Good letter. As to the Hari piece, it is interesting that many on the extreme left attribute Hitchens' change of heart to excessive drink, etc. I hope the slide that started with the peanut farmer stops after this election, but I am not holding my breath.

This column seems to fit with the thesis you advanced regarding the Clark County effort. The wedge is driven a bit deeper.

Excellent Robin.

In particular, "And I have lost the respect I once had for many leaders on the left and for those (such as your newspaper) who would influence opinion, when they likewise demonstrate themselves unable or unwilling to engage in serious debate over these critical issues."

That summarizes well why I will not vote Democrat for President (and have already sent in my absentee ballot for Bush).

ALL comments that advocate violence from either the left or right should be condemned. However, I have not seen many damning comments directed towards the right on the blog ( I guess they must be pacifists, and correct all the time). Both parties have adherents that are, shall we say, nutty and both should be shouted down. If you think the left is worse than the right in this manner, you haven't been following the Republican party very closely...both parties have plenty of wackos to choose from. I would like to ask if you were this indignant about assasination comments by Republicans when Clinton was in office? As a Democrat, I cringe at things the left say, but no more than I cringe at things the right says. I was Republican until the convention in 1992; it scared me more than anything the left says. I supported the Iraq war, but am very unimpressed by the administrations handling of the aftermath. And while I have been an ardent supporter of the war on terror, I think we've gone as far as we can on the invasion/nation building approach (not enough $$ to go around, and even when we sent $$, the administration did not spend it). The link to Dr. Barnett spoke of the 2nd phase of the fight on terrorism being different than the Afghan/Iraq phase, and this phase would take working with other countries. I don't think the administration is willing to put in the, dare I say it, diplomatic effort to get this phase working in an effective fashion (it needs to be broader than the coalition of the willing). I think we've done the big hit (afghan/Iraq) now we need a broader approach. I've never been a messianic believer in only Pres ____ can save us. Roosevelt died, and Truman had to pick up the slack. Truman began Korea, Eisenhower finished up. As much as I understand your anger at the Guardian's stupidity, if their follishness causes you to vote for Pres. Bush when you intially weren't, what does that say about your decision making process (if you piss me off I'll get you back by voting for the other guy). I have extreme dislike for Michael Moores, and his ilk, however, I have an equal dislike for the Pat Buchannons and Rick Santorum on the right (are they nicer from your perspective?) When Right wing publications say and do things that are just as bad, do you get upset, do you feel as angry as you do about the Guardian comment? I am all supportive of the war on terror, but I think that it's needs to move on to the 2nd stage per Dr. Barnett. And as we are in a nation building building mode in Iraq, why not let folks who actually believe in nation building (unlike Rummy,Cheney) get to work on it.

“When Right wing publications say and do things that are just as bad, do you get upset, do you feel as angry as you do about the Guardian comment?”

Does anyone need an added incentive to vote for George w. Bush, the lesser of evils? Well, how about this? The ultra right-wing “The American Conservative” is endorsing John Kerry! Please read the following:

“The record, from published administration memoirs and in-depth reporting, is one of an administration with a very small group of six or eight real decision-makers, who were set on war from the beginning and who took great pains to shut out arguments from professionals in the CIA and State Department and the U.S. armed forces that contradicted their rosy scenarios about easy victory. Much has been written about the neoconservative hand guiding the Bush presidency—and it is peculiar that one who was fired from the National Security Council in the Reagan administration for suspicion of passing classified material to the Israeli embassy and another who has written position papers for an Israeli Likud Party leader have become key players in the making of American foreign policy.”

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

Oh my goodness, does anyone also remember David Duke. This is what this rabid right-winger says about President Bush:

“George Bush must be defeated in this election.”

http://www.davidduke.com/radio/transcripts/plagueonbothyourhouses.htm

Wow, ain’t that something? The radical right wants to defeat George W. Bush. Voting for John Kerry would please these slime balls. What does that tell you?

The Guardian never had a shred of decency to lose, I'm afraid. This leftist rag is only being true to form - pro-terror, anti-US - a national disgrace.

You might like to read a bit I just did on the Copperheads of 1864 vs the Copperheads of 2004.

Titled aptly enough Copperheads

I'm surprised more haven't caught on to the connection.

BTW I wrote the piece before seeing this page or the comments, yet it dovetais nicely. I even gave David Duke a mention.

From http://www.messopotamian.blogspot.com/

I don’t know why the tremendous event that has taken place in Afghanistan is not receiving the attention it deserves. The results have not been officially announced yet but it seems that President Karzai is going to win in landslide fashion, by western standards anyway. I mean not in the 99.9% way that is customary around here, but rather a respectable and genuine figure which is nevertheless very significant. Even the CNN reporter (Christiane Amanpore), was forced to admit that “the Afghan people tend to regard the Americans as liberators”, but she hastily added “unlike the Iraqis who see them as occupiers!” Well at least we have a half truth; I suppose this must be regarded as progress for the CNN.

Now those who have eyes can see, but the blindness of the heart is blacker than the blindness of the eye. And all those who shed crocodile tears over the “invasion” of an Islamic land, and raised such a din of noise about the injustice perpetrated against “fellow Muslims”, and all that; all those, do they learn from the “message” of the silent lines of thousands of Afghans waiting at polling stations. Can they get it through their sculls? The people have spoken, loud and clear, they have spoken; the silent majority has spoken at last when given the slightest chance. So Karzai, the American puppet; the stooge; the agent appointed by the CIA etc. etc., Karzai gets the overwhelming vote of the Afghan people! What say you, oh pundits and wizards who have talked so much and pontificated so much, you who claimed to know all there is to know about these people, and told us so often of how wrong it was to interfere, how wrong it was to rid them of the Taliban and Al Qaeda etc. etc. Do you have some little decency left in you to eat your words?

Go read the rest of it ...

----------------------
I will tell you that the leftist media have
been distorting the truth into lies since
the vietnam war when the big three was where
all information came from and they could and
did get away with everything.

The accusations of fraud by the democrats was
fake, all those leftist papaers went down there
and spent huge sums to recount after the election
and if they had found any way possible for Gore
to have won we would still be hearing about their
findings

The race hucksters even heald hearings but
had to be happy to talk to themselves because
not ONE... not ONE "disenfranchised voter"
showed up.

It seem clear to me that the tactic this
time is for the democrates to attempt fraud
every way possible while accusing fruad without
evidence.

And this

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008282.php

The Democrats' campaign of violence and intimidation has spread from coast to coast. Now it's hit Oregon:

------------

This is nothing new for the left, even hitlers
national socialist brownshirts did it.

Lastly, the slaver party was the democrat
party, not all democrats where slavers,
but all slavers was democrats.

The democrats have simply changed from
chattle slavery of blacks to socialist slavery
of everyone, and the race huckster agitprop
began under soviet instruction by the KGB.

You will not find any period from Lincoln
to the present where the Repubicans where not
for equality.

Put simply, we have never changed, inequality
by slaver or discrimination is wrong, it is
simply dishonest to accuse of racism those
whose principled position has remained constant,
wheras we opposed slavery and oppose special
privleges for the same reason.

The left take planks out of the Communist
manifesto and impliment them as policy

But they are planks from the egalitarian
religion that murdered 100+ Million people,
to suggest that we should look to the greatest
perp of holocaust on the planet for cures
for the free world imperfections is revolting.

M Moore was able to show his film but we cant
show ours without Kerrys brown shirts shutting
down the theaters.

The democrats are bringing this to a contest
with guns.

From http://vodkapundit.com/archives/006909.php

for the first time in 16 years, I'm going to vote Republican straight down the line. If I have to punish a couple of local Democrats I'm fond of, then so be it, but I have to try to get a point across: The national Democratic Party is bad for this country.

