WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-06-23 16:51:12 +0000

It is absolutely a double standard. Conservatives get good results with using baiting language and/or offensive phrasing, Liberals bad. Is it because America is essentially a Conservative country? I don't know. I just remember some professor of American history (I'll try to find the link) stated very clearly that Michael Moore would - contrary to his aim - probably help GWB win the last election, based on American voting patterns following Liberal "stunts", for lack of a better word. For some reason, it seems to work like this: Conservatives: Don't let those bastards get near your children! America: You tell 'em! Liberals: Don't let those bastards send your children to die in their war! America: Gasp! They said "bastard"! And criticized the President! Don't let them near our children!

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-23 20:16:39 +0000

I actually posted this before I read Bull Moose for the day. More on Karl Rove's tactlessness too.

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-24 18:53:11 +0000

This entire thread might just be me talking to myself, but, hey, I got a long compile cycle. A thoughtful bit on tactless speech. Rove isn't going to apologize for characterizing liberals as terrorist sympathizers, so, why should Durbin apologize? They spoke they're mind, isn't that enough? Shouldn't we reward people for speaking their mind? Is anyone _surprised_ Trent Lott secretly hopes for a segregated society? Do we think his apology has changed his opinion on that subject? Political Correctness run rampant, I say. We've gone around this circle before, the linked post above gets it right: don't attack someone for saying something, attack what they said. Otherwise, our level of discourse ends up being _very_ constrained. To Lott: We are not better off as a segregated society. To Rove: The policies of this administration are at cross purposes with making America safer from Islamic Terrorism. To Durbin: You're right, the treatment reported by the Red Cross does sound like the handy work of Nazis.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-06-24 18:59:42 +0000

Well, it is unfair, but also understandable. Durbin critcised the US military. Rove criticised Liberals. Your average American feels more protective of the military than they do Liberals, and so it's easier to twist criticism of the military into an offensive anti-American attack than it is to twist a criticism of Liberals into an offensive anti-American attack. Why is that? Are we essentially a Conservative, militaristic country?

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-24 19:06:22 +0000

I could be mistaken (Oooo! 10 Users, 10 Guests!) but I think Durbin is concerned about the image of the US military, his goal in what he said is not to it. It's A REALLY BAD THING if our military engages in inhumane treatment of it's captives. Call me naive, but I believe the US military would not have decided to detain and torture people without specific directives from the civilians in charge.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-06-24 19:16:37 +0000

Oh, I don't think you're mistaken. I agree with you, and I agree with Durbin. The problem is that we (as a country) are so keen to stick together, to defend our own, to point the finger at 'a few bad apples'. I really wonder what the national mood was like when Nixon was president. When did the tide turn? When did people start questioning him en masse? When did Mr. & Mrs. Middle-America start thinking that the president was a bad man?

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-24 19:40:05 +0000

I think the tide is turning, if you believe these sorts of things. Bush has still got 42 months left on this term. It's gonna be a bumpy ride, I'm sure.

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-24 19:49:30 +0000

Oh, you were wondering about Nixon... I think every thing changed after the release of the greatest buddy movie ever.