Whenever Republicans are called on unscrupulous behavior, their response is always the same:
“Yeah, well, the Democrats have done the same thing!”
There’s never any statute of limitation on any alleged act. Doesn’t matter if the allegations refer to something that happened last year or last century. “Democrats did it too!” is the constant refrain. Express outrage over their concerted nationwide voter disenfranchisement, and they’ll excuse it with allegations about the 1960 Presidential election.
Here’s the thing: I think Democrats should aspire to be better than the GOP. It would literally never occur to me (at least) to seek cover in the craptastic behavior of conservatives as some sort of excuse for my party’s missteps (real or imagined.) To hold up the GOP’s attempts at blocking voter rights, gay rights, women’s rights and say, “See? They’ve done worse!” Because that…what? Makes Democratic misdeeds okay? Serves as a blanket pardon? Why does one group’s immoral behavior somehow validate similar actions by the other?
The GOP has made no secret of its hatred for liberals: on Fox, on line, in bookstores. So it’s bizarre to me that “Democrats have done the same (or worse)” is remotely an appropriate response. I don’t know about you, but if there are people I hate, I want to be nothing like them rather than seek excuses for my own douchebaggery in their actions.
I suppose what they’re attempting to do is invalidate any criticism from liberals by endeavoring to paint liberals as hypocrites. Those annoying liberals, setting high standards for ethical behavior and then failing to live up to those standards with their own actions. There may be some validity to that. On the other hand, which is preferable? To have standards set so high that sometimes one fails to live up to them, and thus come across as hypocritical? Or to have standards set so low that there’s nothing to live up to and thus come across as an ignorant áššhølë?
You don’t get to act like you’re better than the other guy if you embrace his own alleged failings to pardon your own.
PAD
• 
I would agree with you, though I’m puzzled that you think this is a GOP problem and not just a political partisan problem. It’s rare for me to post on facebook some article about Our Stupid Politicians and, if the offender is a Democrat, not get a reply or two on the order of “He’s still better than Todd Akin!” or “Sure she sounds stupid but you know who’s really stupid? Sarah Palin!”
Sometimes there isn’t even an attempt to reach parity. If I post a story about OWS members planning to blow up a bridge there may well be someone who will write back “Yeah, but the Tea Baggers misspelled the word “Impeach”! So…yeah!”.
There’s also the question of not whether or not a conservative did anything worse than an equally idiotic liberal–which is certainly no valid defense–but whether or not the reaction and or consequences are equitable. Now personally, while I think a conservative who screws up gets treated by the general media worse than a liberal who does (a debatable point, granted), I don’t really mind that. If a conservative gos on the Colbert show and tells him that the Dutch were still enslaving Black people in New York circa 1898 he may well lose his job on account of the rarely invoked “Oh my God, you are too stupid to have any power’ clause. If a liberal does it she is Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y.
Conservatives get mad at the disparity of consequences. Why. Who wants someone like Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y representing them and getting laughed at? If conservatives are held to a higher standard…good! Let people know ahead of time that the party will not tolerate anything below a certain level of competence and integrity and you will, over time, get a better class of politician. Otherwise you get the situation we have in a few one-party cities we could mention, where they should install a revolving door between the state house and the local minimum security prison.
So you’re attempting to invalidate my commentary that people should try to aspire to be better than those they oppose by saying, “Yeah, but the Democrats do it, too!”
Wow. That’s convincing.
PAD
Well, no, but I did sort of half expect anything other than complete agreement to get that response. You make the assertion that the GOP always covers up any misdeeds by claiming that the Democrats do it as well. So of course, anyone who makes the not at all surprising observation that this is far from a GOP problem but more of an American politics problem will immediately get the “See? See? I TOLD you that’s what they do!” reaction.
Hëll, why not just go whole hog and say “Republicans/conservatives just disagree with everything. Everything!” and when someone says “Uh, that’s really not true.” you can hit right back with “Ah ha!”
And it takes a pretty careless reading of what I wrote to come out with an attempt at invalidating the idea that “people should try to aspire to be better than those they oppose” when I wrote “If conservatives are held to a higher standard…good! Let people know ahead of time that the party will not tolerate anything below a certain level of competence and integrity and you will, over time, get a better class of politician.”