I don't say that because of their policies, which I probably agree with more than I do the Republicans. But because their tactics would cause more harm to this country than the Federal Marriage Amendment, the Republican budget deficit, and Congress's corporate tax giveaways, combined.

---------
Well, there one who smells the stench finally.

Our campaign offices are already the targets
of driveby shootings or invasion by Kerreys
CommuNazi thugs.

The Democrats have taken atvantage of the fact
that conservtives as a rule are more civilised
people, we have not been known by in your face
tactics.

During the democrat convention, we did not
march the streets and punch 9 year old kids
standing in line with their delagate parents
in line to buy tickets for movies, but you
did that to us.

the outfit ANSWER is a fecade on the DSA and
Communist party, and the founder sat right
next to the founder of Moveon.org in Berkely
recently

The answer guys are stalinists, they support
Kim Jong Il, yet another leftist mass murderer.

Frankly, i dont see how good people can
vote in lockstep with communists but thats
what they are doing.

---------------
U.S. Title 50, Chapter 23, Subchapter IV

Sec. 841. - Findings and declarations of fact.
The Congress finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States, although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States.
----------------

Since that was enacted, the left have avoided
using labels on most but not all groups that in
itself identify them as socialist. and the
membership of them overlap to the extent that
for the leadership, they are basically one
organization with a multitude of titles.

The members on the otherhand, what lenin called
the "usefull idiots" are mostly single issue
activists, but all are marshalled as a many
front attack on our free country to turn it
slowly into a totalitartian one.

Leftism is totalitarianism, every one of their
pet causes means enforcment by govt thugs with
guns.

From http://www.peaktalk.com/archives/000082.php

It was all a little too uncomfortable for the
ruling elites as Fortuyns message caught on with
the public at large. The establishment had
nothing tangible to attack him with during the
election campaign, on the contrary, Fortuyn
convincingly came out a winner during many of
the pre-election debates. So the left-liberal
clan resorted to an age old routine: slander.

They threw everything at Fortuyn with the idea
that some of it would stick and in doing that
they were given all the help they could get from
the Dutch media notably the NOS, the Dutch
equivalent of the BBC and some of the Dutch
top newspapers. The slander ranged from calling
Fortuyn Nazi to comparing him to Mussolini,
none of which was even close to the truth,
-------------------

Well, it was effective, it got him killed.

Now democrats will attack us our kids standing
in line for a movie, if we dare display
anything that identifies us, shoot guns
into our field offices, those you dont
break into and destroy.

Im telling you this is comming to guns.

We though we might need them to throw off
leftist tyranny if CBS memo style propaganda
led us into slavery, but now it looks like
we will be needing them sooner, since clearly
your own fake accusations have painted those
of us that oppose the leftism that murdered
100 million people as the evil instead of those
who ALWAYS do the actual murdering, once they
get the total absolute power than our
consitutional protections have held at bay.

Democrats call the consitution a "living"
document because they want rid of it, once
it no longer matters what it actually says
it then can say anything, even the opposite.

The left are attacking jews and demonising them
with acusataions of ritual murder of arab
children and feeding their meat to their own
children on college campus.

-------
it is harder to ignore the actions of left-wing,
militants on college campuses. At San Francisco
State University a crowd of demonstrators ssaulted
a Jewish prayer minyan (gathered, in fact, to pray
for peace in the Middle East), shouting "Hitler
didn't finish the job." Their officially recognized
campus organization circulated a poster showing a
dead baby with the words "Palestinian baby meat
slaughtered according to Jewish rites."
Where did this come from ? http://fp.thebeers.f9.co.uk/blood_libel.htm
offers some clues.
---------------------

Looks like Jews better arm themselves against
the leftist CommuNazis, they are returning to
their Jew hating roots.

All thruout the EU, Jews are comming under
attack, and depite the false idea foisted by
the media that its islamic fanatics doing it,
that is false.

You can see this for example, that the PR from
Jewish organizations pleading for relief are
not directed at muslims ..but the White leftists
that are attacking them.

Lastly, the KKK.. all of them was democrats
ALL of them !!

the democrat Senator from virgina was the grand
dragon of the KKK

there was never then or anything now that would
find common cause with the "right" and racist
groups, and untill the left slavers pushed out
the chattle slavers in the 60s the democrat party
was the racist party.

Applause for the democrats for expunging the
racists from their party, but sad to see they
traded chattle slavery of black for leftist
slavery of everyone, and where they PROVE.
their CommuNazism by going to cuba and
consorting with a leftist dictator.

We saw democrat house memebers go to IRAQ,
and we KNEW he had mass graves, even tho
we didnt know there was as many, and how
evil do you need to be to do that.

The leftist democrats and movie stars going
to support a dictator loarding over mass graves
where 14 year old school girls was used for sex
toys then tiger food.

We saw the left embrace M Moore's Potemkin
Village version of iraq.

He left out any mention of the fathers who
had to watch their 8 year old child tortured
in front of him.

Her mother brought her to investigators recently
her limbs deformed and contorted from torture.
her father was fed feet first into a plastic
shreder machine.

Leftist spokesmen have an almost unbroken record
for being supportive propagandists for all the
worlds mass butchers, Lenin Stalin Mao PolPot
Castro and Saddam and all the others

One can almost see M Moore filming a childrens
playground in Nazi Germany, and then pointing
and the Smokestacks of the Jew Burning ovens
where the beloved Nazi parents of the children
are hard at work.

Moore, the democrat congressmen and the actors
who went to iraq and oposed the war to depose
the butchers could not say they was unaware
of attrocities in iraq at the hands of saddam,
at least the mass murder of the Kurds, we saw
Kurdish babes dead in mothers arms dead of
poison gas in the streets !

And the next time we saw Moore he had the choice
seats with Carter and other top Democrat
politicians and illuminaries.

Even today he is not shunned, a direct indicator
of an utter total lack of morality, that aiding
a known perp of holocaustic crimes against
humanity is just fine in the democrat party.

And this is nothing new. all the lefts forein
heros of their beloved teror states have been
mass butchers.

The fact that Moore is still welcome is proof
that the democrats and everyone still in it
that has not left or is not making a stink
about it has NO moral compass

This proves to us that still stand for freedom
that the leftist democrats are NO different
from the Butcher mass murdering tyrants their
leaders unashamily support.

------------------
The star witness against the government of Iraq
hobbled into the room, her legs braced with
clumsy metal callipers. "Anna" had been tortured
two years ago. She is now four years old.

Her father, Ali, is a thick-set Iraqi who used
to work for Saddam's psychopathic son, Uday.
Some time after the bungled assassination of
Uday, Ali fell under suspicion.

He fled north, to the Kurdish safe haven policed
by Western fighter planes, but leaving his wife
and daughter behind in Baghdad.

So the secret police came for his wife. Where is
he? They tortured her. And when she didn't break,
they tortured his daughter.

"When did you last see your father? Has he phoned?
Has he been in contact?" They half-crushed the
toddler's feet.

Now, she doesn't walk, she hobbles, and Ali fears
that Saddam's men have crippled his daughter for
life.
-------------------------

All the news media knew about these kind
of things, they saw their own guides tortured
or killed, and replaced with a fresh one only
to see the same happen to them in some cases.
we saw CNN admit as such right after the
fall of bagdad. they traded their silence
about attrocities for access to iraq they said

But i doubt it, they are leftists and leftist
are morally obtuse about such things, they
have a history if twisting any report of their
beloved terror states of mass death into the best
possible light, only admitting, begrugingly
of any wrongs in the case of the information
getting out elsewhere.

