Michael van der Galien has one of the strongest arguments seen so far against the Bush Dog Campaign which started at Open Left, especially as it comes from a moderate right of center blogger as opposed to the many attacks from the far right. Michael makes some excellent points, but unfortunately also buys into many of the false claims of the right with regards to the war and the liberal blogosphere.
The Bush Dog Campaign’s goal is to put pressure on Democratic House members who have supported conservative measures in order to pass more progressive legislation:
And so, you may have noticed a lot of chatter about ‘Bush Dog’ Democrats over the past few days. That’s not an accident. We’ve been working to identify the group of conservative Democrats in the House who are holding back progressives from being able to effectively govern. These are concentrated in two main caucuses, the Blue Dog Caucus and the New Democrat caucuses. Blue Dogs consider themselves heirs to the Southern conservative wing of the party, and tend to vote for socially restrictive policies and a hawkish foreign policy. The New Democrats tend to be more partisan, but often are key to passing important pieces of right-wing legislation, such as the Bankruptcy Bill. In the last few years, these two caucuses have expanded their numbers, and the Blue Dogs have become the swing vote in the House allowing for effective conservative control of the Congress. We want to put a stop to the embrace of conservative values among House Democrats, and make sure that when Democrats are elected, they act like Democrats.
So who specifically are these people? As Chris Bowers noted, the two biggest defeats for House Democrats so far in 2007 have been the capitulation vote on Iraq, and the vote to allow Alberto Gonzales warrant-less wiretapping powers. We’re calling the Democrats who capitulated on both bills ‘Bush Dogs’, as these are the most likely to capitulate on important fights in the future.
There is a fine line here between supporting Democrats in primary battles who you support over those you don’t agree with and attempting to purge the party of those who do not exhibit ideological purity. As I agree with their views on Iraq and warrant-less wiretapping I am not opposed to this aspect of the effort, but I also share some of the reservations which Michael expresses:
This prospect should – as far as I am concerned – scare the hell out of everybody who thinks that some independence of thought is actually a good thing. We have seen some of this being done by conservative bloggers and activists, but never on the scale as we currently see (it being done by progressives). The intention is clearly to stifle all dissent, and all debate. Whether one is a Democrat or not, and whether one is more progressive than conservative, and left-of-center is irrelevant to these people. Nor do they seem to care that the voters voted these people into office in the first place. They have decided that they are enemies of the Democratic Party (even though they are Democrats themselves) and therefore enemies of the people.
The most important issue according to the progressives? Iraq. it is all that matters. In this instance they decide not to go after someone for not being progressive enough on certain issues, because this person opposes the surge. In other words, one might argue that it is not so much about progressive vs. less progressive, but about anti-war vs. open-minded. Make no mistake about it however: once these people get their way regarding Iraq, they will target politicians who they deem not progressive enough on other issues.
The previous quotation on the goals of this campaign disprove the assertion that the dispute is all about Iraq, but views on the war definitely do shape this debate. One consequence is that Michael looks at this too much from the perspective of a supporter of the war causing him to take an extreme view on this campaign.
That is not to mean that I don’t share some of Michael’s reservations. There is a segment of the liberal blogosphere which has a much more leftist view of economics than is shared by myself, other portions of the liberal blogosphere, and, most importantly, the majority of voters. I’ve already discussed this issue at length in multiple other posts, such as here, here, and here. While the majority of voters do not agree with the left on all issues, there is a growing consensus on opposing the war, opposing the social policies of the religious right, and supporting increased government action in certain areas where it has been found to be necessary such as health care and the environment.
Whether this campaign becomes a problem will depend upon whether it takes on the “totalitarian” undertones which Michael is concerned about. As an independent I also find value in having a portion of the Democratic Party which expresses different views, even if this includes views I do not agree with. I generally prefer divided government, finding the prevention of bad government policy to trump the desire to promote any specific policies. At present we have the problem that for all practical purposes we only have one viable political party. The Republicans have shown that they are totally incapable of governing responsibly from either the Legislative or Executive Branch, and they increasingly promote an extremist agenda which is far too damaging to the nation to allow them any significant influence. Perhaps we have no alternative but to have the “opposition” come from another faction within the Democratic Party itself. Creating a high bar to the passage of new legislation is not necessarily a bad thing.
