Isn't it strange that so many of the left have been arrested for, among other things, free speech violations - as in wearing the wrong T-shirt to the right function, etc. and that nothing is ever done about the lies perpetuated by the Limbaugh's and Savages or Swift Vets, et al. It seems to be part of the overall plan, and quite frankly, it's working for them. You gotta be amazed at the distinctions and lines being drawn. It just never stops boggling the mind.
You're being so prolific after your hiatus, Dave, thanks!
Savage is the new Father Coughlin (Detroit-based nationally syndicated "radio priest" who made anti-semitic, pro-Hitler broadcasts in the 1930s, with the support of Henry Ford and the dismay of the local bishop, who eventually made Coughlin step down and cease from any public statements whatsoever).
I wish I could find the ignorance of these "entertainers" regarding the world outside of the US borders shocking. Alas it is not.
In Brit/Aus slang, "Savage topped himself" means he committed suicide. It would be nice if his remarks did constitute *professional* suicide, but what's the bet he won't get so much as a slap on the wrist?
In Imperial Hubris, Michael Scheuer notes that since Islam doesn't separate religion and state, many Muslims in Islamic countries are likely to view anti-Muslim remarks by the likes of Jerry Falwell, Franklin Graham, et al. as official American policy statements. David, you obviously recognize the same risk that remarks from the likes of Ann Coulter and Michael Savage pose to how we are perceived in the Islamic world.
Those remarks were so callous and outrageous we should attack his sponsors again. Even the sponsors willing to pony up bucks for the hate radio audience would cringe when they heard that tripe.
"I get my news from Rush Limbaugh."
So said a fellow I had a debate with in the year 2003.
I'm under the distinct impression that to anyone who criticizes them, they're supposed to be "entertainers." But to those who listen to them, they're "news." Kinda like the Da Vinci Code except in plain site.
The Limbaugh/Savage/Coulter crowd spout some mumbo-jumbo, jibber-jabber and if you take offense, then you don't get it. And if you get it, then the conspiracy has transmitted its message.
...fudge (only I didn't say "fudge")
Here's another for your reading pleasure...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
new...RTICLE_ID=42268
He only wants Ruth Bader Ginsberg and the ACLU, and well, a few others gone... although not as blatant as David examples it's very, very disheartening.
The SF Chronicle reports today that KNEW (910) in SF and Clear Channel (the owner) renewed Savage's contract for three more years.
You'd think that speaking against tsunami victims would be like speaking against cute puppies. I'm not surprised that the Right is upset that about cooperating with the UN -- I suspect that's part of the reason Bush was so slow with aid -- but to argue that these people aren't even worthy of our sympathy is, or should be, beyond the pale.
It's interesting that when someone criticizes the Iraq war, they're giving aid and comfort to the enemy, but when someone else creates what could practically be recruitment ads for al Qaeda, it's no big deal. I think what it comes down to is that these people don't want to prevent terrorism or destroy al Qaeda. They want war.
Well one thing we can do is respond to folks who claim Rush at al are "merely entertainment," words to the effect of: "No, they're propagandists for Red facism. Hitler had Goebbles, Bush has Rush and his ilk. The only difference between you and the volk of the 30s is that you have every reason to know better and you choose to behave as you do." Then they'll get huffy and angry and say "you used to be fun to talk politics with." And you answer, "you used to pretend to have a soul." Try not to have this conversation at a holiday family dinner.
Michael Savage is all over the map. He says a lot of odious things, to be sure, but he does not stick to the talking points like Rush Limbaugh does.
I can stand him for about 30 minutes, but his meanderings can be entertaining, like a freak show. Sometimes I wonder whether he's a closet liberal who parodies the most outrageous fringe and plants seeds in the minds of his right wing listeners. Certainly he's no fan of Bush, his deficits, the war in Iraq or big corporations, all of which he has been harshly critical of. I really thought he was coming out of the closet as a liberal right before the election, when he was as hard on Bush and the Iraq War as Air America is.
Other times, I just think he is mentally ill and is just talking "ragtime."
Happy New Year, Dave.
Over at Altercation a few months back, I proposed that all decent people in our trade apply a lesson we could learn from the Amish and invoke "shunning" against the people who spout this vicious tripe and against the people who enable them.
I still think it's a good idea, even though the person I aimed it at is getting a new job at MSNBC next month.
Of course, there are probably public health reasons to shun the likes of Savage.
That was more or less the idea. I almost titled this piece "Shun Worthy". I remember your post and probably had the idea from it.
