Exactly
Duncan Black, responding to this piece from Joe Klein, hammers home an argument I've tried to make before against citing a rude lefty blog posts or nameless antiwar protesters when making the argument that Democrats are "just as bad" as Republicans.
To be sure, Democrats have their issues (see this shady lobbyist-sponsored trip for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer for an example), but party spokesmen != some random person with a Web site.
Anyway, as his commenters try to explain to him over and over again, the point is that to the extent that the people Klein was trying to caricature with his list of left wing extremist characteristics actually exist (stipulating for sake of discussion at the moment that they do), they aren't members of congress, they don't have prominent positions in the Democratic party, they don't have columns in Time magazine, they don't get invited to discuss the issues on CNN or NPR, they don't write Op-Eds for the New York Times and, most relevant for this discussion, they aren't even prominent dirty ... hippie bloggers.
On the flip side, the caricature he offers up of right wing extremists are members of Congress, prominent members of the Bush administration, run the Republican party, have columns in Time magazine, regularly come on CNN to discuss the issues, and pretty much define the right wing blogosphere.
Source: Eschaton
Markos Zuniga is not some random person with a web site; when nationally prominent people like Ned Lamont or John Edwards hire / authorize unknowns who nonetheless write horrible stuff in their behalf and it takes days (during which the candidate offers sorry excuses) to get the offending posts down, you can't pin it all on the unknowns. Your reference to Steny Hoyer is the first time I can remember you ever pointing out wrongdoing by a Democrat on your own, but it still comes in the midst of yet another diatribe against Republicans. As far as I can see, the new Democrat-controlled congress is just as greedy and corrupt as the old Republican one (did Nancy earmark her share of pork? Are there any Democrats fighting this earmarking bullshit, I know two Republicans are). On the other hand, Lieberman did shut Lamont down, but that was with the help of non-Democrats.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry but my disgust for both mainline parties gets more company all the time.
Again, the whole point is scale. Markos Zuniga didn't make the offensive posts -- some person you had never heard of before did. Not nationally known candidates. Not office-holders. Not talking heads on cable news shows. Since when does a failure to hastily remove a posting -- especially on a heavily trafficked site the size of DailyKos -- constitute an endorsement? If I don't take down your comments, does that mean I agree with them?
ReplyDeleteThe Lamont blogger wasn't part of his campaign, and the Edwards bloggers could at best be described as paid campaign volunteers. None of them were in a position even remotely approaching one of power or influence -- and unlike Rove, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin and the like, they were all fired and/or abandoned. Every group has its crazies. Only with the Republicans, they happen to be the ones in charge.
As for the secret earmarking, the facts are pretty clear: on the first day of the new session, 232 House Democrats voted to end undisclosed earmarks, while only 48 Republicans did the same.
(http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0701060196jan06,1,3887263.story?coll=chi-news-hed)
Contrast that with these reform-minded Republicans of yours:
"Under Republican congressional leadership, the amount of federal funds earmarked has nearly tripled since 1994, reaching $67.1 billion in fiscal 2006, according to the Congressional Research Service."
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-congress4jan04,0,4695956.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
No, the Democratic reforms aren't as sweeping as some people, including myself, would like. But they sure are better anything the Republicans offered in their 12 years in power.
Why haven't I criticized a Democrat before? Because they haven't been in a position of power until now. And frankly, the Democrats are doing a pretty good job so far.
The funny thing about Steny Hoyer: the lefties were the first ones to jump on this story.
Lieberman. Ugh.
I think you're seeing what you want to see, Yes, leaving up something so patently offensive might just as well be an endorsement. They don't seem to come down until the negative press gets loud enough. What, they didn't notice till that happens? None of them figured out they could assign a mentally balanced volunteer to monitor that stuff?
ReplyDeleteAnd they're not MY Republicans. You see me defending any? What I'm saying is that the Dems are just as bad, and you're defending them. That's nice that 232 Dems voted against earmarking, did anyone tell Harry Reid? Tell me which ones have actually stopped doing it, and I might be more impressed. Is LESS corrupt the best they can do? By comparison they look good? Compared to a sumo wrestler I'm skinny. Maybe if I start diatribes against the wrestler everyone will recognize I'm really skinny and I can quit that stupid exercising and yucky low-carbing and watching my pesky blood sugar. Yeah, there's a plan!
I never could stand Lieberman's whiny voice myself, but he was long considered the conscience of the Senate, does that mean nothing?
Are you really equating a few ignorant postings from non-consequential bloggers (or apparently in this case, the failure of better-known liberals to pay as much attention to them as you do) with Republicans' systematic dismantling of long-held constitutional protections? A unnecessary and costly war that has killed more Americans than the 9/11 attacks and cost us billions while distracting us from the real war on terrorism? I'm just s disappointed as you are about Reid's attempts to water down House Democrats' earmarking reform, but this out-of-control presidency -- which thanks to the recent election will no longer go unchecked -- is a far more pressing issue. (And by the way, Reid eventually acceded to the tougher reforms.)
ReplyDeleteGiven a limited amount of time, energy and resources, I'm going to focus my efforts on issues that matter the most. If I'm being attacked by a guy with a knife and one with a gun, I'm more worried about the gun. It reminds me of the way people such as Drudge, O'Reily and Rush like to highlight nutty statements from some lefty college professor or Barbara Streisand. Sure, they're outrageous, but do they really matter enough to get worked up over? Not when you have an executive branch hell-bent on expansive executive power and diminished civil liberties. It's all about perspective.
And just to be clear about the earmarks issue, I don't think earmarks in themselves are bad. But they need to be transparent so voters can know who's pushing for them, whether they're worthy of public funding and whether lawmakers are getting a personal benefit. And that's why I'm not ready to criticize Nancy Pelosi over the issue just yet.