I didn’t think I was being overly subtle but if so here goes–when someone on your side screws up, pulls an Akin, makes themselves look dumber on Colbert than his entire team of writers could have hoped to do, is caught stealing money from the public till, humiliates their family in a sex scandal, is caught on camera acting like an ášš, etc etc etc, call them out on it! The fact that the “other side” has members that pull the same shenanigans and they go free simply means that the other side has lots of foolish, ignorant, thieving, impulsive jáçkáššëš, which might be why they are not your side in the first place.
The only place we seem to disagree is whether or not this is a GOP problem or a problem for both sides and since you have set up the premise that any attempt to provide evidence to support my position proves my position wrong I guess you win, for what it’s worth.
You make the assertion that the GOP always covers up any misdeeds by claiming that the Democrats do it as well. So of course, anyone who makes the not at all surprising observation that this is far from a GOP problem but more of an American politics problem
Wow. Arguing against PAD’s assertion that Republicans excuse their misdeeds by crying “But he did it, too!” by crying “But they do it, too!”
Impressive.
If conservatives are held to a higher standard…good! Let people know ahead of time that the party will not tolerate anything below a certain level of competence and integrity and you will, over time, get a better class of politician.
True. If nothing below a certain high standard were tolerated you would get a better class of politician.
But you’d be hard pressed to find any evidence that conservatives hold themselves to any higher standard. While examples of conservatives excusing and covering for terrible behavior are common enough.
“Wow. Arguing against PAD’s assertion that Republicans excuse their misdeeds by crying “But he did it, too!” by crying “But they do it, too!””
Yeah, kind of covered that in my reply to PAD. I think it’s a pretty circular argument but your mileage may vary. It isn’t difficult to set up a premise that is irrefutable, once certain assumptions and parameters are made but they usually don;t make for useful conversation.
“But you’d be hard pressed to find any evidence that conservatives hold themselves to any higher standard. While examples of conservatives excusing and covering for terrible behavior are common enough.”
Hard pressed? Not really. Though, of course, it’s a pretty subjective thing so you could easily disagree.
I would argue that those who see the problem as primarily one for the “other side” are far more likely to not see or acknowledge the problems on their own team.
PAD’s larger point brings up something I see a lot of; for too many people–he may think it’s mostly a GOP problem, I think it affects both sides (“Ah ha!”) but whatever–it seems as though the worst thing is not bad behavior but hypocrisy. As though one cannot condemn some bad behavior for one unless one has done it for everyone. So if you condemn the Obama administration for Too fast Too Furious you had better have condemned similar gun running operations that occurred under the Bush administration. Or you can;t be against the current use of drones unless you were against waterboarding. And if you treat your family wretchedly it is somehow worse of you are a conservative who claims to be pro-family (an especially odd one, since I’ve never seen a candidate who does not claim to be for decency and “pro-family”. It’s really a slam at liberals to think having an affair is worse when it’s a conservative who does it, as though one should not expect better from a liberal.)
I tend to agree with Bill on his overall point here. While Peter may be right that this is a conservative problem, it’s not just their problem and it’s not even isolated to the realm of politics.
This is a human thing. I’ve seen people pull this one out of their assortment of stock defenses in every conceivable conversation and on every conceivable topic. God knows there’s probably not a person here who hasn’t seen someone use that particular retort when in a comic book discussion with company brand zombies.
“Dude, DC is getting stupid with crossover fever. How can you keep reading some of those books?”
“Yeah, like Marvel hasn’t already drained that well dry before now.”
It’s everyone and everywhere on every topic.
Now, I will turn on a dime here and say that, as far as politics go, I have noticed lately that some conservatives will go to that far faster than many liberals I know and will reach back in time to insane degrees to make their point.
I posted something on Facebook the other day making fun of Romney saying on Meet the Press that he would keep parts of ACA because he liked a lot of the healthcare reforms, which was a flip from statements made a week ago, and then, just 24 hours later, appearing on the Hugh Hewitt show and declaring that he would repeal and do away with Obama’s healthcare reforms completely and totally. I expected someone to bring up Kerry maybe, but one hardcore conservative I know wanted to basically excuse this because Bill Clinton was a sexual deviant who was impeached and should have gone to jail.
I kid you not.
