September 24, 2005

Galloway redux: More antics prove the Left has no chance

Zombie has the proof.

UPDATE (9/25 at 10:12am): Catch any of the Washington DC "anti-war" rally yesterday on C-SPAN? Even further proof the Left has no chance. The motley bunch of speakers were so ridiculously far to the left that despite Bush's major problems of late, despite his rock-bottom poll numbers... they make Bush look like an incredibly reasonable Einstein for cripe's sake. I watched a bit in the afternoon and again (on repeat) in the late evening, and ... whoa. Some notables I saw speak were Cindy Sheehan, Ramsey Clark and Jesse Jackson. Here's what I garnered from the smattering I witnessed:

  • Bush is a racist;
  • The Bush admin. is the worst in American history;
  • Bush has the military "occupying" New Orleans;
  • New Orleans residents have a "right of return" similar to that of the Palestinians in Israel;
  • Speaking of Israel, the country is racist;
  • Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is racist;
  • The US's "$6 billion per year" support of Israel is "criminal";
  • Bush should be impeached;
  • Bush is a war criminal;
  • The current war has killed over 100,000 Iraqi civilians;
  • The Iraq War is racist.

Get it?

The Gay Patriot notes that Iraq War protests are shrinking.

UPDATE 2 (10:47am): Michelle Malkin has some, er, interesting photos from the rally.

UPDATE 3 (9/26 at 5:14pm): Malkin has even more photos.

Posted by Rhodey at September 24, 2005 08:47 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Saying that George Galloway is proof that the left has no chance is as correct as saying that Alan Keyes is proof that the right has no chance.

Both are charismatic speakers, but both are as about as relevant to mainstream politics as each other....i.e. not at all.

Posted by: tacitus at September 24, 2005 10:07 PM

But the Right isn't (wasn't) "propping up" people like Keyes as major spokesman for key issues.

Posted by: Hube at September 25, 2005 09:52 AM

Watched some too. Hard to believe there are that many weirdo kooks in this country and the rally organizers were able to get them all together in once place. A genuinely fugly and dumb group.

Posted by: AJ Lynch at September 25, 2005 12:57 PM

The left has no chance.

I like that kind of thinking.

Sure, I only agree wholeheartedly with one of those bullet points, and I'm a liberal. But you know full well that there are no more of these types than there are members of the lunatic far right. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to convince me there aren't a whole lot fewer.

In short: so what? When the Dems are in power, the loony right cries, and vice-versa. Both these groups on the far-right and far left have gone over the edge in recent years. I ask you: What's worse? Going over the edge while objecting to corporate welfare, the growing gap between rich and poor, tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent, an adjusted minimum wage that's lower than it was in the 70's, record-breaking fiscal irresponsibility, short-changing our homeland security to wage a war you have no plan to win...or going over the edge about a guy receiving oral sex and lying about it?

Posted by: dan at September 25, 2005 09:13 PM

Dan: I know you won't be convinced that the # of nutty fruitcakes on the Left is greater than those on the Right. Maybe they're really not. But they sure are more vocal, have more prominent speakers (in higher positions) for them, and get more MSM coverage.

As for your usual "which is worse" mantra -- play me a violin. I give a counter-list, we argue a couple times, it dies. Wow. Tell 'ya what -- when the Dems and their nutty bigmouths start winning elections based on what you listed, then you'll have a statement. Oh, I know, I know -- the ave. American is just too stupid to see this .... that's why the Left is so angry, because no one will one will stop their apathetic ways.... woe is me....

Posted by: Hube at September 26, 2005 03:41 PM

Americans too stupid? Hardly. Each election is different. In 2000 they made (barely) a choice for change. So be it. In 2004, the landscape was completely different. People agree with liberals, and disagree with Bush, on the environment, corporate welfare....really, you name the issue, and more of them go our way than yours. But the subtext of the message from the GOP was, "liberals" will bend over for bin Laden, and -- to quote Bush -- "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."

It's really quite simple, and it (along with having a shitty candidate on our side) worked brilliantly. But the idea that people think that after 230-odd years and two razor-thin elections, we've somehow reached a point in time where the pendulum will never swing back the other way? That's pretty darn silly.

Posted by: dan at September 26, 2005 04:23 PM

Dan: examine your last comment for a sec. Your naming of a "subtext" clearly implies that the electorate was too stupid to "see through" Bush's [supposed] twisting of facts and logic!

And people agree w/more liberal stands than con ones? This is why Republicans control every elected branch of gov.? Prove it! You name environment and corporate welfare. Fine. You said "name it." Try taxes. Defense. Gay marriage. Even abortion (most are indeed "pro choice," but with restrictions... I'd like to see a poll comparing the #s who believe in abortion in ANY case and those against it in ALL cases ... that'd be interesting).