Happy New Year, Charles.
notway> her times, I just think he is mentally ill...
Probably not.
Alcoholic? Much more likely.
I'm hoping he develops cirrhosis soon.
So much for the pretense of Christianity from the right wing moralists and Mammon worshippers.
s9,
I'm sure with his background as a health food/herbalist nut (not that there's anything wrong with that) he only drinks organic booze. Maybe absinthe is to blame.
Here's an excellent history (from Salon) that nails his erratic behavior. An added bonus is the comments of the freepers:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focu...8/posts?
page=32
I remember people around the world lighting candles, giving blood, and offering help to NYC and the US in the wake of 9-11.
Too bad the nationalist freaks don't. Perhaps it's willful ignorance, lest it threaten their worldview.
If that big chunk of volcanic La Palma in the Canary Islands falls into the ocean and obliterates the Eastern Seaboard, the US will almost certainly get the outpouring of assistance that these idiots are whining about.
Fuck Savage, fuck Rush, and fuck anyone that sits there nodding their heads without question when bullshit like this gets tossed at them.
I don't know why, but this whole, bizarre victimization/imperialism complex just brings out the rage in me.
I'd point out that Bali is a Hindu exception in Indonesia's Muslim archipelago, which may have played a part in Islamist targeting. On the other hand, it is a resort island and the attack has crippled a key component of Indonesia's tourist economy, and Islamists bombed Jakarta, too.
Since November 2, it seems as though the entire wingnut right has gone batshit crazy. I think it's because after achieving victory, things still aren't working out. Iraq is still a mess, the economy is no better, and no social ills are cured.
[i]That is such rubbish. That is such rubbish. They're gonna hate you anyhow, no matter what we ever do. [/i]
Sounds like Michael may be projecting a wee bit.
What exactly does one have to say to get fired from a talk radio job? Is there any limit at all?
And how many listeners does he have? Someone is apparently listening; enough people so that he makes a profit for a company or he wouldn't still have a job. 30 seconds of googling doesn't show exactly how many, but definitely well into the millions. 6 million according to one Salon article.
And who are they? I know that Rush and especially Coulter's careers are partly supported by people who are amused by how over the top they are, or love to hate them, or whatever else. (I want to do an intervention with any liberal or moderate or decent conservative who actually contributes to their profits, but that's a separate issue.) But Savage is vicious. There's nothing fun, or funny, about him. And the idea that anywhere near 6 million of my fellow citizens are nodding in agreement....
A friend of mine was in Sri Lanka when the tsunami struck. We had no idea of this until she emailed to say she was fine. I just found out today what had actually happened: she was on the beach with three friends. They had no idea of the earthquake, they started moving away from the water when the first wave hit, and it swept them away. Three of them made of it with no serious injuries; she just has bruises on her legs, and seems shaken up and tired but basically okay--going to her academic conference and everything. But one of them is missing and now I guess presumed dead.
I keep hearing the same crap over and over.Even that asshole ignorant Larry Elder has joined the evil hatemongers.He is trying so hard to be a white man.He keep sucking up to the right wingtrying to outdo pigboy rush ann the man cuntler and the rest of the inbreds bigots.As a law abiding Muslem,i have only one thing to say to them.Kiss my brown ass.
These bastards deal in outrage; they are the affronted - they are the victims. It's truly tiresome because they will never be satisfied. Dealing in marginalization as they do, no amount of enfranchisement will do.
Shampoo, rinse, repeat.
BUT WAIT! There's more:
SCARBOROUGH: And, Anne, let me begin with you. I know that there are tens of thousands of people out there that are asking this question. If we are God‘s children and our God is a loving God, as you say he is, then how could God allow such suffering and death in Asia, 150,000 of his children right now killed? Some estimates, that maybe three, four times as many may be dead by the time they finish counting all the bodies. Is that a loving God that would allow that to happen?
ANNE GRAHAM LOTZ, ANGEL MINISTRIES:
And, Joe, what is interesting about this, that this tsunami did not increase death. All of those people who died were going to die anyway.
SCARBOROUGH: Now, Jennifer Giroux, you believe that this may be a sign from God and this may be God punishing people because of their sins. Explain.
JENNIFER GIROUX, DIRECTOR, WOMEN INFLUENCING THE NATION: Well, you know, throughout history and reported early in the Bible, God has always used plagues, floods and natural disasters as a source of punishment.
'Scarborough Country' for Jan. 4
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6790691/
Steve Jandreau:
Please tell me you're f*cking shitting me. I can just see an al Qaeda-funded mirror-image of MEMRI cherry-picking that sweet, sweet agitprop for translation and distribution.