I keep seeing one talking point lately that must be getting pushed through a conservative talker or blogger with some following because I started seeing this pretty much everywhere (including from people I know) at about the same time. Point out that the recent games with voter laws seem to be targeting blacks and other minorities disproportionately? Well, when the KKK was formed, they were originally connected to the Democrats! Good luck explaining to them that this was over 150 years ago, both parties are hugely different parties these days and that the KKK officially endorsed Romney a few months ago and have endorsed Republicans for the last few decades. Or the other one that gets thrown into that is that the translation for what Nazi means has to do with “Socialist Worker’s Party.” Or they skip typing and post some idiotic Bill Whittle videos that make these two “points.” I’ve yet to see anyone then explain what their Nazi point has to do with anything in 2012, but…
I brought up Todd Akin and his statements, writings and bills supported in the last decade pertaining to women and women’s health issues on Facebook and the response I got from a deeply conservative acquaintance of mine was that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was a horrible person and then proceeded to type up a list of long ago debunked talking points pushed by the Right about her. Still better than the KKK reference though. You only go back about 90 or so years for that one.
So, yeah, while I agree with Bill that this as an overall topic is being somewhat wrongly aimed at the GOP as if they’re the only ones doing it, I will say that, in politics at least, some of the GOP and the GOP faithful have by far outstripped their counterparts on the left with the frequency and speed that they will resort to this line of defense and gotten way more goofy in how far back in time they will reach to find something to use.
I’ll echo Jerry and say I agree with you, Bill, that is isn’t only the GOP and conservatives who do this.
But (at the risk of “setting up a premise that is irrefutable, once certain assumptions and parameters are made) hypocrisy is something I see happening more often, or at least more blatantly, on the “conservative” side.
This may stem in part from it being the conservatives who are opposed to more things. It presents more opportunities to point out when they engage in behavior that they previously condemned.
When you present yourselves as the fiscally responsible party, yet the federal deficit grows faster when your side is in office. When you condemn the stimulus package, but then lobby to get funds from it. When you rail against gays, and then turn out to be gay. When you lie about your opposition, and then whine when they fight back.
I know it’s a very human thing to seek parity in what someone else is doing. “The Yankees are stinking up the joint right now.” “Yeah, well who are you to say? You’re a Mets fan.”
Let’s take your example. A Marvel fan disses DC, and so the DC fan cites perceived misconduct on the part of Marvel which they believe is just as misguided as anything DC is doing. But in your example, and my example, and most examples, people are addressing things–I’m not sure how to say it–outside of themselves.
But many of the GOP, including the most high profile, hate liberals. Hate them as people. Hate them with a passion that is nearly frightening. Hate their opinions, hate their existence, hate them with every fiber of their being. Hate them so much they claim to be liberal is to be unpatriotic, even traitorous. They express their disdain again and again and again. They hate Obama so much that they insist he can’t possibly be American.
And yet they do not hesitate to cite alleged liberal misdoings in order to excuse anything their side does. Why wouldn’t they want to be better than unpatriotic bášŧárdš?
Do Democrats do the same thing? I suppose. But really, I have no idea why they would WANT to. If a Democrat declares that censorship is okay because the GOP does it, my response would be to say the Democrat is being an áššhølë. To me, it would be the equivalent of my writing something about someone that was a complete lie, and I get called on it, and my response would be, “Well, Gary Groth does it!”
PAD
Okay, I get a little better what you were saying before. It’s more an observation on the absurdity of citing that which you claim you loath in order to excuse like actions on your part than it is of just the act of saying “They did it!” in and of itself. While you touched on it in the original post, it didn’t strike me as the much more central idea of the position until the second explanation of it.
I’ll grant you, that’s a much more interesting conversation. And I’ll grant you that you’re very likely generally correct here. I’m sure there are exceptions to what I’m about to say, but as a rule it does seem that the Republicans do in fact play the “They did it!” game more often with matters that they condemn the other side over in the worst possible terms. Certainly we’ve seen some of that in the last few congressional sex scandals.
I actually have to take some time to look into a few things before contributing anything further to this thread. On the one hand I agree with you on the clarified point that you’re making and I can’t think of any recent high profile Democrats excusing bad behavior from their team that they’ve condemned as truly vile or illegal when done by a Republican. On the other hand, the majority of the Republicans have been pìššìņg me off so badly the last eight to ten years that I’m honestly just not sure that my outrage meter hasn’t gotten skewed.
Have to think on this one a bit.
That should read –
“I can’t think of any recent high profile Democrats excusing bad behavior from their team that they’ve condemned as truly vile or illegal when done by a Republican with the “They did it!” rationale.“
To Sean:
I don’t know, there are plenty of things Liberals are against too, and opportunities for them to be hypocritical.