I don't believe Rhodey thinks the pendulum won't ever swing back the other way; I certainly don't. But considering Bush's difficulties and deficiencies, it seems pretty clear to me that the screaming nuts who have too much influence on the liberals are preventing a much quicker swinging of the pendulum in the other direction.

Posted by: Hube at September 26, 2005 05:10 PM

clearly implies that the electorate was too stupid to "see through" Bush's [supposed] twisting of facts and logic!

No, it doesn't. It implies that the GOP made the Dems out as being anti-American (nothing new there) and the Dems fouled up the job of fighting back -- partly due to the previously mentioned crappy, indecisive candidate. The overarching fear of terrorism was made a priority by the GOP, and it was bought into by the swing voters. This doesn't make them stupid. The voters we're talking about -- 5 or 10 percent or whatever of the total elecorate -- were simply swayed this time by the fear of terrorism. I can't really blame them, as the GOP did a nice job of making it sound like Kerry would've made bin Laden Secretary of State. They saw the trees, but not the forest. All I'm saying is that the forest will eventually come into view, unless the GOP can manage to keep us at war forever.

Posted by: dan at September 26, 2005 09:29 PM

As for the issues and "naming 'em?"

Well, someday soon I'm going to do a huge post compiling tons of polls to see who's side people are really on. I'd like to really check it out, even though studies have shown repeatedly that people are liberal -- but are terrified of the word "liberal." I started to compile them a while back. So here are a few. I'll provide cites when I do the post, and some may need to be updated, but....

* Most Americans favor civil unions; 2004 GOP platform opposes them
* Americans favor labor unions; GOP...well...
* 83% believe corporations have too much influence over federal gov't.
* 60% say 2003 Bush tax cut didn't help them; 61-67% favor balancing budget to cutting taxes. 76% prefer putting tax cut money toward job creation
* Stem cells -- 55% to 70% in favor, depending on polls. Bush opposes (though his party's even turning on him on this one)
* 63% support some sort of universal health care; GOP opposes
* 69% want drugs from Canada. Bush opposes.
* 61% unhappy with expiration of assault weapons ban; 54% think gun laws should be more strict (though a downward trend here is duly noted)
* Environment: 58%-Bush doing too little; 59% believe Bush distorting facts; 77%- environmentalists do more good than harm

Posted by: dan at September 26, 2005 09:41 PM

And finally...

I'd like to see a poll comparing the #s who believe in abortion in ANY case and those against it in ALL cases ...

WaPo poll from April asks "Legal in All Cases", "Legal in Most Cases," "Illegal in Most Cases;" "Illegal in All Cases."

The Legal in all cases was 20%; Illegal in all cases, 14%. Pretty steady since '96.

Posted by: dan at September 26, 2005 09:58 PM

Dan, why can you pontificate on and on with your standard 'everybody does it' response but run for the hills when asked for a direct answer to a hypothetical or a question that belies your standard response?
Cowardice or tactical retreat?

Posted by: mikem at September 26, 2005 11:57 PM

What are you referring to? I just provided Hube with a direct answer to his abortion question. I even had to search for it.

If you're referring to other times I haven't answered a question....well, I might not have read it carefully. Or I might've deemed it hopeless to continue a pointless argument in which we will never, ever, ever agree. (Most blog "discussions" fall into this category, after all). And if I "retreat", it may be because I "stop looking at the comments." I read blogs infrequently these days, and comment even less frequently, as I've found that it's almost completely pointless. So I may post a couple comments, or even a long string of them, and then not return here for a week or two. Sometimes I never even see the last thing someone says.

That said, did I dodge an important question from someone? If so, fire away.

Posted by: dan at September 27, 2005 12:46 AM

Dan: Great. Here is the most recent, including your lead in. Thanks.
Judging by the fact that two extremely popular far-right voices -- Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage -- mocked Clinton and joked about his death as he was about to have bypass surgery, I'm not quite as confident as you that all kinds of comments won't come.
But I'm sure the comments will be dismissed as those of "non-distinguished" Republicans.
Posted by dan at September 5, 2005 04:17 PM
Dan, do you think that the rhetorical class/racial/gender excesses are more or less equal on both sides of the political divide? Is there a Republican equivalent to Al Sharpton, Democratic Presidential nominee, calling on New Yorkers to attack the "diamond merchants" and the resultant 7 deaths, or a Jessie Jackson casually referring to New York as "Hymietown"? (Is there a Republican luminary that has called Detroit "Ni**ertown" and worse yet, is afterward still honored by Republican officials?) Is there a Republican equivalent to Michael Moore and his honoring as "Freedom Fighters" the people who set off bombs to try and stop democracy in Iraq? How about Durbin's remarks? I could go on and on, especially about liberal statements that touch on race. All your "yes, but..."s seem to imply that this is a give and take that all are guilty of, where as from my view it seems quite one sided. Am I just seeing things from my side, or is there an equivalent tolerance for hateful rhetoric on issues of race, gender, and class on the right?
I'd appreciate a serious answer. I notice that you take pride in taking a reasoned tone, often giving credit to others when you see a principled rather than ideological response. So, a reasoned assessment, please.
Posted by mikem at September 5, 2005 08:55 PM

Posted by: mikem at September 27, 2005 02:39 AM

I think I might've seen this comment, but felt that you changed the subject out of the blue when you had no retort to my previous point.