The Republican Party became extremist by driving out their moderate members. Michael does raise a valid concern in fearing that the more progressive Democrats could do the same to the Democratic Party:
And so, slowly but surely, these people are destroying the Democratic Party. The average American does not favor truly progressive policies nor does the average American think highly of the anti-war crowd (led by Kos and Stoller). They might have their fair share of groupies, but so did other totalitarians in the past. These people are totalitarians because they do not accept any dissent. It is not as if policies are up for debate: they have made up their minds about certain issues, everybody else must agree. If they do not, they have to be targeted. More, Chris Bowers, Matt Stoller and “Kos” are now even making themselves unpopular among local Democratic activists. These activists basically tell Stoller and Bowers to bugger off. They know what is happening in their districts, they know what to do. National activists, they argue, do not have any idea what is going on in certain districts and / or states.
Michael might be overly concerned with Kos. He describes Kos as both a totalitarian who is exerting too much influence upon the Democratic Party but also notes that many members of the party, as well as many bloggers, do not go along with him. He also fails to appreciate the wide variety of views held even at Daily Kos. While I do share the concern about the party developing an ideological purity which would exclude other views, to be of value the party must stand for some principles. There was an excellent response in the comments to Michael’s post to the argument that “The average American does not favor truly progressive policies nor does the average American think highly of the anti-war crowd.” Besides the majority support for ending the war, a majority of voters express a number of other liberal views:
If you strictly mean that the majority of Americans aren’t total adherents to Kos philosphy I agree, otherwise… A majority of Americans think that the government should guarantee health care for all Americans. A majority of Americans are worried about Global Warming and environmental issues in general. Though a majority oppose Gay marriage, virtually the same margin favors civil unions. A majority of Americans also agree with upholding Roe v. Wade. Gee, this strikes me as being rather, I dunno, progressive don’t you think?
On a personal level I also found Michael’s arguments against demands for ideological purity to contradict his own personal actions as he came down on the side of such an attitude earlier this year. Long time readers are aware of how Liberal Values was first formed due to disagreements with attitudes at The Democratic Daily and was followed by a series of personal attacks against me over subsequent areas of disagreement. Disputes centered around my “controversial” beliefs (at least over there) that Mel Gibson’s anti-Semitic rants contribute to anti-Semitism and should be discussed, that Holocaust Denial is a serious problem, that Astrology is bunk, that photographs which people claim to be of ghosts most likely are not of real ghosts, that attacks on evolution should be debunked regardless of whether from creationists on the right or from liberals such as Deepak Chopra, that the promotion of violence against those they disagree with is wrong, that it has not been conclusively proven that the 2004 election was stolen, and that belief that the 9/11 attacks were caused by al Qaeda provides a far more convincing argument than the various conspiracy theories blaming the attacks on George Bush. Despite the campaign of personal attacks launched against me for holding these beliefs which counter the beliefs at The Democratic Daily, Michael inexplicably took sides and repeated their rather bizarre justification for such personal attacks on me at his blog.
While this recent blog war is not of much significance I cannot help but be influenced by Michael’s past conduct in support of stifling free thought when I evaluate his post. It is one thing to take a principled stand for a big tent and to oppose the appearance of purging portions of the party. It is another thing to pick and choose based upon your personal feelings about the participants on one side. Between Michael’s stress on Iraq and his labeling of some anti-war bloggers as totalitarians I cannot help but feel that Michael is using the post more to attack opponents of the war he disagrees with than to defend independent thought after he came out on the side of opponents of independent thought in the past.
Update: Cernig of Newshoggers examines Michael’s Kos Derangement Syndrome.
Update II: Michael apparently has difficulty either letting things go or admitting he is wrong whenhe has made a mistake and therefore has a rather bizarre post linking back here. Much of what he says is already responded to in the comments.
Michael got involved in a dispute where he knew nothing about the facts but decided to stick up for someone he freely admitted was a friend. He was unable to separate the actual issues from his personal feelings. Michael does exactly what he accuses me of when he says, “Instead of talking about issues, we are suddenly caught up talking about people.” The whole dispute came because, as a consequence of speaking out on the issues, I have been subjected to continued personal attacks ranging from signs of anti-Semitism to inventing a numerous bizarre personal charges.