Obama not closing down Guantanamo or ending the Patriot Act is seen by many as hypocrisy. Though there is the irony of Obama also being accused by the Right of, basically, not being imperialistic enough.
Some folks also think Liberals are being hypocritical when they are rich Liberals that are still against the “fat cats”. But I think that is more of a weird Marxist prejudice: that if you’re rich, you must align with the Right, that will defend your interests best.
There is also a kind of anti-gay bigot that is so virulent that they can’t imagine any straight person to be sincerely pro-gay rights, so anyone who claims to be so, is actually an homophobe that is too PC to admit he hates gays. Strangely enough, there are also a few gays who also buy into that: all straights must hate them, either openly or covertly.
I don’t know, there are plenty of things Liberals are against too, and opportunities for them to be hypocritical.
Rene, I’m not disagreeing with that. There are certainly examples to be found on both sides.
Part of the reason I see it a a far larger issue with “conservatives” is the reaction one gets from the rank and file. Granted, Obama has disappointed folks on the left. His failure to close Guantanamo was recently mentioned here. The recent exoneration of the Bush era torturers. Use of drones. Both have draw criticism from folks on the left.
And Republicans have been criticized by members of their own party. But more often (Limbaugh, the Tea Party, Fox News and the vast number of visiting commentators Fox gives time to are just the most obvious examples) to conservatives Republicans can do no wrong.
Yeah, I agree. A lot of accusations against Liberal hypocrisy comes from the left itself.
Except maybe for “You liberals are actually bigots too, ’cause you hate Christians who are actively devout.”
But that is more of a logic trap. Should we be tolerant of those who are themselves intolerant? Wouldn’t that be a sort of being complicit with their intolerance? In my opinion, yes, a Liberal should not be tolerant of any kind of authoritarian position of the faithful.
“Let people know ahead of time that the party will not tolerate anything below a certain level of competence and integrity and you will, over time, get a better class of politician.”
Oh, yeah, that philosophy has just been working out so well for everyone.
I did not present it as what was being done. I offered it as what I think SHOULD be done. My point was that instead of moaning about how GOP screw-ups are treated more harshly than their Democrat counterparts, Republicans should be grateful for the way that makes it easier to toss said screw-ups aside, as opposed to holding one’s nose and keeping them around. It
s like if one of my kids came home and said that her teacher’s expected more from her than other kids and had less tolerance for her acting up than they did for someone else. “Good!” would be my answer.
I know what you were saying, but I couldn’t resist poking the self proclaimed ideals of the Republicans and the Democrats with a stick. What you outlined as an ideal that the should be doing is what they’re already basically telling us that they are doing.
We get blowhards from both parties and their mouthpieces in the editorial punditry, especially with the Republican/conservative ones, taking every opportunity that they can, especially during a scandal, to proclaim that “we’re” the party of integrity, honesty, values, apple pie, zombie killing and quality rubber suited monster movie marathons and they are the party of dirty politics, lying, hypocrisy, graft, greed, circling the wagons, sympathizing with the undead and proclaiming that the American Godzilla film is the pinnacle of monster movie greatness.
They’re claiming to already live by the standards and rules you would like to see them actually live by and they’re masters of self delusion and believing their own hype and lies when they want to. What you want to see is never gonna happen and, in the meantime, well, that philosophy they claim to already live by just gives us worse and worse options these days.
Couldn’t agree more. If you think something is justifiable, then provide a real argument to support that notion. And if you can’t, it probably isn’t justifiable and so you should own up to that.
It’s also worth noting that the “But they do it too!” defense never works in the Bible, a book which is supposedly near and dear to the GOP.
It’s amazing how grown politicians have completely forgotten one of the most basic principles we learn as children:
“Two wrongs don’t make a right.”
Although curiously three rights make a left.
PAD
There has GOT to be a clever and scathing political joke SOMEWHERE in that response, but I can’t be áršëd to unravel it at the moment. Something about Romney going both ways, or going so far right he swings back around to left, I’m sure wiser, sharper minds can figure out something funny to follow-up.
Two Wrights make an airplane.
How many wrights does it take to make a ship?
And if they make a mistake and the ship sinks, did they in fact make a wrong?
As I posted on your FB, there is no right response. If a Democrat takes the šhìŧ a Republican heaps on them, “They’re wimps!” If they fight back, “They’re a bunch of meanies!”
