Doing “radical” things does not make one a radical, at least as the word is commonly used. It is generally used (and I certainly was using it) to indicate the far left of the US political spectrum, out towards the socialist/maoist/marxist weather underground part of the left.
And certainly, that is the meaning of the word when used by conservative commentators …
Under that meaning, neither GWB nor Nixon were radicals.
No they weren’t. They never stood trial for criminal charges; the Justice Department sought and received an injunction against the one who was a designated poll-watcher.
As far as whether or not they were actually intimidating voters, I don’t know, and neither do you. In the absence of any motive for foul play on their part, the accusations sound extremely fishy.
Oh, please. You just don’t like some of the truths that they publicise. Like all news organizations, some of their claims are total bullshit … see Dan Rather et. al. as one example among many. Certainly what they publicized about Anita Dunn and Van Jones was true.
This kind of blanket attack is very foolish, it only helps Fox. If I said “CBS has never come close enough to the truth to recognize it when they see it” because of the Dan Rather episode, it would just inflame people. We don’t need more fires set, we don’t need more antagonism. Obama was supposed to be the great uniter, and I support him in that. Divisiveness through blatant exaggeration, whether by Fox or by you, is not in anyone’s interest. Yes, Fox definitely does this kind of exaggeration … but when you follow them down that path, you destroy the credibility of the left (as well as your own).
Google “Black Panther voter intimidation” and you get results. With a decided preponderance of Washington Times, Fox News, and Michelle Malkin sort of “sources”.
By comparison, a source I trust, Talking Points Memo, has a very different take on the matter at hand, offered here:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/obama_volunteer_on_scene_dispu.php
By their reckoning, much ado about not much. Since I have yet to be burned by trusting them, I think I shall.
But that’s not quite my point. My point is that this issue, while trivial, is at best controversial, solid fact is not available, we have only interpretations.
But you, without so much as blinking, offer us the most damaging interpretation possible, without so much as hinting that the matter is far from certain. With bland certainty, you offer the most negative possible interpretation of Obama’s actions (or inactions).
The same applies to your assertion that Obama’s Communications Director is a “Mao groupie”, an assertion I find laughable, but you offer as though you had an affidavit from God Almighty, countersigned by Archangel Gabriel.
You offer a puzzlement. You loudly declaim your faithful loyalty, and yet seem eager to believe any slander offered to Obama without so much as a blink. We must not dismiss our opponents “out of hand”, you claim, and that is as may be. But why are you required to swallow any spoonful of horseshit with a big smile and an “Mmmmmm-good!”?
You are watching my back? Perhaps you could watch my back from well in front of me, about twenty yards or so? Because, to be perfectly frank, I don’t trust you.
It wasn’t a criminal case, it was a civil case. They were found guilty in a “default judgement”.
Guys in uniforms carrying a nightstick stand out side a polling place to intimidate voters … you are defending this? They lost the case by default, because they didn’t even show up to try to defend themselves. Still think that they were oh-so-innocent? The publisher of the Village Voice, hardly a right-wing news organization, begs to differ …
Where in the world do you get this definition? Ever heard of radical anti-abortion protestors?
I can’t believe you even wrote that. What you’ve done is invented a definition of “radical” that says it’s someone who acts like Barack Obama does. That’s a tautology.
In August 1969, Nixon appeared before the nation with a radical scheme, …
No it wasn’t - Mao never said that. Cite.
So your favorite bit is that part where they lied in its allegations against FoxNews. Imagine that.
Regards,
Shodan
[pedantic sniff] To be strictly correct, “radical” means that one asserts the necessity of addressing “root causes”, that change must take place at a fundamental level, at the very foundations of the political system. [/pedantic sniff]
By comparison, a wishy-washy liberal wuss believes that we can tinker and adjust the capitalist death machine and, eventually, transform it into a solar-powered rainbow extruder.
Speaking as a non-revolutionary radical, I do not agree.
The quote was not attributed to Mao, it was attributed to John McCain, and he did say it. Cite
Nice try at sleight of hand there. Better luck next time.
Think about this for a second. Why would the Black Panthers be preventing black voters from accessing their polling station?
I give up … why? Perhaps to intimidate the white voters at the polling station? Perhaps to intimidate black voters who might have voted for McCain? I don’t know why the Black Panthers want to intimidate voters … but what does it matter?
Or perhaps this unidentified man has it right …
You’re suggesting that NO white voters voted there?
How do you explain the eyewitness testimony that they called someone a ‘cracker’? Do you know a lot of black crackers?
As I have mentioned many times, I don’t like or watch Fox News. But I still think we need them. The issue of the Justice Department sweeping the Black Panther case under the rug is a great example of why.
I did a Google search on “black panthers polling place” on each of the news sites. The results were:
Fox News, 86 hits
CBS News, 28 hits
CNN News, 27 hits
ABC News, 6 hits
MSNBC News … 0 hits
For a free press to work, you need to have news people on both sides of the political aisle. If all we had was MSNBC, we would know nothing of the egregious actions of the Justice Department. In this particular case, I find the actions of MSNBC to be as reprehensible as those of Fox News in other cases … but I would not say that because of this, MSNBC is not a news organization. In this instance, they are just the mirror image of Fox. Which is a good thing.
This is why we need both sides. Muckrakers are valuable no matter whether they are conservative or liberal. Fox digs up dirt on the White House. MSNBC ignores dirt on the White House … are we surprised?
On the other hand, for the White House to attack Fox for muckraking merely makes them look like they are afraid of what might be dug up … which is definitely not a good tactic.
If doing “radical” things does not make one “a radical”, what kinds of things can one do to earn such a label?
Ah, so doing leftist (liberal) things makes one “a radical”, right?
Oh, wait:
So, doing radical things does not make one a radical - being on the “far left” of the political spectrum of the US makes one radical. But it’s quite different than “liberal”.
Here’s how Fox “News” covered the news in NY-23 yesterday afternoon. No spin in those early reports. No sir.
13 votes were cast there by white voters. Doesn’t seem like a very effective use of their time, does it? Especially considering that if they were doing what they’re accused of it would probably have scared away more than 13 black voters.
Searching for “black panthers polling station” on MSNBC’s own search engine returns 30 hits.
I’d like a cite for the statement that the pollice place was in an ‘all black neighborhood’, please. The polling station was in in Philadelphia’s 4th Ward.
Out of curiousity, I watched Glen Beck today for the second time. My stomach couldn’t stand more than a few minutes, but I was surprised to see that he spent most of his time attacking the GOP … I didn’t expect that.
Shows what I know …
Was this poll taken on Fox News’ website?
From here:
ETA: Look, I’m not saying nothing untoward happened. I am saying that it doesn’t make sense for the Black Panthers to attempt to intimidate black voters. The injunction which the Justice Department sought - while still under Bush - also suggests a lack of evidence. The Panthers were barred from “brandishing a weapon outside a polling station in Philadelphia”. Shockingly enough, brandishing a weapon outside a polling station is already illegal.