1) On Jesse Jackson and Al you have a point. On this small issue -- racial rhetoric -- there can be a double standard, with Dems accepting more than they will tolerate from a Republican. For instance, the Congressional Black Caucus should stand up and say Bush isn't a racist. Bush is an elite, out of touch asshole who thinks the poor should fend for themselves. But the notion that, for instance, Katrina relief was racist instead of incompetence and horrifying callousness (hey, let's play banjo while the people are drowning!) should be condemned. And in fact many Democrats have condemned it time and time again. Jesse Jackson is probably not among them. Then again, there is no shortage of amusing racial remarks from Republicans from Trent Lott on down. I'm sure Republicans aren't bothered that, when asked what he would do for black people in 1994, Jeb Bush said "Probably nothing."

2) OK, so you use ancient quotes quotes from Jackson and "Presidential Candidate" Al Sharpton. Fair enough. How about "Presidential Candidate" Alan Keyes saying in 2004 that gays and lesbians are spawns of the devil, or some such?

3) Dick Durbin's Nazi remarks? Rick Santorum's Nazi remarks. Or are Durbin's remarks far worse because Santorum merely called the Democrats Nazis?

4) Is there a Republican equivalent to Moore's anti-war comments? Now we're off the issue of race, and when we get on to any other issue out there, I'll happily go toe-to-toe with you on truly outrageous statements of hatred and intolerance. I don't know, perhaps...

* a GOP senator (Cornyn) saying that violence against American judges is understandable?
* Another Senator (Hatch) issuing a bizarre veiled threat to judges?
* Another Senator (Coburn) CRYING during the John Roberts hearings about "less divisiveness" -- the same schmuck who said the gay community "is the greatest threat to freedom we face today?" This is your great party of tolerance? I could go on and on too.

Posted by: dan at September 27, 2005 08:58 AM

By the way, here are a few excellent Republican quotes on race:

* "Quit looking at the symbols. Get out and get a job. Quit shooting each other. Quit having illegitimate babies."

- State Rep. John Graham Altman (R-SC), addressing African-American concerns about the 'symbol' of the Confederate Flag, New York Times, 01-24-97

* "Two things made this country great: White men & Christianity. The degree these two have diminished is in direct proportion to the corruption and fall of the nation. Every problem that has arisen (sic) can be directly traced back to our departure from God's Law and the disenfranchisement of White men."

- State Rep. Don Davis (R-NC), emailed to every member of the North Carolina House and Senate, reported by the Fayetteville Observer, 08-22-01

Now, take statements like that -- and attitudes like that -- and add to it the experience of being black in this country, and you sometimes get overreaction. I can't blame them. Maybe you can, since (I sometimes forget) there *is* no racism and we're all on a level playing field now.

Posted by: dan at September 27, 2005 09:08 AM

Dan: How were those poll questions worded? For example, the "Americans favor labor unions" is essentially meaningless. I favor labor unions and I believe most cons would. But was that the actual question? If so, that's pretty pathetic. You mean to say the GOP *doesn't* favor unions? When? Where? Maybe if there was a question like "Do you favor 'right-to-work' statutes," do you think most Americans would favor *that*? How would it be worded? Perhaps something like "Do you believe American workers should be forced to be in a union, and/or pay union dues if not?"

If you ask "Do you think your taxes are too high or too low," which response would you expect? Or, "Would you prefer the gov. withhold your tax money to pay for healthcare, or would you yourself prefer to have that tax money back and decide how to use it yourself"?

The GOP does *not* oppose "some sort" of universal health care. They just don't want the government as the provider. Witness Clinton early in his term and then what happened in the 1994 mid-terms. Coincidence? Or was that merely another instance of the GOP "making out the Dems" to something they're not, and that they did "a poor job" fighting back?

I said gay *marriage* in my last post, not civil unions. You bring up civil unions (naturally) b/c the majority of Americans do NOT favor gay marriage!

Ultimately you've proved not a thing. And what are the prime determinants of what people believe? Elections.

Posted by: Hube at September 27, 2005 03:33 PM

And you brought up gay marriage despite the fact that you can hardly name a prominent national Democratic politician who's in favor of gay marriage. Jeez.

Posted by: dan at September 27, 2005 04:49 PM

Kucinich and Sharpton (last year's pres. candidates) and Ted Kennedy. So there!

