DianaG:
Actually, your point would be fine, if anyone else was making it.
My point is that you would never go into a thread praising the listmakers, and asking why people uncritically assume that the list is accurate. You only show up when *conservatives *call the cavalry. And that’s not exactly the spirit of unfettered skepticism.
And if I showed examples to the contrary?
Look, I showed up to correct error. That’s the (supposed) mission of this place.
You’re right that it’s much rarer for me to defend the liberal side here, although I can show examples of having done so. But seldom do I need to, because there’s an army of folks here all ready to leap on and dissect error in attacks on the liberal side, or errors in defense of the conservative side.
In a thread called “Have We Been Sold Out By Ms. Pelosi?”
Bricker:
No fan I of Nancy Pelosi.
But c’mon. This is hardly a fair critique. Rushing headlong into any major change like this, a week into the Democrats’ control of Congress, would be utterly foolish. And Ms. Pelosi, while (in my view) wrong-headed about many basic policy issues, is not foolish.
Congress’ control of the purse-strings can be an effective tool to move the President, but it’s not a precision instrument. It doesn’t replace the President as C-in-C.
And you know what’s hilarious?
Back when Patrick Kennedy was accused of driving drunk and getting preferential treatment from Capitol Police, I said this:
I don’t see one scintilla of evidence that Rep. Kennedy did anything improper with regard to using his influence to change how he was treated. The Capitol Police did not act properly, and they may well have been motivated by the Kennedy name… but that’s not Patrick’s fault, and that doesn’t imply any guilty knowledge or conscience on his part.
There is virtually no evidence that he was drinking. It’s well documented that Ambien can have such effects as amnesia. We’re talking about a crime here – this means that the people bringing the accusation must have SOMETHING in the way of proof that rises higher than mere speculation.
If it should develop that he had been drinking somewhere, and there are actual witnesses to that drinking, THAT is evidence. Right now, there is none. The man took some sleeping pills, got disoriented, and crashed his car. Now he’s seeking expert advice about the use of sleeping pills; very reasonable for a recovering addict.
Sorry - unless and until more damning evidence comes along, I’m willing to skewer the Capitol Police for not following procedure, but not Patrick Kennedy for being the recipient of that largess. Show me he asked for it, or show me he needed it, and I’m a convert to the “hang 'im high” corner. But if the only reasoning you have is “Isn’t it obvious?” then my answer is no. It’s not.
And I seem to remember getting praise for my fair-minded approach.
Gee.
Defending Ted Kennedy:
Defending Pelosi against the “diva” charge for wanting a bigger plane:
Bricker:
The Speaker is the second person in line for the Presidency. It seems utterly obvious to me that she should have a government plane that is capable of taking her back home without refueling. Hastert did, but of course his home is Illinois, much closer, so this didn’t come up.
Thirty years ago, I’d have said that the Speaker should suck it up and fly commercial. Today, that would be madness. Ms. Pelosi should fly on whatever military plane is equipped to move her and her staff non-stop.
Now, I don’t know details of plane models, but that’s my view of what the policy should be, and it’s a no-brainer.
Pitting the GOP for its defense of Foley:
Bricker:
My reaction to the ACTUAL ill remains as it was yesterday: Foley’s resignation was correct; he should be criminally investigated; and the GOP leadership should be vigorously investigated as well. If it develops that Hastert, or anyone in the GOP leadership, knew about these criminal acts and did nothing, he should resign or be forced out, and subject to criminal process as well. It’s a very simple equation.
My reaction to the tactics that are appearing from the Right on this is utter disgust. “The Dems set him up!” Yeah, suuuure they did. And even if they did – what of it? He DID the acts in question.
Defending Keith Olbermann against sneers that he panicked after getting fake powder in the mail:
Bricker:
Now, seriously – the reaction was not ridiculous. We had actual people get anthrax powder in the mail. Why they chose to be so dismissive and contempteous of Olbermann is beyond me. This was just crumby, crappy, jerkish behavior.
Pitting Ann Coulter:
Bricker:
Mine is right here.
“Post-9/11 our philosophy should be: Raghead talks tough? Raghead faces consequences.”
This from Ms. Coulter. A stunningly awful and racist comment.
There is absolutely legitimate room for scorn and derision for radical Islamists who threaten our existence with terrorist tactics and violence. What they wear on their heads is irrelevant. The phrase “ragheads” is ugly and devoid of meaning. Literally, it encompasses peaceful people who choose to cover their heads for traditional or religious reasons. No reasonable person could take issue with that; no reasonable person would use a derogatory term that lumps such people in with murderous bastards.
My ire is saved for those who use terror and violence as tools. Also, for those who spew ignorant hatred. Today, that’s Ms. Coulter.
Praising Senator Kerry:
Bricker:
But I certainly agree it would be proper and fitting to acknowledge that Kerry’s service to the country took a far more personally dangerous form than Bush’s own did, and that Kerry faced that challenge with honor and dignity, and was a true American hero.