Comments on: What Happens When the Angry Left Gets Angrier?

By: dmac

dmac — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 16:10:24 +0000

“Howell’s lies brought on her own trouble. Her follow up is likely to bring more.”

Got yer tinfoil hat ready for you, bunky.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 04:46:02 +0000

Say, NM Renamos, you’ve confused me with someone who cares…my point was about the venom of the angry left, it had nothing to do with the substance or lack thereof of Howell’s comments…people disagree all the time…get over it…and take your comment down, it only makes you look like a fool…oh, that’s right! You can’t…only I can…BWAAA HAAAA HAAAAA!…

By: NM Renamos

NM Renamos — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 04:39:24 +0000

Howell’s lies brought on her own trouble. Her follow up is likely to bring more.

1. Indian Tribes are a traditional Democratic constituencey.
2. The documentary evidence looks like Abramoff says CUT BACK on donations to DEMOCRATS.
3. Financial evidence suggests the verbal threats were even stronger because the documentary suggestions are more than actual (for Democrats, only).
4. It is hard to imagine that a man so steeped in the Republican Party as Abramoff, so sharply linked to so many key Republican “leaders” including Norquest, Reed, DeLay, etc., and so specifically tied to th Republican agenda would press for Democratic donations. This doesn’t pass the laugh test. Take your lies down, you only look like a fool.

By: The Strata-Sphere » Blog Archive » All Coffey, All The Time

The Strata-Sphere » Blog Archive » All Coffey, All The Time — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:29:48 +0000

[...] First up is a post on how the vulgar left shutdown discussions at the Washington Post: And it is indeed unbounded, unreasoning rage that is at the very core of the Angry Left: a rage born of frustration at a world that doesn’t recognize the genious of the tortured worldview of the impotent purveyors of filthy discourse and lowest-common-denominator ‘arguments’ that amount to nothing more than the wretched gurgling of a drowning man determined to take the rest of the world down with him… [...]

By: peter

peter — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:17:27 +0000

No problemo, Mark —

Aaron: while your post is eminently reasonable, I think you give too much credit to Nader voters by implying that they are blessed with ratiocination — I think voting for someone with absolutely no chance of winning, when the stakes are as high as they are, is a sure sign of irrationality –

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 18:56:40 +0000

You know what the problem is (was)? I let the Angry Left get me angry and descended into the language of outrage myself…

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 18:40:56 +0000

And let me add that, yes, I did probably go too far in that last paragraph, peter…my partisan hackles have been raised by delving too deep into the muck this weekend…

By: Aaron

Aaron — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 18:38:56 +0000

“Incidentally, my guess is that most of the people who wrote moronic letters were Nader voters, not Gore or Kerry voters”

Why would people who voted for Nader get mad at Howell for doing nothing more than implicating Democrats in the Abramoff scandal? I would think the only people who would become irate about that would be Democrats themselves.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 18:32:24 +0000

Well, as you probably know, I’ve long made a distinction between progressives and Democrats, and the base is composed of activists, activists are for the most part progressive, and it is the progressive activists who have put Howard Dean into the Chairmanship of the Democratic Party. There is progressive, as an adjective, and yes, Feingold is progressive in that sense. Then there is progressive as a political movement, and 98% of it is neo-socialist, anti-Western, anti-Semitic, and truly vile.

So yes, I apologize for being unfair to the 2% by painting with an overly broad brush, while reiterating once more that I do not see liberal and progressive as synonyms, and none of the above should be construed as a condemnation of mainstream Democrats…

Let me add that I don’t see the Democratic Party as the ‘Party of Hate’, and I wasn’t clear on that; rather, that the Democratic Party as envisioned by the ‘progressives’ would quickly turn into such…

By: peter

peter — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 18:27:31 +0000

Uh, I think you’re going a little too far here. If you want to critize what angry people with minimal intellect or civility write to a columnist: fine, go for it. But there is no logical connection between the body of the post and the last paragraph.

Saying “this is the face of the ‘progressive’ movement” is incorrect (Barney Frank and Russ Feingold are progressives — are they hateful?). There are hateful people in every ideology, and but to conflate an entire movement with its fringe players is intellectually dishonest.

It would be just as silly to say that Michelle Malkin and Anne Coulter — two genuinely hateful people — are emblematic of conservatism. They largely share a common ideology with responsible and civil people like Bill Kristol, Sam Brownback, and Orren Hatch. There is nothing hateful in the last three, and it’s unfair to implicate them for the sins of their ideological brethren.

Finally, it’s a big leap to say that it is the base of the Democratic Party. Somehow, the “party of hate” won the popular vote in 2000 and came close to winning the electorial vote in 2004, as well as having roughly 45% of the Senate seats, Congressional seats, and governorships. Not a plurality, to be sure, but not the Socialist Worker Party either. (Incidentally, my guess is that most of the people who wrote moronic letters were Nader voters, not Gore or Kerry voters).

It would be equally unfair for me to highlight quotes from Pat Robertson (another genuinely hateful person) and suggest that they typify the GOP or its base. Picking a fight with a mythical straw man is an unfair fight.