An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Boomerang
Mar 13th, 2010 | 14 responses
Obviously, Dan Riehl was trying to prove a point when he wrote that if Democrats support abortion, they should ask themselves, “Isn’t it time to euthanize [Harry] Reid’s wife?”. I’m just not sure he fully understands which point he actually proved (and no, the link does not go to Riehl’s post).
opinions powered by SendLove.to
14 Responses to “Boomerang”
It's just typical modern Republican cant.
Talk about bad taste. Riehl's being a Riehl jerk.
[...] process here which is falsely attributed to liberals, Kathy Kattenburg sums this up by noting at The Moderate Voice [...]
“It's just typical modern Republican cant.”
Are we now pretending that there aren't Democrats that stick their feet in their mouths?
“F***in Retards……”
Are we now pretending that there aren't Democrats that stick their feet in their mouths?
No one even projected that thought. Thing is, Repubs only open their mouths to change feet.
JD, what Dan Riehl said is not “sticking your foot in your mouth.” That's not what Riehl did.
Thing is, Repubs only open their mouths to change feet.
Great comeback!
One pattern shows up over and over with Republican and conservative writers. If a writer criticizes a Right Wing Blogger or any GOP person, the defenders come back by saying “Democrats do worse.”
This happens so often it is clear that according to people on the Right, there can be no valid criticism of Right Wingers, ever.
A Blogger can write the meanest spirited and most stupid attack on Senator Reid by writing a supposed satire calling for the death of his wife and daughter while they are fighting for their lives and in great pain and danger, and the only response Republicans will accept is, “Democrats have done worse.”
There IS a huge difference between the 2010 Democrats/Liberals/Progressives and those who identify as “conservative”. Democrats and liberals are willing to condemn hateful acts by people who call themselves “Democrats” and Republicans are altogether too often not willing to do so.
Reading Riehl's “satire” was like reading Nazi or other anti-Jewish Propaganda. Riehl calls for more violence in language and more suffering for Mrs. Reid and the Reid's daughter. If I were a conservative I would condemn Dan Riehl the way Charles Johnson of Little Gren Footballs has done, unequivocally and with disgust at a mean, stupid violent man like Riehl.
But I will never be a conservative or GOP person because the Republicans even here are defending Riehl.
Reid's wife has a broken back and neck: that is hilarious fodder for today's “conservatives” because “Democrats have done worse.”
Thank God for Charles Johnson and Daniel Larison of Eunomia, who are conservatives who are not engaged in a scorched earth, violent war against manners, good taste, and respect in our public polity. Occasionally a conservative will still stand up for being human, but altogether too many GOP/conservatives will not ever say a fellow conservative is wrong, even when the person is hateful.
This pathetic obsession with fetuses has to end.
This is the problem: right-wing media, including bloggers, have only one draw. That draw is anger. Anger is what gives them their audience, and what keeps their audience. So in order for various bloggers and talk-show hosts to draw bigger audiences, they have to up the anger.
Now hate is only a step away from anger. If you up the anger more and more, you pass through outright rage and end up with hate speech, then death threats, then … action.
If they had anything else to offer, they would do so. But they only have anger.
People here who are claiming that this kind of crass 'shock value' discourse is the province of the right, or as BarkyBree insinuates that this is typical of all right wing discourse because they 'got nothin' else' are deluding themselves. I've actually seen a lot more of the use of disgusting 'satire' (with subsequent defense that 'it was meant to be ironic) from leftwing commenters, but arguing over 'who does it more' is pointless.
I have no problem saying that the use of this shock satire is in extremely poor taste, no matter who is doing it. There's also a slightly less offensive (but still annoying and sometimes tasteless) type of blogpost that seeks to use every anecdote about some prominent person's misfortune to make a point about a current political issue. We see this a lot in the healthcare debate, where a conservative's hospitalization for an ailment or injury leads to comments that he's lucky that he's rich enough to afford the treatment that he wants to deny for others, and a liberal's similar situation leads to commentary from some conservatives about whether or not the treatments/procedures that he needed would be available under a govt run healthcare system. Sometimes there are underlying truths to these anecdotal analyses, it's shameless to use another person's misfortune as a political football.
“I've actually seen a lot more of the use of disgusting 'satire' (with subsequent defense that 'it was meant to be ironic) from leftwing commenters”
The assymetry of behavior is obvious (much worse, and bad more frequently, by the Left). There's what is therefore an unsurprising similar assymetry with levels of knowledge. The lefties have narrow or tunnel vision limited to their own peer group and similar views, while we non-lefties frequently are informed as to the other sides' views, positions, goals. I routinely listen to far-left, not conservative, talk radio, for example in addition to reading all kinds of leftist literature and commentary.
(Dems, especially lib-Dems, are asses these days, hence “assymetry” instead of merely “asymmetry.”)
Meanwhile, the real boomerang still appears to be the Dems' health care legislation and related efforts (in addition to threats of more Dem misconduct with more legislation — last year's lessons not learned!).
“The survey consisted of 1,200 registered voters in 35 districts represented by members who could determine the outcome of the health-care debate. …
The survey shows astonishing intensity and sharp opposition to reform, far more than national polls reflect. For 82% of those surveyed, the heath-care bill is either the top or one of the top three issues for deciding whom to support for Congress next November. (That number goes to 88% among independent women.) Sixty percent want Congress to start from scratch on a bipartisan health-care reform proposal or stop working on it this year. Majorities say the legislation will make them and their loved ones (53%), the economy (54%) and the U.S. health-care system (55%) worse off—quite the trifecta.
Seven in 10 would vote against a House member who votes for the Senate health-care bill with its special interest provisions. That includes 45% of self-identified Democrats, 72% of independents and 88% of Republicans. Three in four disagree that the federal government should mandate that everyone buy a government-approved insurance plan (64% strongly so), and 81% say any reform should focus first on reducing costs. Three quarters agree that Americans have the right to choose not to participate in any health-care system or plan without a penalty or fine.
That translates into specific concerns with the Senate legislation—and none of these objections would be addressed by the proposed fixes. Over 70%—indeed in several districts over 80%—of respondents, across party lines, said that the following information made them less supportive: the bill mandates that individuals purchase insurance or face penalties; it cuts Medicare Advantage; it will force potentially millions to lose existing coverage; it will cost an estimated $2.3 trillion over its first 10 years; and it will grant unprecedented new powers to the Health and Human Services secretary.
Should members from these districts and those like them be concerned? Yes. Walking the Democratic line now means walking the plank. Sixty percent of the voters surveyed will vote for a candidate who opposes the current legislation and wants to start over. …”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487…