keeps on digging and digging in a piece advocating “taking Rush out”. Really, it’s a bit like Gleen pretending integrity.
The funniest part is that she’s entitled the article, in which she channels Digby, “Is That A Fat Lady I Hear Singing?” I guess “singing” is a subjective evaluation.
Unrelated (mostly): Iran ‘arming Taliban with roadside bombs’
Not as though they’re land mines, or anything.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 10/4 @ 7:45 am #
Sounds more like gargling with peanut butter, to me. No accounting for taste, I suppose.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 10/4 @ 7:46 am #
Meanwhile, geniuses everywhere, untie!
I think this “beyond parody” theme is behaving a bit more like a dare than a straighforward point of discussion.
Comment by wishbone on 10/4 @ 7:57 am #
Hmmm…anyone want to tell the (m)asses that Olbermann is on the AFN News Channel every day?
BECAUSE OF THE…DAMN, IT TURNS OUT WE DON’T HAVE A POINT UNLESS IT’S THE ONE ON TOP OF WES CLARK’S HEAD.
Comment by maggie katzen on 10/4 @ 8:17 am #
aw, my office won’t let me go there. RTO was particularly annoyed with Clark, since he was in the military and should understand how AFN works.
Comment by daleyrocks on 10/4 @ 8:26 am #
Big boned is what I was thinking.
Comment by Semanticleo on 10/4 @ 8:32 am #
Anonymous Liberal has a take on this with Ledeen as the background noise;
Michael Ledeen had this to say this morning over at the National Review:
“It’s interesting that the Dems’ attack against Rush is taking place at the same time Clarence Thomas’s riveting autobiography hits the bookshelves, because both illustrate one of the central features of contemporary politics: the Left’s loss of intellectual coherence and confidence, and its consequent turn to the vilification of individuals. . . .
The Left hates Rush, above allâ€â€as in the case of Thomasâ€â€because of the quality of his mind and the effectiveness of his work. They know he is uniquely effective in undermining their political movement, and they desperately want him off the air. This desperation drove them to seize on a very flimsy reed with which to attack himâ€â€for it is he they are attacking, not his ideasâ€â€and they now must struggle to use that reed to stay afloat. This is what happens when a once-dominant ideology falls apart. The Left cannot explain the world, its models and its rhetoric are antiquated, and they lose most of the important debates, above all in national elections. So, in order to gain and retain political power, they must attempt to destroy the conservative icons. Yesterday, Clarence Thomas, today Rush Limbaugh. It’s an ugly spectacle.
It really is true that a significant percentage of conservatives have managed to construct for themselves an alternate universe in which up is down, left is right, and political reality is completely inverted. I don’t know any other way of explaining how someone can argue, without feeling completely embarrassed, that the Left hates Rush Limbaugh for the “quality of his mind” or that the “vilification of individuals” by the Left has become “one of the central features of contemporary politics.”
Did Ledeen sleep through the Clinton era? How about the 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006 elections? Has he ever watched conservative pundits on TV, listened to them on the radio, or read any of their books? Has he ever even listened to Rush Limbaugh?
The truth is, and I really don’t see how anyone can dispute this, the defining feature of the Republican approach to politics over the last two decades (at least) has been the vilification of individuals. This is the core strategy behind every Republican presidential campaign in modern times. They try to villify, mock, and caricature the Democratic nominee and then turn the election into a referendum on the perceived character of the candidates. Any Republican strategist will readily admit this.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 10/4 @ 8:35 am #
The truth is, and I really don’t see how anyone can dispute this, the defining feature of
the Republican approach toAmerican politics over the last twodecadesand a quarter centuries (at least) has been the vilification of individuals.There. Fixed it for ya.
Comment by wishbone on 10/4 @ 8:39 am #
“They try to villify, mock, and caricature the Democratic nominee and then turn the election into a referendum on the perceived character of the candidates.”
1972: George McGovern
1976 and 1980: Jimmah
1984: Fritz
1988: Snoopy
1992 and 1996: Bubba
2000: Gore
2004: Lurch
It, of course, has NOTHING to do with the leadership qualities of the nominees.
“It really is true that a significant percentage of conservatives have managed to construct for themselves an alternate universe in which up is down, left is right, and political reality is completely inverted.”
Project much?
Comment by Slartibartfast on 10/4 @ 8:44 am #
…but it does seem like almost yesterday that Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton faced each other over pistols, because of a bit of personal vilification.
Or that Jefferson was engaging in a little personal vilification against George Washington, using a journalist as front.
There are other examples, but which to choose next, from so many?
Comment by JD on 10/4 @ 8:51 am #
I always get ready for a chuckle when Miss Cleo comes round. It never disappoints.
Comment by JD on 10/4 @ 9:15 am #
I prefer Cleo’s one liners though. I am more about immediate gratification, and hate wading through multiple paragraphs just for the pay-off, when the ending is as predictable as a Cubs post season bid.
Comment by mishu on 10/4 @ 9:26 am #
when the ending is as predictable as a Cubs post season bid.
Ouch.