*shakes head*
Oh well. From now on, whenever a pro-Bush pundit says something mind-bendingly dumb, all you have to ask is how much did the White House pay for that lamebrain comment? If one talking-head has been shown to be on the take, how many others are running scared of exposure right now?
On the PBS Newshour tonight, the author of Krakatoa related how that eruption was a catalyst for the decades long rebellion that ultimately forced the Dutch out of Indonesia. The mullah's were able to convince the population that the disaster was a result of their acquiecience in permitting the foreigners to take over.
He also cited the 1906 San Francisco earthquake as a vital element in the establishment of the Pentacostal church in this country. Apparently, the numbers of believers in the LA based church swelled astronomically the Sunday following the quake, with their ministers claiming it was a mark of divine retribution for the sins of the Barbary Coast.
To Pudentilla: I'm pretty sure Rush and ilk are actually pretty much wearing traditional brownshirts and not red ones...
Us anarchos and ultra-leftists like to reserve the disparaging term 'Red fascism' for Bolsheviks, Marxist-Leninists, and other such authoritarian (and usually bourgeois academics, I should add) betrayers of the intrinsically *libertarian* ideology of communism.
Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and any number of other folks make their opinions heard daily, usually by going the extra mile to be offensive, bombastic, or just plain ridiculous.
I can't take these people seriously, and they don't anger me. They are pathetic buffoons whose major appeal seems to be their simple-mindedness. You won't find moral nuance or ethical dilemmas here.
They reinforce the opinions of people who need to be reassured they are right-thinking patriots who will go to heaven when they die.
They are a pathetic bunch. Notice how few serious columnists even mention them? I just wish that there were more loudmouths on the left to keep the fires burning and the juices flowing.
We need some firebrand lefties to deal with the idiots like Armstrong Williams, who says he acted unethically but it was OK because it furthered a program he 'believed in'. Williams wants to spin himself as a principled man tempted to break his own code, but in reality he was just bought by Bush and Paige for $1/4 million. This is not principled behavior, it is simple mercenary corruption, and somebody should be calling it that from 1,200 radio stations and 62 television stations.
Bill Bennett, where is thy outrage?
How are these right wingers getting away so long with their deceit? I really do know. The news is owned by corporations Sports is a pacifier. Issues take time and are sometimes complex to understand. People are too busy. But after awhile, don't instincts take over, and we put 2 and 2 together? This small group of people are tearing up America and exploiting the world. How long are we going to let them get away with it. The person Rushdi, sorry forget his name, who said something bad about a certain religion not too long ago, was marked for death by, I think Iran. How can despicable people like a; Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Rush Limpbaugh, day in and day out get away with this?
/What exactly does one have to say to get fired from a talk radio job? Is there any limit at all?/
Low ratings. That's about the only thing that'll get you fired.
Savage's remarks that God may have killed 147,000 people--many of them Buddhist and Hindu, and a third of them children--in order to get at Muslim terrorists, is typical of the religious wingnuts. These people credit God with the worst aim since Mister Magoo.
I so wish somebody, anybody, in the So Called Liberal Media would read hateful remarks like this to either Bush or his sock puppet McLellan and follow up with "granted that they have a right under the Constitution to say what they like, does the President agree or disagree with Michael Savage/Ann Coulter/whoever?" And then keep at it till they get a yes or no. Of course, they'll have to say no...which would drive a wedge between the dittoheads and the Bushites.
JDR
I don't think it would drive a wedge between Bush and the dittoheads because Bush et al would just give their usual non-answer.
But Democrats should do it anyway, and on every cable show where one of them has the chance to "comment" they should come prepared with the most outrageous remark about that day's topic from Rush, Savage or Coulter and ask the GOP politicos there with them, over and over, do you agree with this disgusting tripe?
born agains have no corner on the morality market. In fact they are statistically worse in some sectors:
http://www.christianitytoday.com...05/001/
3.8.html
Here's the pro-life version of what Orcinus describes:
http://thurgood.blogspot.com/
200...520227784989295
That is a very bad idea.
(A) The GOP would have a field day saying the "Democrats want to talk about popular entertainment rather than the real issues that face this country." Bringing up the GOP's habitual Hollywood-bashing is useless. Remember, the Fairness Doctrine is long dead.