Michael has no factual response to my rebuttals of his charges in the comments here and therefore has posted what amounts to a personal attack (even if milder than the others I have encountered). Michael is far too hypocritical to realize that each time he takes sides and uses his blog to join in a the personal vendetta which The Democratic Daily has waged against me he is doing exactly what he accuses me of. His post today is clearly one of talking about people, where I have concentrated on issues. Considering that he brought this up days after the discussion here, he also looks like the one who cannot let things go.
Michael’s use of personal attacks is also seen in his original post under discussion where he basis his argument on calling those he disagrees with totalitarians. As I made clear, preferring to deal with issues as opposed to personalities, Michael did have a number of good points before he got into name calling. He could have had an excellent post if he stuck to the issues and looked at it objectively as opposed to needing to demonize those he disagreed with.
Ron,
Two things:
– generally a good post
– i did not ‘attack’ you at all. I just asked you to stop attacking TDD. Lastly, please stop acting as if I “attacked” you – I did not do such a thing
Michael.
Your post on this dispute at your blog falsely accused me of launching personal attacks on The Democratic Daily when the opposite was true. You outright claimed that those at The Democratic Daily were correct in assertions they made which were quite untrue. You continue to give a false impression when you write about asking me to stop attacking TDD when the so-called attacks were either responses to attacks iniated by them or legitimate disagreements over issues.
Although you put it in quotations, I did not specifically say you “attacked” me, although there is a fine line here. What I am saying is that in a dispute which ultimately came down to my holding different views you took the side of those who did launch a number of personal attacks on me because of these differences in opinion.
In essence both issues come down to whether one must toe the party line, whether it is The Democratic Daily holding a set of rigid rules about what can and cannot be discussed or whether it is elements in the progressive wing of the liberal blogosphere deciding who is a real Democrat. The often posted claim from those who remained at The Democratic Daily after the split that Liberal Values is not liberal is sure quite similar to the attempts to write off some Democrats as not being real Democrats.
The D’s in Congress can hardly be called extremists. Corrupt, possibly. Spineless, yes. But extreme, no.
The R’s, on the other hand, vote in lock-step on the most radical policies (torture, spying, privatizing everything).
I’m willing to defeat my Blue Dog congressman, because he (along with all the other Blue Dogs) voted before the summer recess to give Alberto Gonzales authority on whether a domestic surveillance needs FISA approval or not. Essentially, they just gutted FISA. I wrote a letter to the editor, explaining how I had previously done civil disobedience to get him elected over a lock-step Republican, but now I was going to work to get him defeated because of his FISA stance, among other things. Hopefully, we can get a moderate Dem challenger during the primaries to defeat him. But I can’t forgive someone who destroys the country my family worked to create, even if he is “on my side of the aisle.” He can go to hell.
Absent Oberver,
“The D’s in Congress can hardly be called extremists.”
True. To give the benefit of the doubt to those criticizing this goal I would say they might be arguing that it isn’t the Democrats in Congress who are the extremists but the bloggers who are calling for the alleged ideological purity. While this may be true of some, a closer look at what they are calling for still is not extremist compared to the current Republican agenda.
“I’m willing to defeat my Blue Dog congressman, because he (along with all the other Blue Dogs) voted before the summer recess to give Alberto Gonzales authority on whether a domestic surveillance needs FISA approval or not.”
That’s largely why I’m ambivalent on this. I both sympathize with the concerns that they might be trying to narrowly limit the party based upon ideology, but also agree with their positions on Gonzalez and the war.
I don’t have to agonize over whether to support or oppose a personal Bue Dog Congressman. My Congressman is Pete Hoekstra. I vote against him, but unfortunately it is a futile vote as this is a safe district for him.
Ron – you have serious issues.
Michael,
So much for your claim of not attacking me. It looks like you fit in quite well with those who remained at The Democratic Daily if this is all you can come up with. Like them, you quickly ran out of any meaningful responses and resorted to a personal attack.
Your reaction sure verifies the suspicions in my post that the real motivating factors behind your response to the Bush Dog campaign is not to defend freedom of thought but simply to bash those you disagree with.
