I liked this response to that particular piece of idiocy.

It is also, IMO, another sad and pathetic example of how the current administration is seeking to divide the American people to their advantage and in the furtherance of their agenda.

Rove is a piece of $h17! He is a lying, hypocritical, divisive, waste of otherwise good space on the planet’s surface… we’ve seen a lot of low [exceedingly low even] rhetoric out of both sides of this issue over the last couple of years but this reduces the level of what passes for dialogue down there to an all time, stand on tippie-toes and reach up to scratch the bottom, levels.

And the right is defending it, on TV, on radio, in the news, on blogs around the world… the vast majority of them appear to consider this as a good thing.

As I said earlier

the guy is beneath contempt - and he will get away with telling that lie because the people of the once great United States of America who could call him on that lie no longer have the balls to do so.

The irrational willingness of the right to allow dissenting opinions to be so dishonestly and dishonourably demonized with this type of lie could only possibly be surpassed by the apparent willingness of those with dissenting opinions to bend over and take another one from Bush’s fraud ridden crew.

It’s almost enough to make honest, hardworking, honourable people hold their breaths until they suffocate rather than breath in the same air that this lying piece of feces does. I actually pity the honest, hardworking, and honourable people of the United States who are forced to have to put up with liars such as him making up part of their leadership and do nothing about it.

I’d say throwing the Democrats in the same category as Chomsky is a bit general, as anyone who’s read Chomsky’s stuff knows that he defines the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans to be slight. In my opinion, when you step back and look at the two parties on the world spectrum of politics, that’s fairly accurate.

I’m not defending the mud that the Democrats have slung either, in fact it backs up my main point from above, that we’re not getting any real debate from either party; and that’s when politics start to get dangerous. In fact, to be fair, the crap that the Republicans spit out probably gets harsher coverage from the press than when the Democrats do it, but that’s really secondary.

If either side isn’t even specifically responding to what the other says, there’s no point in them even being in the media.

“I’d say throwing the Democrats in the same category as Chomsky is a bit general,….’

Peter, Rove was slamming ” liberals ” specifically, rather than Democrats (although I’m sure in Rove’s view every liberal is a Democrat). Had he said ” Democrats ” rather than liberals, then I’d agree with you about excluding Chomsky (and probably many of the more extremist profs as well).

Still, it’s hard to dispute that Chomsky and the other groups I mentioned do have a decidely different take on 9/11 (to put it mildly), and what course of action should have been taken afterward. In their case, I don’t think Rove has it wrong. All the same, his statement deserves to be condemned.

“In fact, to be fair, the crap that the Republicans spit out probably gets harsher coverage from the press than when the Democrats do it, but that’s really secondary.”

Yeah, you’re right Peter. Howard Kurtz and his guests debated this today on CNN. Durbin’s comments were not even reported on the three major networks, and ignored in the NY Times and Washington Post. All kicked in with some coverage when Durbin felt compelled to make a somewhat disingenuous apology. In contrast, Rove’s remark was carried on Page 1 of the Times or WAPO (I can’t recall which from Kurtz), while 2 of the 3 major network evening newscasts reported it the next day.

Here is the Durbin quote:

“If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings.”

He’s saying the actions of ” Americans ” were no different than actions committed by the Nazis, Stalinists, and Pol Pot. These are isolated acts, and as such, they should not be mentioned in the same context as regimes who tortured and murdered millions. By doing so, Durbin betrays his real intent, which is to vilify the Bush administration by suggesting that ” yes, the comparison does fit.”

Durbin was deliberately painting with a broad partisan brush. There isn’t any political hay to be made by writing this off as isolated acts by criminal psychopaths in uniform, so I don’t think this is the impression Durbin was trying to make.

As a result, I don’t see the distinction you’re trying to draw here, SL. In both cases, we see attempts at demonization by unfair generalization. Rove attempted to demonize all liberals with his remark, while Durbin attempted to do the same in relation to the Bush administration and the Republican Party.

The distinction I see (and why I say Rove’s comment is less egregious than Durbin’s), is that Rove’s unfair charge against liberals is much less serious in nature than Durbin’s unfair characterization. I’d rather be called a pansy than a Nazi any day.

In some cases comparisons can be a valid tool for making a point, in this case the comparison would have been useful if Durbin had not been talking about a specific location and specific incidents - but he was.

The paragraph you quoted [Mike] in isolation from his statement immediately prior to reading from the report has been bandied about the Internet and (Right)WingNut news casts for days and days as some sort of proof that Durbin was comparing Americans and America to Nazi Germany (which he was not). Here is his statement prior to reading from the report that has been completely ignored.