Pretty much. The reason that this election cycle is being described as particularly brutal is that the Dems, instead of crying “Not in the face! Not in the face!”, are for the first time in my memory treating Republicans the same way Republicans have treated Democrats for decades — brutally.
Ok, if you want my political pet peeve (No, you didn’t ask, but I thought I would put it in here anyway… 😉 )
It’s simple – If you disagree with me, you must hate me. After all, you don’t agree that I should
(a) Kill unborn babies
(b) Marry inside the same sex
(c) Allow my religion’s extremists to kill, maim, destroy.
(d) Get you to pay for my contraception, smartphone, meth habit, etc.
Then, since you don’t want to do this, you must hate me!
Whatever happened to civil discourse, and the acknowledgement that there would be disagreements on issues, but that it isn’t (usually)personal.
Its enough to make you want and go and hate somebody 8-)!
But which group has decided that disagreeing with them is a “War on Christmas” or a “War on Marriage?” If you don’t believe in abortion or don’t support gay marriage, don’t have either of them. Why should you infringe on the rights of people who don’t believe in you or your G-d?
And isn’t the party trying to ban abortion and gay marriage and civil rights the the same party that preaches they want LESS government interference in our lives? Does anyone else see the total moronic of that line of BS?
First, let me apologize for only giving examples from my own side. I was still waking up this morning. It applies equally well for those on the other side of the aisle…
As for war, that does not automatically equate to hate. All too often, war is a cold, mechanical thing, with planning, feints and dodges, and hate-mongering is just a ploy. It is all to easy to see just that sort of planning in the way some issues are handled by both parties.
As for individual issues, I have already taken my lumps in the gay marriage debate, where the hate word was a common response. As to Christmas, there does seem to be a great deal of hypocrisy on both sides as well.
As for abortion, I am a full supporter of choice. I also believe that the choice should be life, and that government has no right to be in the debate either way…
They both want big government. The Left wants a big government with the purpose of promoting material happiness for all. The Right wants a big government with the purpose of promoting a virtuous life for all.
The Left is less hypocritical only because they don’t try to say they’re for small government.
Charlie,
Nice to know the woman has no say in that in your worldview.
Uh, Neil,
Did my saying that I am a full supporter of choice go right past your input filters? And that the government had no business in it, anyway???? How did you construe that to mean the woman has no say?
Sorry, but this seems to be one those automatic replies we are talking about – A appears to not completely agree with my position, so my automatic reply is B…
Charlie,
You said ‘the choice is always life,’ which to me reads as saying if the woman wants to abort, she shouldn’t be allowed. Is this what you meant?
Actually he said “I also believe that the choice should be life” not “the choice is always life”.
Being pro-choice does not obligate you to regard every choice as equally good.
Well, that is basically the position of most Pro-Choicers, right? It’s always better not to have an abortion, but if you really want to, the choice is there.
Rene,
Exactly. I never met anyone who was ‘pro-abortion.’ Just that if a woman decides that’s what she wants, she should be allowed to have the choice.
“Well, that is basically the position of most Pro-Choicers, right? It’s always better not to have an abortion, but if you really want to, the choice is there.”
Pretty much. Even pro-choice people who work for places like Planned Parenthood. The reason I can’t take most anti-abortion people seriously when they bring up Planned Parenthood and debunked crap like Live Action or idiots like Abby Johnson is because I actually know a few people who work for PP. I know for a fact that they’re not pushing people to get abortions and actually discuss adoption as a viable option.
@Rene: They both want big government. The Left wants a big government with the purpose of promoting material happiness for all. The Right wants a big government with the purpose of promoting a virtuous life for all.
IMHO, the left is far more on target on what gov’t is supposed to be for: provide a framework/support so that the country is prosperous and peaceful. They should not be getting involved in passing judgment on how folks choose to live their lives.
I never met anyone who was ‘pro-abortion.’ Just that if a woman decides that’s what she wants, she should be allowed to have the choice.
Feminist writer Frederica Mathews wrote a phrase back in the ’70s that’s stuck with me ever since.
“A woman doesn’t want an abortion the way she wants an ice-cream cone or a Porsche. A woman wants an abortion the way an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg.”
The problem I have is that this false equivalence trickles down and becomes conventional wisdom. (“Both sides to it.” “Both parties are equally to blame.” “A pox on both your parties.”)