The value of the blogosphere is in how it allows for free discussion of issues. Those of you who resort to personal attacks (and defend sites such as The Democratic Daily which frequently engage in it) diminishes this quality of the blogosphere. When you engage in such activity, and defend others who do so, how are you any better than those you label totalitarians in your post? I’ve had plenty of posts disagreeing with Kos over specific issues, but I’ve sure never called him a totalitarian. In your post you claimed, “These people are totalitarians because they do not accept any dissent.” That sounds like a better description of you and those you defend.
You need to learn to stick to the issues and cut the personal attacks.
Michael van der Galiën:
Issues? This blog has issues. There are issues such as opposing the war and domestic wiretaps–which give reason to oppose Democrats who support these.
There are also issues of anti-semitism which Ron confronted at Democratic Daily. There’s issues of supporting science from attacks on evolution and support for astrology as Ron did despite all the attacks on him. There’s the issue of being reality based or backing every half cocked conspiracy theory which is making the rounds.
Yes, Ron has a lot of issues–and I support him on these issues.
Ron – seriously, this is the last time I ever commented on your blog. You are suggesting that I attacked you while I did not do such a thing. You are still obsessed with TDD. You cannot help but talk about TDD every once in a while, seemingly because it is still on your mind. You need to get over it.
Look who’s talking. It’s pot!
Jimmy,
Nice try, attempting to get this back on the issues. However Michael has his own agenda and doesn’t really care about the issues.
Michael.
“Ron – seriously, this is the last time I ever commented on your blog.”
Considering the lack of serious substance to your comments, that is hardly a problem from my perspective.
“You are suggesting that I attacked you while I did not do such a thing. ”
No, it is you who first said that I accused me of attacking you. Then your response to a serious comment from me was simply “Ron – you have serious issues.” While minor, that would fall in the category of a personal attack rather than a response on the issues. As I’ve previously said, my more serious concern was the untrue statements you posted about me on your blog following another attack on me from The Democratic Daily. It is also notable that you simultaneously posted while pretending to be objective and talked about what a good friend of yours Pamela is.
I can’t stop you from taking sides in a dispute, but don’t delude yourself into thinking you are being objective of the slightest bit fair when you repeat their false claims against me.
“You are still obsessed with TDD. You cannot help but talk about TDD every once in a while, seemingly because it is still on your mind.”
They come up primarily as they continue to attack me, as recently as last week. There is a strange double standard where they can post attacks on me but if I respond, or even mention them, suddenly I am in the wrong.
My comments on them here have followed attacks on me at The Democratic Daily, but even if that wasn’t the case my comments would be justified. When The Democratic Daily got involved in highly publicized controversies in the blogosphere, such as in their promotion of 9/11 conspiracy theories or in the support of violence against those they disagree with, I have every right to weigh in on my blog. Having been instrumental in building up that blog before leaving makes my input especially relevant.
Bloggers typically take advantage of their personal experiences. If I have suspicions that your apparent support of free thought is not as pure as you make out, it is perfectly valid to raise an experience with you where you sided against my defense of free thought against the demands of The Democratic Daily for lockstep conformity with their views from all liberals.
Another reason they remind on my mind, besides the recurrent attacks on me from The Democratic Daily and other blogs written by the new bloggers there, is that they keep dropping by here with attacks. Many are under fake names but checking the IP address reveals their identity.
Look who’s talking.”
Excuse me, Michael? My post makes a point of showing both where I believe you are right and where you are wrong as opposed to personal attacks. It is you who have turned this into a matter of personal attacks. It is also you who defended The Democratic Daily after they launched personal attacks on me, such as claims that if I disagree with Pamela over her defense of anti-Semitic views and trivialization of Holocaust denial, or with Ginny over her support for 9/11 conspiracy theories I’m anti-women (as opposed to disagreeing with their views regardless of their gender). They’ve even gone so far as to post allegations of sexual perversion.
The sad thing is that you have such a one-sided view that you actually believe what you say. You throw around attacks such as calling those you disagree with totalitarian on rather specious grounds and act holier than thou. It’s time for you to grow up and realize that when you express such hypocrisy there are people who are going to call you on it.
He sure is a strange dude. The biggest lie he is telling is that Ron is attacking Democraic Daily. Defending onself from slurs is not attacking.
Michael, do you even know what the word attack means? Maybe we have a language problem going on here.
“They come up primarily as they continue to attack me, as recently as last week.”