When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here [at Guantanamo Bay]–I almost hesitate to put them in the [Congressional] Record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report:

I think that makes it pretty clear what he was talking about, it was quite specific and, IMO, there was no need to apologise for the remarks or even qualify them further than he did when he made them - if he had bigger balls he wouldn’t have.

Rove on the other hand flat demonized *all* liberals, and that makes it a different kettle of fish completely.

Balbulican:

That’s a very good point, and a problem with North American reporting and debating that needs to be addressed. It’s the teeter-totter syndrome. Whenever political issues are reported or discussed that paint one group in any kind of negative light, an example of their opponents doing something wrong seems to be thrown in by default in order to seem “balanced”. The other issue/statement used is almost irrelevant because if anyone questions the validity or relevance of the counter point they are instantly labeled biased and their opinion is discounted.

I think in politics it’s a hard thing for people to get passed because it involves admitting that the party they support probably also has at least some of the problems that the parties they oppose will also have. I think we have to start being a little bit more realistic about what parties stand for and what they’ll actually do with whatever “political capital” they gain. If we just throw out some sort of counter issue every time our political ideas or representatives are attacked we will severely degrade the quality of public debate.

Agreed, but I think that if enough people go after them specifically for using that technique it might make them think slightly harder before hitting the microphone and running their mouths. I think if the common diversion tactics are openly discussed in the media you’d have a lot less people likely to try using them. Those that rely on these methods might then be backed into a position of actually having to speak to the issues, and not just to the counter-evils of their opposition.

“….if we just throw out some sort of counter issue every time our political ideas or representatives are attacked we will severely degrade the quality of public debate.”

But what’s the alternative, Peter? If both sides make offensive and factually incorrect smears, but only the smears of one side receive coverage and criticism in the media and blogosphere, then the public can easily and quickly develop the entirely false belief that one side is playing dirty, while the other remains above it. I can’t help but feel that you’d be okay with that, so long as your side is the one that gets the preferential treatment.

Both sides of the ideological spectrum will continue to make outrageous statements about each other. Utopian political discourse is a non-starter. In recognition of that, the only acceptable option is to ensure everyone’s faux pas are reported as equally and fairly as possible.

“If we adopt your ” working principles ” (and understand that I am not fundamentally opposed to that), then I guess SL can dispense with pointing out the excesses of one side, and one side only.”

Sorry, I don’t see the logic there at all. It seems to me that any blogger’s raison d’etre…or a big part of it…is in pointing out excesses…and given that blogs are run by individuals with political views, most of the excesses selected for exposure will be on one side or the other.

Now, there are a number of valid ways to challenge such a presentation. You could explain how Karl Rove was misquoted, misunderstood, taken out of context, or otherwise misrepresented. Or you can argue that Karl Rove is, in fact, correct, and that liberals are American-hating pansies.

But to say…”oh, YEAH? Well, a Democrat once said something equally repulsive about conservatives!!” Ummm, okay. And…? If Stageleft had been suggesting that ONLY Republicans are capable of disgusting slander, then your point would be relevant. But he didn’t.

I know you’re not a Machiavellian tool of the VRWC (you’re not, are you?). But from a rhetorical perspective, that equivalence strategy almost always has the effect of neutralizing criticism, since it instantly (as demonstrated above) shifts the discussion from an analysis of one specific incident to a discussion about the validity of the comparison…a neutral and much less damaging subject for the “side” under criticism. And it’s become almost a reflex lately among some of my favourite bloggers, which is why I’m pointing it out. Stop it, everybody!

Let’s not lose sight of the fact that we all do this, in part, for the pleasure of the discussion (in addition, of course, to our sober collective pursuit of the Universal and Objective Truth) , and that the occasionaly deployment of crafty rhetorical devices is one of the guilty pleasures of the medium. There, as the Buddha said, all things in moderation, including moderation.

Indeed I’m sure we’re all guitly of invoking the “oh yeah we mayhave done that, but you did this” argument at some time or another.

However, discussing it like this will probably help a lot of us catch ourselves doing it before clicking the “post” button next time.

Another computer lesson learned the hard way this morning. Once again, I lost a file while trying to transfer it from disk to Stageleft post. Gone. Obliterated. Eaten alive. Actually, I retract ” lesson learned,” ’cause I still haven’t figured out why this happens from time to time.

Anyway, I remember what I had written, but it was a tad longish, so it’ll have to be tomorrow, assuming anyone is still interested…….

Mmmmmmmm……, Bunkerettes!

I say we yank Stageleft’s photo from the blog, and put up a Bunkerette calendar shoot in his place.

All in favour????

Damn you Balbulican, now I do forget what I had written in my lost post. I blame Bunkerette distraction. I can’t get the images of scantily clad women wearing Mao forage caps out of my head.

I figure I’m toast now for at least a week. By then, I should at least be able to recall which side I’m on.