It makes the leftist claims of concern about
their fellow humans rign hollow.

Constiently, the left attack the inperfections
of freedom that have wrought the greatest justice
fairness and properity than any other nation
that has ever existed on earth, and offer
ideas from the communists and socialist that
have resulted in the most mass death torture
famine death camps etc..

How can you be one of these and be a decent
person.

Every day the lefts evil stands more naked before
the world.

The leftist agiprop might make this election the
last election, they are destroying the foundation
of our democracy in order to rule it.

We are going to a conflict with guns.

with the ever more clear proof, that american
leftist are really no different than the left
elsewhere, the facade that they are moral and
fair is falling away.

I hope i am wrong, but i just dont see how.

Raymond

noliberal asks if I condemn hate speech and threats from the right as well as from the left.

I can honestly say that I do and have done, for many years. Although I was not blogging, be assured I spoke out against some of the more lurid and corrosive language used against Clinton. In fact, I held my nose and voted for Gore despite being pretty sure he would be another Jimmy Carter if elected, in part because I was unwilling to support the party that had engaged in several years of congressional deadlock and unsubstantiated, over-the-top hateful claims.

Now it is the Democrats doing it, and I won't support them this time around as a result, no matter what my party affiliation has been in the past. I've always held political opinions somewhere in the "conservative Democrat / somewhat liberal libertarian" quadrants. I benefitted as a teen from social programs that helped me get a first rate college education my family could never have afforded on our own, and I think we all benefit from the presence of a certain level of social safety net. OTOH, I worked 2 and 3 jobs and my parents remortgaged their modest home twice to allow me to graduate from that expensive college and I spent a good part of my earlier career helping minority entrepreneurs build successful businesses. I've worked for my graduate degrees and am doing so now for my doctorate. So I've criticized Democratic positions that turned a safety net into dependency and a sense of entitlement, just as I've used my MBA training from a top B-school to argue that the externalities of a partially-regulated market mean a social safety net is appropriate and just.

I'm of an age (53 shortly) and a disposition to have had to push for equity in the workplace for women, but I walked out of my last NOW meeting a good while ago, when the organization was hijacked by young radicals whose only concerns were abortion and lesbian rights.

And as the wife and close relative of career military, and the goddaughter / niece of a real war hero, I both support our military and feel free to criticize what I see as counterproductive or perverse defense policies.

I call things as I see them and right now, I see the Dems being far more the sinners than the sinned against. That may change -- liberals do not have a monopoly on smugness, viciousness or a willingness either to lie or to threaten. They do, however, appear to be dominating the market in these vices at the moment.

And, FWIW, here is an email I posted in response to a pro-Bush list that posted some over the top innuendos and rumors about Teresa Heinz Kerry:

[The biggest of the big rumors going around about Teresa Heinz Kerry,is that Teresa, before she married the late Senator John Heinz, who was killed in a helicopter crash, and later went on to marry Senator John Kerry, who she had met while Senator Heinz was still alive and still married to her, was a Soviet KGB Agent, using her body and her wiles, which some rumors state include heterosexual, lesbian, sado-masochist "Dominatrix" and other types of kinky and straight sex, etc. to blackmail United Nations diplomats and turn them into unwilling spies for the Soviet KGB.]

Okay, I find rumors like this deeply offensive -- and I expect to support Bush this year.

This sort of wild claim WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE is corrosive, destructive of our democracy and irresponsible. I detest this sort of thing no matter WHICH SIDE does it. Who will run for office if they are likely to be subjected to this sort of nasty, unsupported attack?

Stop it.

Robin Burk

No doubt about it, the invocation of assassination in the context of the Guardian article is very bad.

And I can sympathize with your anger at the letter writer and publishers for this.

But as for the manner in which you chose to frame your displeasure, I am absolutely flabbergasted.

Is it not enough to point out that such rhetoric is distasteful (which is unarguable) without suggesting that it reflects on a particular viewpoint that is unique to the “Left” (which is highly debatable, obviously)?

The rabid, thoughtless hate spewing from the left will be a major factor in my decision when I vote this year.

After reading the original article, I see virtually no evidence, other than a...let's say fervent...opposition to and dislike of Bush, that the writer is purveying anything that would place him on the "Left" side of the political spectrum. Even if you want to argue that The Guardian is a "Left" publication, it is still a single entity that cannot by any stretch be taken to represent a unitary political perspective.

Or is opposing Bush tantamount to this, in your mind?

And I find this paragraph especially troubling, Robin:

I am unwilling to give office and power to those who neither recognize this challenge nor demonstrate the maturity and resolve to face it. And I have lost the respect I once had for many leaders on the left and for those (such as your newspaper) who would influence opinion, when they likewise demonstrate themselves unable or unwilling to engage in serious debate over these critical issues.

It is sad to see the puerile rhetoric and unprincipled actions of many on the left.

In ending your letter with such a strong general (and to me clearly displaced) condemnation of “The Left” in response to the published opinion of a single man, one is left to wonder what other unrelated inspirations of anger would lead you down the same road.

To be blunt, this letter makes you sound like an intolerant and ideologically brainwashed raving lunatic. The hatred you end up spewing at the bogeyman "Left" completely obscures the valid initial point you were trying to make. In fact, I think a good case could have been made against the entire content of the Guardian article without having to raise the specter of a Left Wing conspiracy.

Its one thing to embrace the therapeutic benefits of venting your anger, but it is quite another thing to offer these outbursts as an example of some deep political insight or wisdom. Especially since the writer of the Guardian article could be accused of the same thing.

I can think of perhaps two explanations for this. You are either 1) misdirecting your anger in a manner that simply reflects your current biases, or 2) purposefully trying to link together something vile (assassination) with a “Left” philosophy that you are clearly angry about as well.

And I have lost the respect... for those...who would influence opinion, when they likewise demonstrate themselves unable or unwilling to engage in serious debate over these critical issues.

I hope you can see how this could be viewed as a hypocritical statement coming from someone who sees connections to their opposition where none exist.

Sorry, VT, but you're not reading carefully or paying attention to my statements here over the course of this election season if you think I am overstating the situation.

Do I need to rehearse the spittle-flecked "hate Bush" statements we've seen in print and online from a broad segment of the left in the last 3 years?

Need I post Gore's photos and his latest tirades to make the point?

I'm well aware the Guardian is just one source of it.

As to connections, well .... like Zell Miller, I see a disturbing and blameworthy abdication of responsibility on the part of more left-wing leaders. Those who haven't engaged in Gore / Guardian hate speech certainly have done nothing to discourage it or to enter into a serious debate about the challenges we face. (And don't quote Kerry at me, please -- he is less than convincing WRT actions vs. words.)

I don't hate the left. I do find many current liberal leaders very culpable of irresponsibility and of favoring short-term political gain over the good of the country and of the liberal position in general. That shouldn't come as a surprise to you, VT -- it's a charge I've made before, including re: the Mary Cheney issue.

Finally, I won't presume to guess your age VT, as you've not chosen to post under your own name or to give any personal details. But I will say this: I've been a Democrat and worked for social equity for longer than many of those currently spewing hate have been alive. I am not willing to allow them to speak for me when they do so.

"Charlie Brooker apologises for any offence caused by his comments relating to President Bush in his TV column, Screen Burn. The views expressed in this column are not those of the Guardian. Although flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action - an intention he believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand. He deplores violence of any kind."

Hat tip: Instapundit

See? All better now.

Uh huh.

I'm less than impressed. The Guardian is trying to laugh this off, as they did with the Clark County OH flap. I'd be impressed if they published an editorial calling for reasoned, temperate speech and denouncing the hate-Bush, hate-America position they've pushed heavily for a long time.