(B) When the idea is to take them off the air, you don't give these media whackjobs an even bigger megaphone. You don't put their filth on national bellowvision. Of course they would be invited on to present "their side of the issue." That means they're not just on a radio show that reaches 6 million people in the US, they're on national television with a potentially global audience. It's lose-lose. Forget it.
What is needed is a targeting scheme. Pick one of these propagandists and have everyone exclusively focus on picking off, one-by-one in order, the advertisers for that show. Keep laser-like focus on one advertiser until it caves, then move on to the next. We're not talking instant gratification here; they didn't build their audiences and advertisers overnight, they won't lose 'em that quick either.
I'd suggest that Weiner-Savage's show would be the easiest to start with as he's the lowest-hanging fruit. Plus, it's good for morale to start with a win. I do mean everyone focuses and I do mean exclusively: Rush, Coulter, etc. don't even exist while the Weiner-Savage project is underway. Once he's gone? Second verse, same as the first.
I'd say a good order might be:
Weiner-Savage
Coulter
Hannity
Limbaugh
Pick off the small fry like Michelle Malkin et al. afterward, assuming they don't collapse on their own after the loss of their command and control structure.
We want the Dems in office focused on legislation and defense in the Congress. Unfortunately, the pop-culture attack dogs are our project, not theirs.
An economic boycot is needed. I agree with everything the previous poster said. Pick the weakest sick link and boycott until he is eliminated and then move on to the next.
Jon R. Koppenhoefer, you ignored them all throught the 80s and 90s, and look where it got you.
They are not the fringe, they are the vanguard. They were put out by the "respectable" decent conservatives [sic] who set the pace for the movement as the fronters, the pointmen for their ideology, to push the margins, to make the "bell curve" seem sane and reasonable by comparison, and also to mainstream hate.
And by gum, they did it.
Why else does Heritage Foundation, and the Paleocons, praise Limbutt to the skies? Not only do they not repudiate him, they have all embraced each other proudly. Look at any of their web pages, you will find their nest of mutual admiration revealed in board co-trusteeship and endorsement quotes.
But then, they are all funded by the same plutocrats who were backing the Silver Shirts and publishing the Protocols back in the day - our own homegrown aristocracy, the New World's first First Estate, senate and gens to the hoi polloi of our modern Roman empire...
--Diocletian, who made war profiteering a capitol offense, would recognize this crew all too well.
It's great to see David back, and in such peak condition.
Two things I've read recently made me a lot more interested in going back and giving the Psuedo-Fascism essays a closer reading. The first thing was a biography of Jesse James ("last rebel of the civil war" by T. J. Stiles) which I was reading for a totally unrelated reason. I was struck by his description of the breakdown of civil society in Missouri leading up to and during the Civil War.
The other was an opinion piece in todays Charleston (WV) Gazzette, which argued that instructive comparisons can be drawn between the presidencies of James Buchannon (who prededed Lincoln and was arguably a major contributor to the breakdown in the national dialogue which brought about the civil war) and George W. Bush (whose lasting legacy as a president has yet to be fully determined.)
The anti-aid sentiments expressed by Limbaugh and Savage are likely already widespread in the U.S. Normally, this can be sensed in the common belief among U.S. citizens that their government gives an enormous percentage of their tax money to help other nations, a mistaken assumption that many U.S.ers clearly resent. In a related belief, many U.S.ers think that the U.S. military maintains bases around the world to provide protection for countries who have requested help. These and related beliefs may explain comments I heard at my (admittedly Texas) office the other day. One of my bosses in the somewhat environmental organization I work for commented over the phone that "with all that needs to be done in this country, they don't need to be spending the billions of dollars they're giving to that over-populated region!" She actually quoted an exact amount, assuming that the total amount of relief money received from throughout the world had all come from the U.S., which many U.S.ers think is the entire world. Just an anecdote, but telling, I think.
Savage calls almost daily for annihilating whole cities in the Muslim world "to show them we're serious."
He truly is deranged. And all the more so that he chooses to live in San Francisco, yet daily decries its bums and gays and liberalism.
I think he's a twisted, closeted freak.
and as many have said, it's shocking that he's allowed to put that shit out on our airwaves
Remember--Savage is a Jew (Weiner) who was outed last year in a book of letters as a strong sexual admirerer of deceased Leftist poet Allen Ginsberg.
He's a headcase with issues.
That some alleged humans actually listen to him tells us that many fellow citizens have issues too--to say the least.
Take out a full-page ad in RIGHTIST media (not the Village Voice or the NYT) and make Savage defend himself. Make these evil trogs fight amongst themselves for once.
Completely OT, but...