Say what? Could you point to exactly what you construe as an attack on you in the last week, because now I am mystified.
Pamela,
I received an email last week quoting one of the writers, I believe it was Hart, calling me a wanker.
I didn’t pay terribly much attention to it, but it is relevant to Michael’s statement, “You are still obsessed with TDD. You cannot help but talk about TDD every once in a while, seemingly because it is still on your mind.” It still provides legitimate reason for it to be on my mind when I receive emails and links such as that.
Ron
So I searched the comments and the posts and Todd called David Brooks a “wanker” in a post in June and used the term “right wing wankers” in December in a comment. That’s all I find.
And even if he did, for sake of argument call you a wanker, is that worthy for you to write 2 full paragraphs once again airing your laundry list of reasons that you dislike me and the DD? I think that is Michael’s point. You keep finding reasons to bring it up, linking back to all your posts about the disagreement and keep stirring the issue over and over again.
The fact is and I have the links to prove it, you were posting attacks here about me on your front page while still cross posting at the DD, last September. No one responded on the front page of the DD until October 24, after your 3rd front page attack on me and the DD.
As of July 12, you had a minimum of 15 posts here referencing the DD or me and the DD had 8 referencing LV or you. So I ask, who’s doing the attacking? If it were the DD why do you have more posts referencing the DD then the DD has referencing LV?
In fairness Ron, I have asked you more than once to please respect my family and my business. You have made light about that in the comments here. Michael tried to intercede because he felt it was all unworthy of 2 bloggers he respects. You accused him of taking sides. If he took sides, you might consider that your continual “obsession” has perhaps caused that. So in the spirit of the using the political blogosphere to state our opinions on the issues, I ask that we put this to rest and move on to using our respective blogs to make a difference in our country and not to continue dredge up personal issues that are nothing more than petty disagreements.
It’s time to the past behind us.
Pamela,
Checking back on the link it was actually a bit over a week ago from August 16 by Hart but (unless I’m missing it right now) it appears that it was deleted. Hart’s also been trolling here under fake names.
I’ve already explained the relevance of this to my responses to Michael.
We’ve already played this game of you denying the attacks which were posted at The Democratic Daily prior to my responses. The fact that you seem to post such attacks and later delete them to cover your tracks changes nothing.
Pamela,
You are also misleading in claiming everything is written about the past. My responses to posts on your blog which created controversy in the blogosphere, such as the support of 9/11 conspiracy theories and violence against those you disagree with, were written on material which had just been written, not past events.
Furthermore, while I have posted on disagreements with you and others at The Democratic Daily on issues, I have never engaged in the type of personal attacks which you and other writers there have. You cannot create an equivalency between what I have written and the types of personal attacks you have engaged in.
Ron
I’m not responsible for what Hart does here or anywhere in the blogosphere, any more than you would be responsible for some one from your blog trolling on mine. Fact is Hart posted a couple of weeks ago that he’s taking time away from the blogosphere to write a book and last I heard from him, he was going out of town for business. So I’m not sure what to tell you on that.
Honestly Ron, the 2 paragraphs dredging up your past issues with the DD were unneccessary to prove your point on your claim about Michael.
Anyway, once again let it be said that I tried to extend the olive branch and you refused. Take care.
Ron
Duh… how silly of me… of course I failed to realize that it wasn’t all about the past. But regardless it comes off as a sort of vendetta you know, when you link the current stuff to the past stuff everytime, thus building a case against the DD.
Unlike your blog the DD has multiple writers who all have their own opinions on a wide variety of issues. Those opinions aren’t my opinions and there are others in the blogosphere that agree on some of those opinions while you may disagree. I forgot though that you are the liberal blogosphere thought police and when anyone writes something that doesn’t gel with your totalitarian view of what the liberal blogosphere should wirte, you attack them. Yes, I know the DD is on that special list of yours, up there with BradBlog and Kos. Well, we’re honored.
Again, Take care, Ron.
Pamela,
This isn’t only about Hart. You were responsible for many of the attacks personally. Others appeared as main posts on the blog you are responsible for. Note that the post referred to The Democratic Daily and not only you personally.
I hardly see where you extended an olive branch here when you primaily denied your past acts. The other problem is that I sure got burned other times I listened to your phoney peace offerings.