Here’s the thing to remember: Although both Democrats and Republicans have acted badly, Democrats and Republicans have not acted equally badly. To suggest otherwise is akin to stating that although one person had single shot while another person chugged the remainder of the bottle by himself, both people are equally inebriated and have identical drinking problems because both people drank from the same bottle of whiskey.
Actually Sasha, the point should be that individuals in both parties have not acted equally badly as others in both parties. In both parties the basic rule seems to be “Don’t Get Caught!” instead of “DO the Right Thing.” Another’s wrong doing never justifies your own, no matter how bad the other’s actions are.
I think the worst example of this that I can recall was the “targets” ad which hit at the time of the Gabby Gifford shooting. We were told that the Republican use of targets over specific people, while using gun terminology and the phrase “second ammendment solutions” was JUST LIKE the Dems, who did use targets – but in relation to surveying terminology, and targeted districts, not people.
Sadly, this seems like an extension of an unfortunate but accurate truth: Negative advertising works. For *both* parties, there’s a lot less traction in “Here are my great ideas for the country” than “They say we’re bad — but they’re *really* bad!” The parties don’t spend so much money on negative ads because they’re rich idiots ready to throw away millions of dollars on something that doesn’t work — they do so because they know it’s more effective.
Whenever Republicans are called on unscrupulous behavior, their response is always the same:
“Yeah, well, the Democrats have done the same thing!”
Yes. We’ve seen this again and again from leading Republicans and I’ve encountered it more times than I can count in discussion boards from the rank and file.
They don’t say “No, what I did wasn’t wrong.” It’s always “Well, your guys did it, too!”
Which is, of course, an blatant admission that their (the Republican’s) behavior was indeed unscrupulous.
It’s a juvenile response.
And the appropriate response is “If the Democrats jumped off a cliff, would you do that, too?”
Another bit of juvenalia that politicians love to indulge in is “It all started when Barack hit me back first!”
With the usual caveat that I can’t speak for the U.S., but I do know that, in Canada, this has a dangerous effect where all too many people buy into it with the result that they figure “they’re all just as bad” and stay home on voting day. This helps explain the low turnouts of late. What they don’t take into account is the ‘matter of degrees’ factor. True, both sides may have indulged at some point, but if one has only done it once, and the other is constantly doing it, it is worth keeping in mind.
This has been a Republican ploy for some time. They try to sound all grass-rootsy and propigate the idea all politicians are greedy scumbags. This, indeed, lowers voter turnout more and more over time. Lower turnout favors R’s.
True.
And the ploy serves also another Republican goal: by advancing the idea that politicians and the government are corrupt and incompetent (an idea that is not exactly hard to sell), they seek to reduce the State’s sphere of influence, and augment the power of other groups they support, like corporations and churches.
I think we’re falling into the false equivalency problem.
As Peter said, the left does not tend to have a scorched-earth policy toward the right. Evidence is the left’s slow movement to the center over the past 30 years, which hasn’t been duplicated on the right.
Often the statement, “But you do it to!” is more a sense of shock, of “Wait, you’re changing the rules of Calvin-ball mid-stream!” A good and recent example is “You don’t criticize the president during times of war” (Dixie Chicks) but that didn’t last once Obama took office.
Or the GOP believe sexual harassment is awful… if Bill Clinton does it (and apparently only Bill Clinton… not Clarence Thomas or Herman Cain).
But to Peter’s original point, I do think the right tends to overreact to perceived “unfairness” and the left enables it through false equivalency (even Jon Stewart is guilty of this). So, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are simply right-wing versions of Phil Donahue and Oprah Winfrey, who both leaned to the left. Any opposition to Limbaugh and Coulter from the left then is clear bias based on their political beliefs. This, of course, ignores *how* people express themselves (e.g. ad hominem attacks, bullying) and focuses simply on *what* it is they believe.
I recall when CNN was known as the “Commie News Network.” NPR and The New York Times are both considered the “liberal” media. So, FOX News is just one lone network against all these other leftist institutions. This ignores an overt and openly biased agenda on FOX’s part and compares it to the natural bias that occurs when publications are produced, you know, human beings.
Affirmative Action and sexual harassment laws are examples of racism and and oppression of white men, ignoring the attempt to correct centuries of racism and sexism in the country… and ignoring that white men still dominate the board room and the government.
If you flash back to when George W. Bush won the 2000 election, most of the consistent concerns from the left about a Bush presidency… actually happened (though I doubt most of us saw an 11-year-war). It’s the same with concerns about a President Romney. We tend to think that he will succeed in what we fear he will do.