Sorry Dave, but this doesn't do much to correct the situation IMO. That column should never have gotten past an editor in the first place.

Robin, I don't think I would juxtapose hate-filled, spittle-flecked, and Zell Miller. I had to read twice to realize you were referring to Al Gore.

Yup. Gore has really lost it lately. Miller gave a very strong keynote speech in a well-honed style, but he never ever descended into hate speech whereas Gore has been spiraling down into it more and more, of late.

Robin;

"Hatespeach" (as you define it) comes from both sides...I remember many occassions where I actually cringed at the things Tom DeLay or Dick Armey or others used to say about Clinton during his presidency. This is while they were serving in their official capacities as publically elected officials, not later, like Gore, or as private citizens, like Michael Moore or the Guardian author.

To say more is coming from the Left right now is silly. This is simply how you see it, sitting where you do. Also, in general perhaps an incumbent with a record provides more fodder for opposition. Which is how I would categorize Al Gore's comments, BTW, not as an example of a radical (and dangerous, it seems to you) Left Wing opinion. Since I haven't been following Gore's recent remarks (which you seem especially offended by), I would appreciate links to some examples of what you would categorize as "hatespeach" from him.

I don't think you can ever make the case that this type of thing is the unique provenance of the Left. I would consent to bilateral guilt, but suggesting otherwise as you seem to be doing here smacks of a purely political play on your part.

I question your broad assertion that strong, heated, partisan, searing, insulting, or even distastefully personal opposition to Bush is equivalent to "Hate". You must know as well as anyone who's lived 5 decades that it is futile to attempt to guess what is in the hearts and minds of others. As such, I view your repeated use of the term "Hate" as an effort to stigmatize strong anti-Bush rhetoric. Certainly the Guardian article pushes the boundaries of good taste; but whether the fellow "hates" Bush or not....well, how can you tell? For that matter, how can you be so sure than anyone "hates" him? In fact, you would probably catetorize me as being a Bush Hater, based on the tenor of my comments against him here. But I can state unequivocally and honestly that I do not "hate" him at all.

But I see that it is easier to dismiss the opinions of those with whom you disagree if you categorize them as having an uncontrollable emotional (i.e., irrational) source. That is what I think you are trying to accomplish here. But I think you will progress further toward understanding them if you realize that this does not necessarily have to be the case.

noliberal

> ALL comments that advocate violence from either
> the left or right should be condemned.
> However, I have not seen many damning comments
> directed towards the right on the blog
> ( I guess they must be pacifists, and correct
> all the time).

Not all of the time, but most of the time
Leftist seem to foist this fake fraudulent
"everybody does it" crap.

Republicans have no history of making excuses
for mass murder for example, but the left have
made excuses or dismiss it with a shrug.

And the leftist mainstream media and lefist
papers like the New York Times continue
in the tradition of Walter Durranty, who
recieved a Pulitzer Prize for helping Stalin
cover up the mass murder of 10 Million people
in the Ukriane. Walter is still proudly listed
By the paper, and after the crimes of the left
have become known, because its their beloved
leftst heros, they are still keeping their
silence.

> I would like to ask if you were this indignant
> about assasination comments by Republicans
> when Clinton was in office?

Another typical leftist lie, didnt know that was
a felony ? that kind of talk will send you
directly to jail.

The reason that paper is getting sway with it
is because the guy and the paper are not in
America.

Clinton was called... a rapist, he raped Wannita
left her with torn lip and torn clothes and
said "put ice on that"

But even rape, along with the grabbing and
groping of others only made the feminist love
him. after all, the black marxist agitprops
that say only whites can be racists, it follows
that only democrats can be rapists and if you
grope and grab thats only "borish behavior" as
they dismissed it all with a shrug.

Far less would get a republican a firing squad.

Clinton put military usefull tech under the
commerce department because the security
people objected to missle tech sales to china.
China got MRV tech, clinton got money from
loral and the chinese military.

A common theme for the left is to put
dysfunctional leftist radiacals in charge of agencies, as if they go fishing for freaks.
He put Hazel O Leary in charge of our Nuclear
missle tech.

Hazel was a communist that hated the USA, she
had already stated that the USA needed more
powerfull enemies to provide ballance.

So Hazel did a huge document dump that gave the
world all of our nuke tech older than a certain
date and North Korea, Iraq Iran Pakistan et al
got a boost for or started nuclear programs.

I hate the way the left twist arguments but
i understand why they do that, its because
their actual positions never withstand scrutiny

Notice how its the constant tactic to defend
the indefensable positions with fake charges
of racism or some such instaed of defending
their position.. sure sign of a loser.

One wonders how you could hold any view
that you cannot defend ? kneejerk ad hominims
are not a defense, they are a sign of defeat
or dishonesty about your motives.

This dishonesty is what gives us the impression
that these leftists are wolves in sheepskin
closet stalinists who push planks out of the
blood stained communist manifesto while refusing
to debate them on the merits

I seems the debate tactic is .. everyone that
dont agree is a racist ( no matter the subject
which makes it kind of comical at times)
-----------------

OPINION IN BRIEF
The cavalier attitude toward historical truth has
reached epidemic proportions -- has in fact
become part of the intellectual furniture of our
age, something presupposed rather than argued for.

One sign of this situation is the horror with
which the idea of 'objective truth' is regarded
in certain academic circles today.

Another is the widespread tendency to downgrade
facts to matters of opinion -- a tendency that
follows naturally from the rejection of objective
truth.

This shows itself in the amazingly prevalent
assumption that truth is 'relative,' i.e., that
the truth of what is said depends crucially on
the interests, prejudices, and even the sex or
ethnic origin of the speaker, rather than on -
- well, the truth or falsity of what the speaker
says.

The basic idea is that truth is somehow invented
rather than discovered.

The irony that attends this triumph
of interpretation over facts is that it ultimately
undermines fact. When facts are downgraded to
opinions, they no longer have the authority of
facts; but opinions without the bedrock of facts
deliquesce into whims.

Opinion remains opinion only so long as it is
grounded in, and can be corrected by, fact.

What is at stake in the confusion of fact and
opinion ... is nothing less than the common world
of factual realtiy and historical truth."

-- Roger Kimball, "In Defense of Facts"

----------------------------------

Yes truth is a discovery not an invention.
something the left seems to have lost after
embracing the marxist postmodernist who have
lost their anchor to reality.

What angered me, after selling arms to china
and taking money from the chineese military
its as if the feaso over purgery was chaff
and interference to brush the far lerger offenses
off the front pages

The clintonistas still defend clintion and that
defense isnt defensable, perhaps we can point
to that as the point where they lost their
attachment to right and wrong, only power
matters to them anymore, morality has been
tossed off the wagon, now drive by shootings
at small street offices of republican vounteers
is ok... and its just fine to rip signs out
of the hands of three year olds, after all
he and his girl had no right to stand there
among democrats in silence, since everyone know
they wont be able to control themselves right?

The leftist thugs can march the streets during
our convention attack delagates, sometimes just
spitting on them, sometimes its the punch
of 9 year old girl in the face and giving her
a bloody nose while she waited in line for a
movie.

I dont recall any marchers during the Democrat
convention, but its not because the other half
of the country dont exist, its because as a
rule we dont do that kind of stuff.

If we start becomeing more accustomed to doing
our own demonstrations we wont be attacking the
police, or any some such like the democrats did.

We simply dont act that way as a rule, there is
a difference in behavior depending on your
politics that cannot be denied.

Heh the democrats put their own protesters
in a cage during their convention. man wow!

Yes there is a huge differece

Dont mistake our civility for weakness however,
anger is building, we are being spit on punched
and shot at, we do have our guns.

