATO, Heritage and the AEI are tainted sources. There's not one person in those organizations who wouldn't place ideology ahead of everything else. No lie is too big or too small to tell. They have eliminated the fallacy of ad hominem from the modern political scene because the fact that it does come from them makes any statement, paper, book or press release questionable. Just search on "Achieving A Leninist Strategy" for a perfect example.

"They have eliminated the fallacy of ad hominem from the modern political scene because the fact that it does come from them makes any statement, paper, book or press release questionable."

In which case you should have no trouble refuting it with truthful facts. But sorry, "it's wrong because CATO said it" is still an ad hominem.

Exactly, Dr. J. There are a myriad of liberal think tanks that are regularly presented as data sources, which are just as beholden to their ideology. When presented with data from them that I find questionable, I point out what the questions are and why it may not mean what they say it means.

MY RESPONSE TO A RIGHT WING MEGA DITTO NUT ON FACEBOOK:

I am glad the old time religionist reactionary--as opposed to true conservatives-- racist "White Primary", KKK, White Citizen Council Dems left my party & went where "birds of that [sorry] feather could flock together". It gave the South to the Repubs for awhile but that was better for the Dem Party in the long run. The ones you call "retread" Repubs who finally joined the Dem Party to get away from the stink of religionist bigotry & racism, found a home with us. And, no, the Repubs who stayed Repubs also were & are the same bunch who went along with William Howard Taft and his oligarchic Robber Baron "price fixing" & "monopoly" crowd who tried with all their might to kill and bury "child labor, sweat shop labor and pure food and drugs acts". The Dems eventually
got the best of the Repubs--the LaFollette, Beveridge and Teddy Roosevelt Progressives--who could not stand the anti human, anti environment & anti intellectual attitude of the old and still the "property & obscene profit before people" Repub Party.