He’s old, but not that old. Do you mean Klansman?
I forgot to mention Klansman, whoops.
Given his past, this role seems in poor taste. His desire for a cameo appears to have overwhelmed his sense of irony.
Gee, I’m sure going to read with rapt attention every word from the woman who brought us such non-partisan tomes such as When Character Was King (A rah-rah biography on Reagan) and The Case Against Hillary Clinton. Next you’ll have us reading diatribes from Rush claiming that he was a Dem in kindergarten.
Not that such little nuggets as:
and
Then she ads the hot button:
and the meaningless statistic
(Nixon came close to being two-terms, but didn’t. Reagan was the only 2 term Pub in the past 35 years. Unless she include Johnson, who doesn’t quite qualify as a “Since the Vietnam War” president.)
The Ad Hominems, Strawmen, and outright BS in this piece are too numerous and tiresome to detail.
Don’t get me wrong Texican, I find the Democratic party to be slightly more screwed up than the Republican party. It’s just that this article paints the BS as a monopoly, when it clearly is a duopoly.
[nitpick]
Johnson doesn’t even qualify as a Republican.
[/nitpick]
Guinastasia, I believe that was pretty much what I said, though I don’t recall (me, anyway) any foaming at the mouth.
In Bush’s case, he is doing exactly what he has said he would do for the past year and a half, since that day we were attacked. Perhaps you remember it. Speaking of Bin Laden, did you see the news we caught the guy that was the chief planner for Bin Laden? Aren’t you happy about that at least? Or will you just stick with the partisanship and find something in it to bash Bush over?
Umm, get out plenty, and I read fine. Here’s something for you to read, it’s the definition of “liberalism”.
One of those liberties, of course, being freedom to think and say a large variety of things.**
Several points. First, you should prove college administrators, specifically those who have barred Horowitz(assuming you’re speaking of David Horowitz, here, correct me if I’m wrong), are liberals. Moreover, you need to prove they are representative of liberals in general.
Secondly, Free Speech can be restricted when it is reasonable to believe the speech will cause a disturbance. Given Horowitz’s stated goal of Expos[ing] The Leftist Campaign to Control America’s Young Minds, I see a fairly good case that such an event would be a disturbance. The Universities have no obligation to take him on as a speaker AT ALL. Can you show that it is only his message, instead of his hellfire and damnation style, that is causing his rejections?
Thirdly, surely you realize that some colleges/universities HAVE opened thier halls to Horowitz and his message? MIT and University of Illinois at Chicago. I’m sure there are others. The idea that liberals generally encourage a variety of ideas doesn’t mean they have to ascribe to any particular one en masse. Even if we assume that liberals “control” universities, and that they act in accordance with what a “typical” liberal would, how does Horowitz being accepted at only a subset, instead of universally, of schools demonstrate intolerance of ideas? The ideas ARE being tolerated(heck, given the work that a University probably has to go through to book a speaker as controversial as Horowitz I’d call booking him “encouraging”, not just “tolerating”). They just aren’t being encouraged by as many people as Horowitz, and some others, would like. They’re also not being censored by nearly as many people as Horowitz, and others, would like to pretend.
The point stands. When talking about “liberals”, meaning people who follow the political philosophy called liberalism, it’s hardly eyebrow-raising to see a variety of opinions presented, even ones you may find abhorrent. It is not the place of a liberal to censor. This does not create a duty in the liberal to help people like Horowitz(or supporters or Kim Jong Il, or Castro, et. al.) spread his message. Simply that they shouldn’t attempt to stop him from spreading it without good cause. Obviously you believe the “good cause” isn’t met with Horowitz. Some liberals will agree with you, some will disagree. This issue, as with so many others, is not black and white.
Enjoy,
Steven
Sorry, I worded that wrong, I was counting the two-termers since Vietnam.
Once I dismiss the students are not real liberals argument as being silly, which it is, and note that dictionary definitions do not prove anything in reality, I can renew my initial objection:
So, conservatives do get shouted down or prevented from speaking a lot then - by liberals?
Horowitz, among others, prevented from speaking.
More on a lack of ideological diversity on campus.
I never set out to prove that conservatives are banished from all campuses. I was responding to this ridiculous sweeping generalization.
Berkeley will not permit conservatives to speak. Either, Berkeley is not liberal, or someone is trying to force a dictionary definition on reality.
Well, when one is making statements like this, one usually should give something called “evidence”. For example, do you have evidence that Democrats in the House and Senate voted with Clinton more often than Republicans voted with Bush? I doubt it. In fact, I seem to recall cases (NAFTA, trade promotion authority) when the Dems in the House and Senate were quite split.
Maybe there is evidence but I haven’t seen any presented here.