The democrats simply seem to have zero self
control, our passivity has emboldened them.

But they dont understand us, if our half of
the country gets tired of all the commie
agitprop, it will be hot lead not spit that
will come from us.

Raymond.

This from Johann Hari’s article and his interview with Christopher Hitchens I believe sums it up fairly well. The underlying question Hitchens raises is where are they? They certainly don’t seem to be at the forefront. More importantly Hitchens believes the new left refuses to see a reality of their ways based on principles instead of reason.

“As I luxuriate in the warm bath of his charisma, I want to almost physically drag him all the way back to us. He might be dead to the likes of Tariq Ali but there is still a large constituency of people on the left who understand how abhorrent Islamic fundamentalism is. Why leave us behind?” (emphasis mine)

The link to Christopher Hitchens article “Why I’m (slightly) for Bush” is well worth the read. There is one thing that sticks out though concerning his grievances with the left. This passage certainly solidifies the grievances outlined in the interview and why he wants no part of it.

”What slightly disturbs me about most liberals is their hypertense refusal to admit the corollary. "Anybody But Bush"--and this from those who decry simple-mindedness--is now the only glue binding the radical left to the Democratic Party right”

As for Mr. Brooker’s article and a call for assassination. I believe this a prime example of what Hitchens is getting at.

VT, you just aren't bothering to read what I actually am writing.

I went out of my way to say that I've seen examples of hateful and destructive speech from both sides of the political aisle in my lifetime, and I specifically noted rightwing attacks on Clinton as an example.

I stand by my assertion that at the moment, the left is the primary source of such speech and corollary actions. And as for the "hate Bush" meme -- I won't do your homework for you, but Google will turn up a number of very high profile articles in mainstream media on just that topic, using that word.

Sorry, but the perpetrators at the moment seem to be coming mainly from the left, so that is where my criticism will go.

Dave

”See? All better now. “

Nope not one bit.

”Although flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action - an intention he believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand. He deplores violence of any kind.”

This gets back to my previous post about politics being the cesspool it is. The most lured, cruder, outlandish, spiteful, derogatory based on the premise of shock value to make a point. Did it ever occur to anyone that people just might take these actions and outspokenness at face value. Do not the words mean what they say anymore? Have we lost the art of debate and conversation? Is it too far fetched to believe what someone writes is actually what they think?

Ray, I understand your anger but am concerned about statements like this:

if our half of the country gets tired of all the commie agitprop, it will be hot lead not spit that will come from us.

My husband and I own guns and I can shoot. If I need to defend my life with one, I will do so and I will hit what I aim at.

But that said, it is dangerous and irresponsible, IMO, to escalate the rhetoric this way from the conservative side, just as it is from the liberal side. Anger notwithstanding, we do NOT need a civil war in this country. A fierce debate, yes. Violence to impose one's beliefs or out of frustration and anger - no.

If it's not apparent I was being ironic. Since I don't typically do ironic I must be out of practice.

Ah. Sorry not to pick that up. My gain is turned up high on this issue, in case that hasn't been clear ..... mistook static for the signal.

What I think our European cousins may miss is that, using the language of radicalism, Americans—particularly shall we say mature Americans like you and I, Robin—have had our consciousnesses raised on the subject of political assassination. It's just not funny to us.

W. was also elected in a year ending in 0. While Reagan broke the string, it wasn't by much.

Dave

I would certainly hope it is not funny to anyone. However, Mr. Brooker seems to think this is acceptable irony / humor and what's worse the Guardian defends their position to publish said article based on his assertion as such. Now I certainly don't deny Mr. Booker his opinions or his right to air them. I do hold the Guardian responsible for allowing the publication and the insinuation that such a treasonous act is warranted.

I’m with Robin on this one. It should never have gotten past the editor’s desk. Personally I could care less what Mr. Booker writes or who publishes it for that matter. I am biased in that I believe the Guardian knew the article was mere rhetoric but they also knew the punch line is what gives it the shock value they want to arise in their readers.

Robin;

If you want to accuse me of being unfamiliar with your line of argument, fine, but then to dismiss my entire commentary by focusing on one small part of it is to do the same to me.

It is not a matter of you doing "my homework" for me to ask you to provide specific examples of what you believe defines "hatespeach". It is a way of attempting to calibrate this argument so we can find out if we're talking about even remotely the same thing. This is important because I am challenging your definition, for one thing.

So define it by providing specific examples, please, taken from Gore's recent speeches. I cannot myself distill from them what you would consider to be "hateful". I am not trying to call your bluff, I'm genuinely interested in your answer and may even end up agreeing with you for all I know.

Sorry, but the perpetrators at the moment seem to be coming mainly from the left, so that is where my criticism will go.

Of course from your perch on the Right they must seem (your usage) to be coming mainly from the left...regardless of how long you've been observing the process, it is your current perspective as someone who is clearly a Bush supporter that informs your positions.

>But that said, it is dangerous and irresponsible,
>IMO, to escalate the rhetoric this way from the
>conservative side, just as it is from the liberal
>side. Anger notwithstanding, we do NOT need a
>civil war in this country. A fierce debate, yes.
>Violence to impose one's beliefs or out of
>frustration and anger - no.

Its typical leftism to call self defense "escalation" as a matter of form.

The hardest core of the same left opposed our
invasion of afganistan, marxist professors etc
................
University of New Mexico Professor Richard Berthold—He told students that “anyone who can blow up the Pentagon gets my vote.”
................

However, perhaps my rather substandard wordsmith
skills didnt quite make clear what i was talking
about.

All this antiwar agitprop has ZERO to do with
any reasons for going into iraq.

Its simply an preprogrammed kneejerk reflex
to oppose the USA every time the USA defends
itself or opposed communism. as if the idology
of 100+ Million murdered innocents that brings
the Gulag and mass grave everywhere it goes
should not be opposed.

Saddam was a Baath Socialist, a typical leftist
dictator, and so, natually the left support him
and much as appearances allow.

The whole world was certain that Saddam had
prohibited weapons, nobody no goverment anywhere
said otherwise, even kerry himself, as well
as clinton before him.

And the antics he played with the inspectors
that we had to put troops on his border for
him to allow in gave us no confort.

Bush also gave abuse of his people and others.

If indeed the weapons are not buried in the sand
or in syria and actually dont exist except
for the few dozen chem warheads we have found
so far then it means simply that we was wrong.

Wrong dont mean lie. to call a mistake a lie,
is a lie.

The marxocrats are almost always guilty of what
they accuse us of. they accuse us of fraud
when they are attempting fraud etc.

In effect, its a kinds of in your face shout
you down tactic designed to cow us into
acceptance.

Now, they want to destroy the most important
reason we have been able in the past to have
power changes without violence.

The trust in the vote, that we will not be
cheated is why elections dont errupt into
civil war.

The democraps accused fake fraud in florida

All leftist rags went and recounted the ballots
at great expense and if there was even an
indication that an actual Gore Victory
in those ballots we would still be hearing
nothing else.

The race huckster, race warfare creators, went
down there and had this big media show about
racists voter intimidation, but there was
nobody to show up, it was all a farce and
a fraud

Hiters people did this kind of stuff

The democrats spent the years since fanning
the flames over a fraud that didnt happen

and they have convinced us that fair play
means nothing to them, only power at any
cost matters to them.

And they are willing to risk civil war
because they are obtuse to the true nature
of the normally passive peacefull people
they have been slandering spitting on
and shooting at.

Once America no longer trust the integrity
of the vote because of fake accusations of
fraud while we see them,, in our face commiting
fraud.