Comment by mishu on 10/4 @ 9:28 am #
Now Jane thinks she’s some mafia Don. She better be careful at the toll booth on the causeway because what comes around, goes around or vice versa.
Comment by B Moe on 10/4 @ 9:29 am #
“The fact that the Democrats aren’t going after Rush hammer and tongs is largely due to their failure to see themselves as an opposition party involved in an ideological war.”
The Hamster is nothing if not profoundly idiotic.
Neal Boortz had an interesting observation about this: a congressman can’t be sued for libel or slander for statements made on the floor of Congress. Where have all the Democrat statements been made thus far?
Comment by Pablo on 10/4 @ 9:34 am #
Uh, hello! Bush, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez and most recently, Petraeus. Any of these names ring a bell?
Projection becomes you, my dear.
As for Hamsher:
Thanks for clarifying that. It’s been obvious for a long time, but it helps for you to come right out and say that you’re a divider, not a uniter.
Comment by wishbone on 10/4 @ 9:35 am #
“Where have all the Democrat statements been made thus far?”
Just outside the atmosphere of Pluto from what I make of them.
Comment by wishbone on 10/4 @ 9:38 am #
The planet, not the dog.
Comment by daleyrocks on 10/4 @ 9:39 am #
Greenwald will probably deny the evidence of Iranian weapons in Afghanistan just as he does in Iraq.
Comment by Great Banana on 10/4 @ 9:43 am #
The truth is, and I really don’t see how anyone can dispute this, the defining feature of the Republican approach to politics over the last two decades (at least) has been the vilification of individuals. This is the core strategy behind every Republican presidential campaign in modern times. They try to villify, mock, and caricature the Democratic nominee and then turn the election into a referendum on the perceived character of the candidates. Any Republican strategist will readily admit this.
That is pretty funny. The sad thing is, you probably believe it. When was the last time that the left actually argued over any policy with rational argument and facts instead of simply calling their opponents a) racist; b) stupid; c) greedy; d) sexist; or e) evil? That is all the left ever does. The left never argues with logic and facts or with intellectual coherence and honesty. Instead, it is always name calling and emotional appeals. then, they cry when the left points out their actual votes or policies.
As if pointing out the fact that Hillary has already called for what would be practically doubling spending ($5,000 a child? universal health coverage and a million other entitlement pander programs) and increasing everyone’s taxes is somehow not kosher.
the left calls patreaus a lier, then calls Limbaugh unpatriotic. But, challenge a lefty with any argument and they cry that you are “vilifying” them.
Comment by daleyrocks on 10/4 @ 9:49 am #
GB – Actually the left has redefined the term smear into accurately reusing someone’s own words in argument against them. The right considers it a smear when the words are taken or used inaccurately. Go figure.
Comment by mishu on 10/4 @ 9:51 am #
When was the last time that the left actually argued over any policy with rational argument and facts instead of simply calling their opponents a) racist; b) stupid; c) greedy; d) sexist; or e) evil?
You forgot liar.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 10/4 @ 9:52 am #
Ah, cleo’s lack of quoting/formatting makes it look as if cleo herself was author of those statements. The real author, and hence the root of all of this stupidity, is Anonymous Liberal.
Not that cleo has magically been transformed into a rocket scientist as a result, mind you.
Comment by physics geek on 10/4 @ 10:17 am #
It’s time to take him out.
I think that Janey has been doing the Hamster Hamsher Dance a little too often and her brain has come unglued from its already loose moorings.
Comment by Sean M. on 10/4 @ 10:22 am #
BECAUSE OF THE LAST TWO DECADES (AT LEAST)!!!
Comment by Andrew on 10/4 @ 10:26 am #
So we are dealt with a situation in which political operatives, to disincline someone from supporting the opposing party’s candidates, attack the perceived character of that candidate?
I’m shocked. Shocked I say. Good thing Democrats never do that.
Comment by Jeffersonian on 10/4 @ 10:57 am #
Can someone help me out here? Who was it that turned a Supreme Court nominee’s name into a verb synonymous with with public vilification?
Comment by Kevin on 10/4 @ 11:00 am #
I didn’t know Hamsher was fat.
Comment by Bill Maron on 10/4 @ 12:33 pm #
Either the link is not working or Hamster Jane got tired of everyone pointing out she’s not a Corleone and took it down.
Comment by Additional Blond Agent on 10/4 @ 3:54 pm #
Well, links usually work better with just one http tag in them, rather than two (hint, hint, Dan)…
Comment by great mencken's ghost! on 10/4 @ 6:25 pm #
The Left does not TURN to villification. It STARTS there. Go read Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. It’s right there; don’t campaign on issues, campaign on demons. Your enemy must be a monster.
Comment by Merovign on 10/5 @ 12:28 am #
Re: AL/Clot’s position,
A thief believes that everyone steals.
Pingback by Smear keeps a' rolling... on 10/5 @ 6:26 am #
[...] really not important here. The important thing is that Jame Hamsher of Liardogfake has now ORDERED THE MURDER of the conservative talk show host! They’re coming to silence him and they don’t care [...]