It must be fun to live in a world where one can just throw out lots of generalizations and assertions without providing any evidence for them. Ah, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal is truly a wonderful place to live!
It’s not quite fair to claim my stance as “ridiculous” unless you’re willing to show it in context as a reply to your assertion. People can judge for themselves if it is truly ridiculous.
Followed by my position
Quite frankly I don’t give a damn what Berkeley does. The woes of pundits of any stripe not getting enough airtime to suit them also fails to move me.
Your shifting characterizations aren’t doing your arguement any favors. Your original claim, which I quoted above, was entirely about liberals critiquing other liberals. Screw this conservatives getting shot down by liberals stuff. Of course that happens, it happens the other way around too. The OP, and the thread up until your latest offering, is about a group self-policing.
The point, which you are now trying to disguise, was tolerance of ideas WITHIN thier own group. Even stupid, possibly reprehensible ideas. The claim is being made that liberals are becoming “ditto-heads” and circling the wagons against any criticism of other liberals by being silent. I’m saying that liberals, by definition(don’t like the definition? Tough. The OP puts this discussion purely in the realm of theory. You want to talk specific instances like Horowitz being banned from Berkeley, start another thread or at least refrain from criticising on-topic posts from an off-topic point of view), are less likely to self-critique to the point of censure(as the Republican party did with Mr. Lott)because they are less likely to critique to censure PERIOD. In the continuim of criticism, from “Block the doors and don’t let that M-F’er in!” to “Oh Bravo!” it’s pretty self evident that one’s ideological opponents are going to draw more fire than people who disagree with you on only a handful of issues(even if they are important issues or the person is a real jerk).
Enjoy,
Steven
Okay, I have to admit that I made my first post without reading the Noonan article. Now that I’ve read it, I realize that I was probably too kind.
It is pretty much a shotgun approach to analysis. I mean, I must say that I don’t entirely disagree with everything she says since some of what she says is that the Democrats should stand up for their principles more…But, then there are the parts where the Democrats should stand up for their principles less and the part where the Democrats should stand up for the Republican principles that she believes in.
Let’s look at a few parts…
I think there is a certain amount of truth to the argument that the Democrats have not sufficiently articulated a positive vision. However, the “thwarting the trek…” thing is just bullshit. They are standing up to fight against horrendously bad policies.
What is the evidence of this…And what is she even saying here? I.e., is she arguing that more Democrats should have fought Clinton’s policies when he shifted to the Right? I might agree. Still Clinton at his worst still showed a much deeper understanding of complex policy issues than George W. on his best day. And, as I pointed out, Democrats did go against Clinton on issues such as NAFTA and trade promotion authority. I would guess that the number of Dems who defected on votes on Clinton policies is higher than the number of Reps that defected on votes on Bush policies. However, since that is just a guess, I haven’t gone ahead and published an entire long dreery op-ed piece full of unsupported assertions.
Complete and utter partisan bullshit. And, which is it Peggy, are the Dems too willing “to do anything to win…anything to stay” or are they “people who never give an inch?” I mean, can we at least ask for a little consistency within a single paragraph?
I am impressed by Peggy’s mindreading abilities. And which Dems is she talking about? Robert Byrd? No fuckin’ way. Gephardt and Daschle? She may have a point. But, of course, if they had followed their hearts a little more and said that they thought Bush’s approach was wreckless, do you think she would be praising them? She doesn’t want them to have principles…But rather her principles as we see more below.
Ah, Peggy, I seemed to have missed the part of the war when many Democrats…let alone the leaders…expressed their deep devotion for Ho, Fidel, and Mao.
Oh yes, those huge well-funded lobbies. Right up there with the oil lobby and the chamber of commerce lobbyists.
Well, that’s enough for now. Peggy’s drivel is really painful to read. The rest is really just a variation on the theme “stand up for the Republican principles that I believe in.” Well, Peggy, I think the Democrats have already tried that and the last election has shown, as I think the best analysises have pointed out, that given the choice between a real Republican and a fake Republican, the voters will tend to choose the real thing.
One thing that happened to the Democrats is winning. For years, the liberal faction has struggled to achieve worthy goals that have been largely accomplished, thus they lose the “revolutionary fervor” aspect of politics. The conservative wing wants to undo this victory, thus, the “rev fervor” aspect shifts to them, the Dems are stuck with protecting the advances made from reactionaries. Dems aren’t used to having any status quo to protect, it confuses them.
And finally…Peggy Nooner? [bugs]It is to laugh[/bugs]
Tom Delayhad plenty of complaints about President Clinton’s actions, and it wasn’t just the timing he didn’t like.
I am not saying the Democrats are on balance any better – I am simply disputing your contention that the Republicans are.