Look at what they did in new jersey, their
candidate wasnt going to win, so they
got a leftist amoral ends-justfy-means judge
to allow a swap of candidates that violated
election law.

We would not even consider that or anything
like that, for rules-dont-matter democrats
such is becomming automatic.

They are undermining the trust in the process
and their thugs are adopting the tactics
of 1930s Germany.

Im telling you, American are no different
than any other people anywhere, its our
Republican Consitutional Democracy and all
the rules and traditions the democrats want
to destroy that is the source of all our
liberty strenth and prosperity

and the reason we hand over power without guns
is the faith in our elections.

Once that is gone, there will be civil war
and the democrats are destroying all sense
that elections are fair.

Back when I was a leftist, the quality of leftists was much higher than it is now. Perhaps leftists are drinking a poorer quality of spirits, contaminated with lead? That would explain so much.

The modern left would be laughable if not for the fact that they stunt the growth of young minds in the university. That is unforgiveable.

Ray -

Two things:

Could you work to compact your comments a bit? It's a difficult form for long arguments. And yours seem to show up with line breaks at something like 40 characters, which make them harder still to read...

We value your contributions, and want to make sure that people actually read them.

...thanks!

A.L.

VT, I think you're missing the big story here. Armed Liberal and I are not on the Right.

Robin,

You continue to dodge my main points to focus on the trivial.

The Big Story, as you call it, is neither big nor noteworthy. He is voting for Bush. You clearly support him. You can define your other views any way you want, but if you raise issues relating to candidates, you're on the Right.

I don't think anyone is missing the charade, believe me.

VT's insistence labeling me as being on the Right is symptomatic of a serious problem on the Left. (Note the capital letter VT uses in "Right", which tends to give a sense of firm reality to what is in fact a concept whose boundaries we might disagree on.)

I think Hitchens - whose views I don't always agree with, by any means, but who has been a leading leftist for many years - nails it. The current left seems to be able to define itself only in the most superficial ways ... in VT's case, by voting for Kerry vs. Bush. If that's the only or the most important criterion for being liberal vs. conservative, left vs. right, then those are meaningless labels.

But if VT means that I've taken a good hard look at matters this year and don't like what I see emanating from the left side of the aisle, he's absolutely correct. Neither AL nor I are alone in this judgement, however, and I suspect we have a lot of company in the polling places.

Now, VT may choose to define us out of the liberal camp. I've watched ideologues do that in the party, in the women's movement and in social equity circles for the last two decades or so ... it's an old schtick and I've grown a pretty thick skin with regard to that sort of thing. And in response, those movements no longer have my direct participation or contribution as they once did.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what label VT or others put on people with political convictions similar to my own. What will matter is how many of us express those opinions in a week.

And more broadly and over the longer haul, what will matter most is whether a sufficient number of Americans make it plain that they are unwilling to tolerate fraud, intimidation and other tactics which are distorting and degrading our electoral system significantly, no matter who does them.

Armed Liberal

Yeah, thats the width of the listbox in the form

Perhaps i can practice letting the stuff wrap,
or something, even tho its so far out pretty
ingrained habit its gonna be like attempting
to ride a bike sitting backwards.

Ok Hyperbole, but only a little

> I've watched ideologues do that in the party,
>in the women's movement and in social equity circles

Yes !

But the same thing is even more remarkable with black conservatives, Larry Ellison, Alan Keys, Coln Powell, Ms Rice, I cant remember the name of the delightfull fellow who subs for Rush, the nice professor from George Mason University, grr, cant remember. and there are others. the guy from oklahoma I cant remember his name either.

How can you not take pride in sharing common cause with those that handle such attacks with such grace.

These people have to endure attacks that would make Sid Pointier blanch, come to think of it, he was the one that made the "slave in the massahs house" sneer.

The democrat leaders are not a whole lot better, you never hear them denounce such stuff as any actually decent person should.

Look, the democrat leadership have lost any pretense to values, and isnt it clear that the so called values they express are only a pretense ?

We simply do not tolerate that kind of stuff.

Perhaps with the manic maniac inability for them to maintain their sense of civility has shown some of the true nature of those you are unfortunate to share space with.

I wonder how much longer it will take before it becomes clear for the decent logical and honest among you that you really dont have anything in common with them, that what you thought you shared was a sham, and what is comming out in the open is repulsive.

Look at the current contest, they are all frothy at Bush, because true to form He says what he stands for, you know he means it, and the Bush Haters dont like it, their hate has nothing to do with any hidden agenda, but with what he directly say plainly, what he thinks, why he thinks it, and what he is going to do about it.

Could you be so certain with Kerry ? With Gore ? with Clinton ? Kennedy was Honest, he said what he was and any differences was reaction to events.

Carter, deplorable as he was, didnt seem to hide his agenda very much, even tho ther was a few surprizes, i had no idea He had such a disdain for americas friends nor did i know he would create new enemies like Iran.

Clinton, he was the political windvane who saw Serbs fighting islamic terroists and became the airforce for the terrorists (documents found in afgan training camps showed applicants bragging about their "service" in kosovo beheading serbs.

He set up china with new missles and nukes and started nuke programs in N Korea and pakistan,
and coined the phrase "arkancide" leaving a trail
of strange deaths in his wake.

But Hey
thats what really counts eh? besides hes
pur guy, right or wrong, right or very wrong,
even right or absurdly indefensably make all your defenders into morally obtuse koolaid drinking moonies wrong, but Hey "Overturning an Election" would have made Gore president

So in hindsight,, you saved us ! you saved us all.

the Guy has shown hiself a raving nutter that makes Howard Dean look suave by compare.

Lucky us...

Robin;

I don't care how you define yourself or what labels you choose or reject, but you seem to prefer to argue against this fluff rather than to commit yourself to a serious discussion on a subject that would help clarify what in fact your actual viewpoint is. Puzzling.

But you can clear this up right now if you so choose. Define what specifically you find "hateful" about Al Gore's criticism of Bush. (I've even made iit easy for you by only asking for an example from this narrow source rather than to ask you to justify your much broader condemnation of All Things Left.)

Why do I have a feeling you won't (can't?) rise to this simple challenge?

Robin, would you care to define "hate speech" in a sufficiently neutral way that it could be applied to both Democratic and Republican partisans, and then we will test it against both Gore and Zell Miller speeches? I think it's possible that both will qualify; I can't imagine how only Gore will, unless you set up highly asymmetric criteria.

this is like pulling teeth for me but, Al Gore has said:

- that Bush "betrayed" this country by presenting Iraq as a response to 9/11

- has compared the religious right, and George Bush's religion as "all fire and brimstone, the same phenomenon as in places like Saudi Arabia"

- referred to some right-wing online activists (Free Republic, etc.) as "digital brownshirts"

- Has said that the impact of the right-wing noise machine on the mainstream media has been "like a fifth column, injecting their talking points under the cover of `objective news'"

Al Gore is still one of the the politicians I most respect and admire, and I trust his judgement as much as almost anybody on policy issues, but there is no question that in describing the motives and values of the other side he has crossed the line a number of times.

I am totally swamped today with other responsibilities, but later this AM I'll take a stab at a definition and address the Gore issue. Sorry to disappear from the thread for a while, but Analog Life demands it.

Okay, here is a stab at defining hate speech: "speech which expresses vehement dislike of, disgust for or denigration of the worth of a person or group qua person or group. Especially, speech which incites others to such dislike, disgust or denigration."

What I want to emphasize here (and if the wording does not do this, then help me to reword it) is this:

We can disagree, even vehemently, without our comments constituting hate speech. We can encourage others to disagree with someone, or to dislike him/her, without committing hate speech.

What characterizes hatred is the way in which it rejects and vehemently devalues the other person as a person, not just some opinion that person holds or some action s/he has taken.