Posted by: Hube at September 27, 2005 05:10 PM

"[I] felt that you changed the subject out of the blue when you had no retort to my previous point."

Unbelievable. Just laughably dishonest. I actually included your immediately previous 'everyone does it' comment and you claim I changed the subject. You have no shame.
I was looking to see just how 'honest and reasonable' you could be, since that is your normal pose. You certainly answered. I cite national leaders, you cite "state representatives". (That took some frustrating google work, I bet.)
Forget it. I will not even bother. Just remember that you had a chance to show that you are a person of principle and not just another dishonest "liberal" pundit. You bailed.
(I use scare quotes around liberal because I consider myself, and voted, as liberal most of my life. The Democartic Party is no longer liberal, so I vote Republican now.)

Posted by: mikem at September 27, 2005 05:41 PM

Look, man. I am not a pundit. I am not an anything. I barely talk politics on my own blog anymore, and I don't comment on blogs -- except this one, because Dave has been reasonable in the past. I am not even anywhere close to being a "loony" liberal as you describe it, but you don't want to hear that. Is that what makes you so mad? You don't know anything about me, or how many left or right of center positions I hold. When I make a concession that the right is correct, I'm sh*t on as a hypocrite. So I don't usually do it. When I agree with liberals, I'm sh*t on. Unlike Hube, you have never failed to toe the far-right, bitter ideological line as far as I have seen. I'm not dishonest -- I'm just not an ideologue. I don't really know what I think. My positions change.

After dabbling in it, I realize I have no interest in engaging in pointless discussions with strangers. I don't have the time to compose thoughtful responses, nor the patience to engage in discussions that have absolutely no relevance to anyone or anything. I mean, for instance I think you misunderstood what I meant about "changing the subject." I was referring to the exchange that took place before the one you reprinted. But you know what? Who cares?

You will never stop bashing "leftists," and I have no interest in stopping you. Think of me whatever you will, my friend. So why don't you just consider this the aforementioned cowardly retreat, and relish in your grand and meaningful victory over another intellectually inferior liberal opponent. :)

Posted by: dan at September 27, 2005 06:57 PM

I didn't read your last paragraph -- further evidence that I don't have any business trying to spend time on blogs! But give me a break with that neoliberal, "liberal isn't liberal," "Republicans are the 'liberals'" hooey.

Posted by: dan at September 27, 2005 07:04 PM

Have a nice life. Sorry that you feel unappreciated. :)

Posted by: mikem at September 27, 2005 07:16 PM

Oh, I didn't mean you'd never ever see me again, Mike. I just meant I'm not going to engage in pointless discussions with you. If I see something incorrect or particularly interesting, or that I (gasp, I know) AGREE with, I'll still say something.

Just wanted to clarify that, lest you wait to pounce on me as a hypocrite for not staying away. :)

Posted by: dan at September 27, 2005 07:22 PM

mike: While I agree that dan can certainly try one's patience, he is correct in that he will say it -- and even agree -- when someone on the right makes a good point ... or is just plain correct. Take it from me on this.

And hell, I know I try people's patience at times, but the thing I ... like about dan is his ability to admit rights and wrongs, and not see everything through ideological lenses -- even though we essentially remain opposed politically. IMO, there's not enough of that around the blogosphere.

Just my 2 cents.

Posted by: Hube at September 27, 2005 07:38 PM

No Dan. I would miss your sneering witticisms. They are great material. Rest assured I would not narrow in on your simple presence as a hypocrisy. Your comments themselves are rich opportunities.
"I am not even anywhere close to being a "loony" liberal as you describe it"
Loony, in quotation marks at that? I never use the word. Another 'adaptation' in your argument?

Posted by: mikem at September 27, 2005 07:44 PM

Thanks, Hube.

Posted by: dan at September 27, 2005 08:01 PM

Hube: Agreed. Dan will occasionally admit that conservatives have a point, but not without adding that it is like the pot calling the kettle black, or some such equivocation. It IS tiresome. I react to that. Dan expects free rein to make his snarky comments without receiving criticism in return. That is unreasonable. Especially since he is a guest, as I am, at a conservative or libertarian website. And getting Dan to admit even the most obvious truisms, such as a liberal media bias, or a double standard for liberal versus conservative conduct, is like pulling teeth. OK, he wants to have it both ways, as it were. Fine. But I can call him on it. And that is what I try to do. I don't want to chase Dan off. If you haven't noticed, I comment more often and certainly more passionately when Dan posts a comment.
I find MikeM's repeated anti-religious comments much more objectionable, but he is open about his feelings toward people of faith. He provides his own retort. He does not pose as an 'above the fray' Solomon while insulting his target. Much more palatable.

Posted by: mikem at September 27, 2005 08:51 PM

Post a comment

Remember personal info?