BlackBloc, so glad there's another of my comrades out here taking on the 101st Fighting Keyboarders
I really wish that I did more to organize and build solidarity here in my own city, but I do what little I accomplish here and there.
That "Red fascism" thing made my brain stall for a moment as well. I bet there are many people who would be stunned to discover that there are flaming communists, socialists, and anarchy kiddies (as the stereotype goes) that seriously rejected the Soviet Union long before Stalin took power, for reasons the shocked would agree with.
BlackBloc and Mark Bialkowski,
I know you're right from an intellectual history point of view. However, since 11/2 I have found the term Red so useful. There are Christians and there are Red Christians, for example. Should we use the term "Republican" to refer to Bush and his minions, when to do so would dishonor the memory of the extraordinary Americans who, as Republicans, have contributed so much to American progress. "Red" is such a wonderfully ironic sobriquet for the purveyors of contemporary American fascism. Moreover, the word, with precisely this connotation, has achieved incredible market penetration thanks to the media.
Is it possible to use the terms "Red" and "Red facism" in this way if we footnote the earlier use of the terms?
I stopped by earlier this a.m. and read this piece, and twice after that came back to try to post a comment. The problem is that the Savages, Limbaughs and Coulters of the world have become so psychotic that their utterances completely silence me. Where to begin to answer such stupidity and evil, without veering off into a paranoid tangent? And how to get started without dissolving into tears or incoherent rage?
Thank you, David, for being the eloquent voice for people like me.
riggsveda, that's why the Axis O' Weird is such a godsend:
Fafblog
World O'Crap
Dark Window
Sadly, No!
Fanatical Apathy
TBogg
Jesus General
Michael Bérubé
These folks do heroic duty, flinging themselves on the wingnuts to spare us, sacrificing precious braincells to deconstruct the rhetoric of hate and render it safe for human consumption, and driving the barking mad rightists stark staring crazy in the process.
Since the world has entered the surreal dimension in which Monty Python is the best descriptor of current events, the court jesters have come into their own while the wise courtiers put on motley and shake their bells from the sidelines.
You wouldn't happen to be the same Mark (from NEFAC) that posts on Infoshop.org?
He believes in god, but not in godly omnipotence?
...
Isn't that kind of like having sex but not believing in the orgasm?
BB:
nope, can't say I am. I do post comments at Infoshop on rare occasions, though I'm a bit spread thin these days.
Pudentilla:
I see what you're trying to get at, though the capitalized "Red" practically always carries connotations of socialism, which is certainly something I wouldn't associate with the Busheviki. "Red fascism", to me, indicates that the subject isn't just authoritarian, but a socialist as well.
I think comparisons to the Bolsheviks or Maoists work better, since I can compare the activities of the Bush regime and people in those other repressive groups despite the appearance of socialism and populist support cultivated by the former two. Hell, that very cultivation of grassroots support, in the face of opposition and suppression (overt and covert) can be one point of comparsion and contrast.
I have this nagging suspicion many of the neoconservatives and Bushites study the propaganda tactics of those big-C Communist groups that achieved power in order to adopt them for their own purposes. I have to wonder how many individuals who now tout Bush as a great leader bringing liberty to the world through force once supported the Soviet crackdowns in Prague and Budapest, and kept those thuggish ethics when it came time to exchange one set of politics for another.
Back on topic... what does it say about the cultivation of ethics in this society when characters like Rush and Savage can spew nothing but division and hatred toward suffering people, and not only retain their positions of influence and privilege, but no one is able or willing to stand up and counteract their venom in an equally noticeable fashion? Seriously, where the hell did people like them learn to hate and fear the rest of the world so much? These are kind of rhetorical questions--I can make a bunch of guesses varying in accuracy--but I want to hear what some other people think of the ethics promoted in North American societies, and how to create a society that stops rewarding belligerence and xenophobia.
Hell, that very cultivation of grassroots support, in the face of opposition and suppression (overt and covert) can be one point of comparsion and contrast.
Must rephrase part of that: that very cultivation of grassroots support, in the face of clear opposition, and suppression of that dissent, can be one point of comparison and contrast.
Tucker Carlson offered a watered-down version of the same gambit this morning on PBS. He lumped in Indonesia as part of "Islam" and therefore implicitly of the "enemy" in the "War on Terror." He derided as deluded "intellectuals" anyone who claimed that we should be trying to overcome antagonism between Islam and the West. And he suggested that disaster relief aid to muslim Indonesia was an appropriate part of "our" righteous and justified control over world events. "They" will see it as paternalistic and continue to "hate us," but we must nevertheless soldier on, according to Carlson.