Saying, "This policy is disastrous. I am hard put to see how anyone who looks at the facts could recommend we adopt it." is not hate speech.

Saying, "The President / Senator / journalist is a congenital idiot consumed by a love of power and greed." crosses over the line IMO.

Why? To begin with, because the second speaker denigrates the basic worth of the other person (assuming there is no evidence that the other person is profoundly mentally handicapped). And also because that denigration attributes very bad motives to the other person without evidence or qualification.

In other words, this second assertion dismisses the President / Senator / journalist as a) an idiot and b) a power-seeking, greedy person. Period. That's who s/he is, there is nothing more to discuss, no dialogue about the content of the policy, no recognition that reasonable people might have some justification for advancing it.

Now, why is that bad? Why do I accept statements like, "It's hard for me to see how anyone who looks at the facts would recommend this policy" but not statements like "This is the policy of a congenital idiot." ??

There are several factors at work for me. From a moral point of view, I have a problem dismissing the basic human worth of anyone, even people I disgree with or have great disgust for (like Saddam Hussein).

But equally important, and perhaps even more so in an election year, the former statement allows the possibility of dialogue and of accepting the adoption (or refusal) of the policy in question. But the latter statement does not -- it fails to attribute any good motive, any insight or any value to the other person or to the policy that person is recommending.

If you decide, and convince others, that some person or group has no value, no good motives, no legitimacy, then at a minimum you have made political agreement and common purpose impossible. Worse, such a conviction easily becomes justification for denying those people a hearing, denying them a voice in decisions, perhaps denying them other basic rights and respect as well.

To dismiss blog commenters as "digital brownshirts", to say that Bush acts only out of a concern to wield power (and not, for instance, out of religious convictions), as Gore has done recently, pretty much crosses this line IMO.

Zell Miller approached that line in his keynote speech at the GOP convention, when he said, "Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator." and also when he said, "But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy."

However, Miller redeems himself IMO in that speech in several ways. First, he never attacks Democratic leaders as people, even when attacking what he asserts are their opinions and their poor judgement. Second, in the first quote, he says "motivated MORE BY partisan politics" -- in other words, he recognizes multiple motives for the actions / opinions of Democratic leaders.

Finally, the second quote is followed immediately by this: "It is not their patriotism -- it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking." And he then proceeds to give specific instances where he believes their judgement was wrong, and wrong in such a way as to be relevant to his earlier points.

It is possible to have a dialogue with Miller, based on his assertions. He states clearly he is not denigrating the Democratic leaders as people, nor denying their patriotism -- but he is taking issue with specific judgements they have made and, earlier, with their motives for particular positions they have taken.

Gore's accusations, on the other hand, admit of no dialogue, no common ground with those he denigrates and dismisses. He reduces bloggers to their comments and then attributes only bad motives to them. In fact, he deliberately uses a word, "brownshirts", which has truly evil connotations. Similarly, he dismisses the motives and character of Bush, reducing him to his bid for re-election, and dismissing that as simply the result of hunger for power. No recognition that there might be a desire to serve or a sense of duty involved.

The difference is important, I think.

These behaviors are not party-specific, of course. For example, Ann Coulter regularly speaks hatefully and attempts to incite hate. Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt do not.

Please don't let the Guardian and its disgusting views taint your views of Britain in general. The paper has a tiny circulation and is not taken seriously here in the UK - its a noisy example of a lunatic fringe found across the Western World. Best option is to ignore them - I find I'm much less angry/irate now I do!

Again, VT, I can only assume you aren't reading what I've written, if you can say this:

justify your much broader condemnation of All Things Left

Or perhaps you intend to mislead? It's hard to form a clear judgement about that, but in either case this is a false accusation, as is apparent to those who have followed my comments and posts over time.

> These behaviors are not party-specific, of
> course. For example, Ann Coulter regularly
> speaks hatefully and attempts to incite hate.

I would task you to point at something like that.

Is this the fact that the CommuNazi brownshits,
and their behavior leaves nothing else to describe
them, that disrupt her speaches on campus are
spewing nothing else.

Sounds as if you are simply repeating the ad hominym attacks thrown at all the speakers who dare show up for any invitations, Michelle Malkin etc.

Even Tammy bruce has to endure such crap.

Its the same tired refrain, say anything the left dont agree with and its "Racist!" "Nazi!"

Ray, here are a few Coulter quotes selected at random from her columns of the last few months - many more can be accumulated.

This is way out of line:
It's always good to hear Democrats assure us that one of them isn't a traitor. With the Democrats, you need constant assurances we're not dealing with another Alger Hiss. David Gergen, the Tariq Aziz for the Democrats, says ...

So is this:
Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston ...

and this:
We don't have to adopt all the Democrats' traits – incessant lying, utter shamelessness, criminal behavior and lots of crying – but ...

I find all of these hateful and deserving of real condemnation.

Robin- thanks for your information on your background, it definitely helps with the discussion. You give some good support to your position, and I like the way you laid it out. Interestingly, my political road has almost been opposite of yours (I think); was registered Republican and now am registered Democrat. Also, like you, I don't think either party totally fits my positions, but I've known that since I began voting in '80. I troll mainly centrist and what some would call right wing blogs, but I've enjoyed the discussions here at WOC the most. There's a little less shouting/screaming and more true give and take. Most of the 'leftist' blogs I've been to have been average at best, but what is interesting is that I've been labeled a Republican/right winger due to some of the positions I've taken even though I disclosed my party affiliation.

-Raymond: Your admonishment of me being 'leftist' is very interesting as it's the 1st time I've been called a leftist, but if that's how you view me I'm OK with that. I've always thought of myself a a centrist, but what the heck. I've surfed the protestwarriors blog and have read the awful things some of the protesters shouted/spat/etc. at the warriors. It does absolutely nothing to advance their cause and they should be called on it. I have no problem with that. It is because I've posted this position on a few 'leftist' blogs that I was labeled a Republican/right winger. From my perspective, I'm doing OK as I've now been 'labeled' by both sides in this political 'civil war'.

Finally, Ray, this kind of language is not welcome on Winds of Change:

CommuNazi brownshits

Disagree with policies, disagree with people strongly, but this does descend into hateful speech and does not advance the discussion here at all.

You and your ideas are welcome here, but please use language that encourages serious dialogue.

Well thats easy Robin, is it hate if its true, or points at hostorical facts, or is a sarcastic invective based on truth ?

The democrat party has 50 sitting memebers of the DSA, adopting what they are pushing would be a soviet america, and attack on the constitution our troops are sworn to defend, and an attack on our freedom and way of life.

Opposing the leftist crap that created teror states with a mountain of 100+ Million murdered is not hatred of anything but evil.

Dellums is a traitor, going back to when he tried to warn the Cubas of our invasion of granada to rescue the students they capured down there, McDermet is a traitor, he flew to Iraq along with others to put a nice face on the state that is the latest in your face example of crimes agaist humanity and an ememy of the united states

You can toos in all the rest that went there to prop up that Baath Socialist rejime of killing fields in the sand with craves of toddles with bullets in the head and toys in the hand.

Hanoi Jane that went to spit on our POW's who was handed a paper of social security numbers so that more of them might make it out alive, and handed them to the Commies as she left leading to the torture to death of those men. she wasnt the only one.

Fact is.. the marxocrats have been getting by with blatant treason and aid and confort to states of terror since Hanoi Jane, and some of them have been sitting politicians

What an outrage! whre is the morals, the sense of right and wrong, the sense of decency. what happened to they uttery morally obtuse people.

It reminds us that evil, the heart of pure black, can often come with a pretty face, nice clothes, and elevated position or status, and with Charisma and Speaking skills.

