Life Imitates Blogs?
The shamelessness of ‘progressive’ political types has no equal when it comes to slanders of the right, particularly those with no foundation in reality. It should comes as no surprise, then, that the LA Times has a story speculating on whether there will be any blowback for Fred Thompson for portraying a racist in an acting role. To equate this role with Thompson himself is akin to assuming that Tom Hanks must have ensured he was infected with the HIV virus to portray an AIDS victim in Philadephia, or that Al Pacino converted to Judaism to play Shylock in The Merchant of Venice.
But…
There may be less here than meets the eye. The whole thing actually started from a prediction by sometimes D’08 reader Sean P. in comment #35 of this post at Patterico’s Pontifications. To my knowledge, no one is actually using this against Thompson; Sean just said it could be used against Thompson by someone trying to pull a bit of unscrupulous sleight of hand.
A good heads-up, though, if this does become an issue. I haven’t endorsed anyone, though I’m fairly open about what candidates I like and dislike. My mind is not made up on Thompson. Regardless of how you feel about him, though, let’s just hope (against hope?) that the electorate is smart enough to see through this tactic if it is eventually employed against him. Actors play reprehensible people all the time; it’s just part of the job description…
“Actors play reprehensible people all the time; it’s just part of the job description…”
That almost fits politicans too! They tend to pass reprihensible laws!
Excellent post by the way.
The shamelessness of ‘progressive’ political types has no equal when it comes to slanders of the right, particularly those with no foundation in reality.
Oh please. No one is slandering anyone. I agree that this would be a stupid line of attack and I highly doubt any Democrats or liberal activists will try use it.
And, last time I checked, the Right was pretty good at slandering people in knuckle-draggingly stupid fashion. How about the “Obama attended a madrassah” stuff? Or the “Nancy Pelosi demands a big plane” nonsense? Or the breathtakingly hypocritical and fact-free criticism of Pelosi’s Syria trip?
And all that’s just in the last few months. Don’t even get me started on things like the Swift Boat Veterans or virtually all of the psuedo-scandals of the Clinton years. There’s just no way that you can credibly argue that “progressives” are more shameless than Republicans when it comes to slandering people. You’d have to have been in a coma for the last 15 years.
How’s this for hypothetical and fact-free criticism?
Ah yes…the psuedo-scandals of the Clinton years. I almost forgot about Saint Bill.
Anonymous, here in Austin, there is a sizable contingent of ‘progressives’ who believe the Bush administration killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 to pursue a foreign policy directed by Israel. I know, I’ve met some of them…
Come up with something similar on the right and then talk to me about baseless slander…
There are people in the world who maintain that the Earth is flat, and others probably believe that the moon is made of fromage verte. Some of them may live in Austin. Maybe even a “sizable contingent.” That would show nothing except that perhaps Austin skews high towards lunatic fringe. Idiocy is not the exclusive province of the right wing.
However, the feverish conspiracy notions of those challenged by rationcination means nothing. When leaders — defined as those who have substantial followings — slander and defame, it becomes worth noting.
Examples from the right: Pat Robertson saying that 9/11 was caused by gays; Karl Rove saying that liberals greet terrorists with “tea and sympathy;” Rudy Giuliani saying that electing a Democrat will mean more people will die from terror (let’s forget that the attack occured in a city with a Republican mayor, a Republican governor, and a Republican President); Dick Cheney equating a vote for Democrats with a vote for bin Laden; anybody who claimed that Vince Foster’s death is anything but a tragic suicide; and virtually everything said by Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaught, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, James Dobson, and too many right wing blogs to mention.
The notion that something which nobody even said yet — but maybe, someday, hypothetically might be said — somehow illustrates the “shamelessness” of progressives is an absurdity “too gross to be insisted upon” which “no thinking person would dare conceive” (to steal a quote from Marbury v. Madison).
There’s no comparison between what obscure fringe players might say with what is said by many leaders of the right wing on a routine basis.
You’re missing the point. People are accusing Fred Thompson of being a racist because he played one on TV nearly twenty years ago.
That would be like saying Ed Norton is a neo-Nazi!
The closest thing to that on the right would be when Ronald Reagan is referred to as a cowboy, mostly because he played on in movies.
Peter, I didn’t say this hypothetical illustrates the shamelessness of progressives – I said because progressives are so shameless in their attacks, one might not think twice about the idea that this would be used as an attack on Fred Thompson – but Peter (and our good friend Aaron) please note:
I then said there was less here than meets the eye and that to my knowledge the line of attack has not actually been used. In otherwords, after cleverly inflating an outrageous situation, I then said – but wait! Things are not what they seem…
And Peter – no one said anything about Democratic leaders – I clearly said ‘progressive’ political types (and yes, in my mind, there is a short distance between that and the lunatic fringe).
You’re the one who then editorialized about leaders, not me…
Playing the “whose side has bigger lunatics” is so terribly ’04, isn’t it?
So “progressives” never made that slur, but they might have, so that legitimizes the speculation of the L. A. Times that someday they might make that slur, even though they never did, so we should get prepared now in case “this does become an issue.”
I’m getting dizzy….
I was trying to deflat a phony issue with a little inside information, okay? I tried to make a molehill out of this mountain…
Peter: You may not know this, but this story ignited a firestorm of anger on a number of websites, including Patterico, Wizbang, Ace, Hot Air, Red State, and a bunch of others I had never heard about before this broke. The problem was amplified because the author of the piece implied that her musings were already being discussed in wide detail on the right blogosphere (which they were not — I was the only culprit and nobody agreed with me). Her misstatesments led many at Patterico to accuse her of bad faith (personally, I disagree, though I am dissapointed in how she handled the story). As to the other websites, some simply read the article as an accusation. At the time Mark ran this story, the LAT piece was spreading pretty quickly, although it has since died down.
Interesting to know, thanks!