That left-wing public television; what are you gonna do?
He derided as deluded "intellectuals" anyone who claimed that we should be trying to overcome antagonism between Islam and the West.
CNN pundit, or Osama bin Laden?
You decide!
...the al Qaeda version of MEMRI just went into overdrive again, I'm sure.
the Tamil Tigers are composed of Hindus and Christians - not Muslims
*
He derided as deluded "intellectuals" anyone who claimed that we should be trying to overcome antagonism between Islam and the West.
I find talk of a war against Islam utterly terrifying. Just look at the history books for goodness sake! Almost all of the Muslim world came under the colonial rule of some Western power or other during the 19th or early 20th centuries, but Islam itself was virtually untouched.
De-Islamicization has only ever been achieved by outright ethnic cleansing - even the Spanish Inquisition was unable to effectively convert the Moors and the Spanish monarchy was ultimately forced to expel or exterminate them.
In other words, anyone advocating the destruction of Islam is in fact advocating that the West commit a genocide that literally makes the Nazi Holocaust look like a flesh wound! If we did that we wouldn't be the West anymore - we'd be the Draka...
'They reinforce the opinions of people who need to be reassured they are right-thinking patriots who will go to heaven when they die.'
Mostly, yes. However, they also win over converts to the Conservative Movement. It's not just reinforcement. It's also indoctrination... and that's what makes them very dangerous.
Most US liberals/lefties do not understand to what lengths the Right is willing to go to impose their agenda. The crudeness of the discourse, as in these remarks cited by Dave, conceal the cunning of the predator. I think that what is happening today was a long time in the planning. The forces at work behind the scenes have been doing studies in social engineering for years, watching how ideas affect the discourse, examining how a population can be manipulated to achieve their goals.
The acceptence of the official story on 9/11 and the refusal by most people to consider that it could have been an inside job is a case in point. They can't believe that the president or the government would engage in such things, at least not against Americans. It happens all the time elsewhere. The whole idea is dismissed by many as "conspiracy theory", yet the official version, that it was 19 Islamic fundamentalists with box-cutters who received their orders from a cave in Afganistan is an even more outrageous "conspiracy theory".
This blindness is catching up on them now. When you recognize that 9/11 was planned, organized, and carried out by the very people who are now waging the "war on terror", that it is much, much more than simply profiting from the situation, you then see with great clarity how far they are willing to go.
And that is more frightening than most people can handle.
Why is it that the left-wing sites all have links to give money to tsunami victims and the "liberal" Hollywood stars are all lining up to donate money while NONE of the right-wing shock jocks have done so?
After 9/11, Muhummad Ali visited Ground Zero. Why didn't O'Reilly or Limbaugh visit Ground Zero?
Why are the liberals the ones who pony up when disaster hits?
Food for thought, eh?
Looks like the t-shirts are propaganda for the West so that we will approve of the Indonesiasn government killing more innocent Acehnese. See here
sorry, not so we will approve, but so we will fund them more and have a reason to fund them more (anyone who doesn't agree will probably be said to be helping out terrorists.)
Please don't call Savage and his ilk "conservatives." They are right-wing hate kooks -- not the same thing. Calling them, and the Bushies, conservatives does a double disservice. It slanders true conservatives like Jim Jeffords, Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein -- whom we may disagree with, but they actually have a few principles -- and it puts a wholesome stamp on the bigots and extremists.
Call them by their true names: right-wing extremists, hate speakers, bigots.
You folks would do far better expending your energy on critiquing what's wrong with the Democratic Party and why it's having trouble in national elections. This is a good reason why we're fucked. More Clinton--less Chomsky, kiddies. That is, if you give a shit about winning in 2008. And that's Bill, not Hillary, I'm referring to.
The purpose of a party is to get people elected, Sean. The purpose of elected officials is to serve the public as their representatives. The purpose of the people is to weigh which candidates sound like they'll be effective and deliver things they wish to see.
Debates about partisan activists have little to do with any of this, as ultimately a good candidate who campaigns well has a shot at winning, no matter what his private beliefs are.
After all, Dems have won the Presidency 3 times out of the last 4, so I don't see that major adjustments are required.
Isn't "more Clinton. less Chomsky" what is causing the Democrat party to lose? (and causing many to not much care whether they lose or not).
I thought it was "more GOP-lite/less Dem" what caused the Dems to lose.
Commenting by HaloScan.com