Contrast this with people who believe Obama is a socialist who will redistribute the wealth of the nation and take all the guns.
And again a good example of left-wing enabling of false equivalency is an article that compared the belief among some that Obama is a Kenyan socialist to the belief among some that Romney is an out-of-touch neocon who will continue to Bush-era policies that tanked the economy and engaged us in war. Notice that 1 of those extremes is demonstrably false.
“And again a good example of left-wing enabling of false equivalency is an article that compared the belief among some that Obama is a Kenyan socialist to the belief among some that Romney is an out-of-touch neocon who will continue to Bush-era policies that tanked the economy and engaged us in war. Notice that 1 of those extremes is demonstrably false.”
So, you can prove that Romney is not an out-of-touch neocon? That’s great!
😉
On the whole Republicans outright hate the left. I think the best current example is the Pizza place owner who hugged Obama.
The Backlash and just sheer HATE he got from that act was staggering.
That photo was very moving but I would be a lot more impressed if I actually thought it was spontaneous and not staged.
How does a man as large and imposing as that pizza parlor owner walk up to the president and grab him in a bear hug? Where is the Secret Service? Granted maybe everyone in the place was cleared before the president arrived but this guy could have snapped the president’s neck or bitten his carotid artery.
The photo is being sold as a small business owner’s uncontrolled enthusiasm for the president but it sure looks like it was prearranged.
Not only that, George, but the “backlash” and “sheer hate” were invented. Oh, I’m sure there were plenty of conservatives that don’t like this guy, but suffer for what he did? Please. According to this article, 5 star rating on Yelp and plenty o’ business.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/09/the-media-lied-bear-hugging-pizza-shop-owner-was-not-boycotted-he-was-praised/
@George: According to the man himself (Van Druzer, the owner), he didn’t preclear it with the Secret Service and it was not staged. Whether you believe him or not is your call.
@Tim: That article neglects to reference the host of negative reviews and 1-star ratings posted on Yelp by folk who weren’t merely angry at Van Druzer’s hug of Obama, but by the fact that he’s a self-identified Republican who plans to vote for Obama. (And frankly, The Gateway Pundit isn’t the most objective source of information either.)
Well I call BS. If there is a scintilla of truth to Van Druzer’s statement then those secret service agents should be fired.
Sasha,
I think it’s incredible that anyone on the left would complain about lack of objectivity in the media when the mainstream outlets are full on, no holds barred, not even trying to hide it campaigning for Obama.
The point of the article was to say that the business was not suffering the backlash that had been reported in other places. As I said, I’m sure there are a number of conservatives who made their displeasure known. Also, just as George points out the staging of this event, I also question the validity of his Republican leanings. I find it to be pretty strange that a Republican business owner is able to sneak past Secret Service and get the President of the United States into a bear hug. Pretty unbelieveable.
“The point of the article was to say that the business was not suffering the backlash that had been reported in other places.”
Then it fails in quite spectacular and miserable fashion at that. All it succeeds in doing is pointing out that people were using sites designed to review his restaurant based on the food and service to trash his restaurant and him based on hugging Obama.
Score 1 for the accuracy of Scott Van Duzer’s statement that “saying a lot of bad things and boycotting my restaurant” based on the hug.
All the article then does to supposedly debunk his claim is point out that the owner of the site in question removed reviews that are in fact not reviews but rather political attacks. Imagine that. Doesn’t change what people did. We had a poster here years ago who lost her mind when Peter questioned how long it might take for the Bush Administration to try to use Reagan’s death for political advantage. She insulted his family, hurled derogatory and flat out antisemitic comments to him. She got banned and the comments were deleted. Are you proposing the idea, based on the logic you’re displaying in reference to this article, that her banning and the deletion of her comments means that her meltdown no longer happened and is not a fact?
That’s what it looks like you’re saying. That’s certainly the hair-brained logic being displayed by the article writer.
“Yeah, people did what he’s saying they did on at least one site we could find. But the site owner put an end to it so saying that it was happening is all a big MSM lie and it never happened!”
Yeah… Okay…
“Also, just as George points out the staging of this event, I also question the validity of his Republican leanings. “
Good for you. Now you might do research before you type. Scott Van Duzer is a known quantity. He’s not some anonymous restaurant owner who has never done anything of note before. He has a documented past of doing public service for the community. That’s in part why his restaurant was picked for the visit.