If you cannot yet see this, you are still blinded yet.

And yes, when the fellow democrats watch this happen without speaking out, well thats why its become so rampant, they have lost their ability to identify or gudge, right from wrong.

I suppose all of this perverted and twisted mentality is the product of indioctrination my those postmodern marxist crakpot unoppologetic stalinists that rule the university liberal arts department these days, but one of the reasons I thought i might want to sit in with the seemingly nice and reasonable people here, is i thought i had found a place sprinkled well with reason.

Reasoned debate is so sorely lacking in the left these days, it seems if your not part of their groupthink, if you have the idea for example, that the body of ideas that created the largest holocaust ever to exist with the rest existing under an iron boot that left many of the survivors wishing they had died, is stupid and inferior or "Racist!" .....

I would task you to look at what she is saying there, does she have a point ?

She does, and the fact that is so close to the bone of truth, added to the fact that she is as blunt as the backside of an axe ..

You can call that a few things, but it isnt hate.

She has already listed in her books every example of what she is talking about, and i would have you notice, if you dont mind, that none of the content can be refuted en whole.

The only attempt ive seen was one sentence that reminded me of a unpainted spot where it dripped of a nail and proclaiming that isnt a white painted house. and he wasnt able to prove the error.

If its true, is it hate ?
if thats the case, then the left has some issues dont they? Yes they do,, that issue exactly in fact. (among many, tolerance of traitors in their ranks is another, that has its roots in the hard lefts still remaining agenda that the US must be destroyed, its the source of the worlds evils, our commie utopia will come if we can just defeat america!).

It reminds me of .. was it Truman ?

"Your Giving them Hell!"
"No, im telling the truth and they think its hell"

Even McCarthy has been proven correct by the
Verona transcripts, we did indeed, have Soviet
agents in the State Department, and KGB in Hollywood et al.

The object of the term McCarthism has been vindicated by history, and we also know that
the Soviet empire, measure in murdered innocents was 3 times MORE evil than Hilters Socialist Germany, and that Hitler only comes in thrid place of the 3 Most burtal mass butcers behind mao, who comes in First even thos the Sovet state is number 1 mass killer of all time as a whole, with 61,000,000 helpless innocents killed

The most evil of all evils of all time, and McCarty had been vilified for being RIGHTFULLY alarmed at it.

while at the same time the American left dispissed the danger with sneers like "Red Scare"

No, the reason they dont like ann isnt because she hates ... an accusation that is ad hominin nonsense, no its because she is right.

Robin,

Boy you get it from all directions. Even when you agree (overall) with a post you get grief from the 'self annointed'. I may not agree with you on many issues, but I admire your persistence in the face of some heated feedback. I'm sure we all could use more, shall we say, colorful descriptions of those we disagree with, but you're correct that it would not further discussion...it would be just name calling. Your original comment to Raymond regarding his reference to a gun was something I missed. I own guns as well and enjoy a trip to the range now and then, but I'm not sure why he see's your questioning of that description as leftist. Now that I've read his 2nd comment re: CommuNazi brownshits, it would seem that he wants less discussion, and more pontificating. It looks like the strength of this blog is its focus on information dissemination and discussion. I hope that doesn't change. I wonder if Raymond, with his passion for his positions, ever thought of creating his own blog...he could say WHATEVER he wants there. I wonder, though, if he would enjoy it as much as he does posting here; you know...that give and take. Anyway, keep up the good work.

noliberal, the tenor of Winds of Change won't change. Joe, I and the rest of the team work hard to make this a place for serious consideration of important topics.

Raymond, noliberal is right. Armed Liberal also alluded earlier to the need to keep your comments shorter and to the point. If you can make them more moderate in length and polite in tone, you're more than welcome to keep commenting here on WOC. If what you have to say requires a lot more space, please consider starting your own blog, perhaps on one of the free sites.

Re: Coulter and hate, your position seems to be that she is right and therefore her speech is not hate speech.

I disagree on both points. First, I take exception to her casual accusations of treason. As you know if you read WOC often, I teach at the United States Military Academy, i.e. West Point. My husband, a retired USAF officer, teaches there too. I and my students live "Duty, Honor, Country" every day and since I've been teaching seniors ("firsties") the last two years, those students go off to practice Duty, Honor and service to Country in places like Iraq not long after they leave my classroom.

Treason is a very serious offense and it is a charge that should not be made lightly. Coulter throws it around with glee and that offends me deeply.

Which brings me to the "hate" part. Coulter often does exactly what I point to in my definition of hate speech above. Rather than disagree with some action or attitude of those she opposes, she simply throws nasty accusations at them. I have yet to read a single Coulter column in which she treated someone with whom she disagrees, with respect. Frankly, Coulter has yet to earn the right to dismiss as worthless and ridiculous the service, beliefs and motives of every other person on the planet (except for the few who agree with her).

She intends to offend, she intends to stir up hatred in her audience and she works hard at both these things. For this reason, I find her contemptible - not because she is conservative, but because of how she attacks others in ways that are corrosive to the public good.

[long comment by Raymond that repeated an offensive phrase has been deleted]

This editorial is clearly not representative of anyone's views. Or I certainly hope so.

But it is symbolic of the dissidence in the world towards U.S. policies. It occurs in the country which is biggest supporter in Iraq, but where public opinion polls don't support their own P.M.

This sort of dsiparity is much the subject of the Kerry campaign. If the populations and government of the UK, France, Germany, Russia, et al don't support us then we must be wrong.

No one supports us in the Israel-Palestine issue either. Does Kerry think he's going to convince the increasingly anti-semetic French to join our side, or join us in Iraq where so many French have plundered the UN Food for Oil program (and been embarressed)?

The U.S. has no specific interest in Iraq's oil. That's a long time proven false issue. The U.S. clearly has an interest in International stability. That works to our advantage as it does anyone else...unless their particular special interests are in jeopardy. And there are too many examples of that.

The U.S. entered WWII after Pearl Harbor. We followed, didn't lead. We financed the rebuilding of Europe after the war. We found ourselves elevated to super power, a country which had traditionally been isolationist. Did we make some mistakes as a super power? Of course we did. We're certainly not accustomed to getting much positive or creative input from our "allies." We had to take the lead in the Balkans, then in Kosovo. We had to take the lead. Europe wanted us to take the lead. So we supplied the personnel and equipment required (and still are in the Balkans). We're the largest contributor to the U.N., but we don't "pay our fair share."

We've been roundly critiicized for many things, rarely praised, and the only reasonably consistent allies have been the Brits, although they've "abstained" in a number of cases.

This left wing affront to the sensibilities of everyone, left or right, too often is the chorus we here in Europe. Hopefully, after election, Senator Kerry will kiss enough posteriors to end this sort of displeasure with Americans. I have no idea what they'll do if we make the obvious, to them, mistake of re-electing the President. We should be ashamed of ourselves. I guess.

NOT.

VT,

I actually cringed at the things ... Dick Armey ... used to say about Clinton

You actually cringed??? Wow, color me impressed, I guess. Less impressive, however, is that you apparently equate calling someone a "scumbag" with calling for assassination.

Ray,

You're thinking of Walter Williams. Also, you should have included Thomas Sowell in your list--I have no idea how he votes, mind you, but if the author of The Vision of the Anointed is a Democrat, then he's certainly in the Zell Miller/Victor Davis Hanson wing of the party!

Also, regarding column width: just write your comments in Notepad (or whatever local equivalent you have) with word-wrap off, one line per paragraph; and then paste it into the form. Works great! (This comment was built by this method; I frequently do this when there's a list of scattered items I want to respond to.)