Ron
Let me repeat again: “I ask that we put this to rest and move on to using our respective blogs to make a difference in our country and not to continue dredge up personal issues that are nothing more than petty disagreements.”
(Responses crossed while posting. The 1:47 response was written before seeing the 1:45 comment).
You got it backwards Pamela. It is you who have acted like the thought police in protesting what I write.
It was you who wanted to block criticism of Mel Gibson’s anti-Semitic rants.
It was you who blocked discussion of Holocaust Denial and wrote off the issue as trivial.
It was you who opposed criticism of anti-evolution articles by Chopra.
You have similarly attacked me several times for what I’ve written. There is a distinct difference between posting a disagreement on a topic and the manner in which you launch attacks for even discussing an issue.
It has also been you and your co-bloggers who regularly respond with personal attacks, claiming some sort of bizarre equivalency between me disagreeing with you on issues and you responding with a personal attack.
Blogs are about posting one’s opinion. When I write a post disagreeing with someone it has nothing to do with any totalitarian view of what the liberal blogosphere should be. Writing a disagreement on issues is also not the same as attacking someone.
“Yes, I know the DD is on that special list of yours, up there with BradBlog and Kos”
I doubt I’ve even mentioned BradBlog more than once here. In case you didn’t notice, the post here was actually defending Kos. This “special list” you refer to is all in your imagination.
It is you who have continued to dredge up personal issues with your attacks.
Ron
Here we go again…
I’ve refuted all this over and over and you still fail to acknowledge that.
Good night. Again take are. I tried.
Pamela,
You have never refuted any of this. You’ve made up a lot of stories, but the facts remain.
Not only have many of your attacks on me been for failing to abide by your rules as to what is allowable to write about, it is also you and writers at your blog who have frequently claimed that I’m not liberal because I don’t follow your ideas 100% of the time.
So much for who determining who acts like the thought police of the liberal blogosphere.
Ron
You still miss the point, I didn’t care about you wrote I cared about the way you treated our readers. You were rude and condescending to anyone who disagreed with you, including me.
And yes, Ron I admit, I don’t think you’re very liberal.It has nothing to do with my ideas but more to do with the notion that you fall in line with right wing blogs that have attacked the DD and have used those attacks to dredge up your issues with the DD. Couple that with the fact that you are admitted Reagan voter and have said here you’re more independently minded. Which is fine, if that’s who you are, but using the “liberal” moniker is bit hypocritical. I do think that. But I don’t make a point of continually posting it on the front page of my blog Ron. Why? Because it’s pointless.
Maybe you haven’t noticed but I don’t revel in jumping into the blog wars that abound in the blogosphere. I rarely get involved and to be frank if you hadn’t posted front page here on August 28, 2006, September 3, 2006 and then again October 23, 2006, I never would have said a word about you on the front page of the DD. But you know, I finally felt as though enough was enough. You were over here calling me names on the front page of your blog and the worst anyone said about you was Hey Ron can we agree to disagree or maybe you’re acting bull headed or being rude by continuing a conversation when people ask to not discuss anymore because they have other things to do and they are tired of arguing apples and oranges with you.
Ron
I think Gibson’s rant was despicable. Said that many times. I am not a holocaust denier. Honestly didn’t even know peole denied the holocaust. What is that about? What a ludicrous notion that anyone would deny such a horendous thing.
Thank you. Again apples and oranges. Silly and petty and sad.
Pamela,
Again you got it backwards. If you wrote posts I disagreed with you typically ignored them. However if you disagreed with anything I wrote you’d endless attack it. So much for your claims of agreeing to disagree. It was also you, not me, who resorted to name calling.
I did not vote for Reagan, so your claim that I’m an “admitted Reagan voter” is quite untrue. You have also shown a general habit of attributing statements and views to me which I have never expressed.
Your nonsense about being “rude and condescending” is just another excuse for your actions such as supporting anti-Semetic arguments when the dispute over Mel Gibson and Holocaust denial came up.
You confuse political philosophy with political party when you say it is hypocritical to be using the “liberal” moniker.
The two areas where I agreed with right wing blogs in their disputes with you are hardly arguments that I’m not liberal. These were over the support for 9/11 denial theories and the advocacy of violence. Disagreeing with the posts at The Democratic Daily on these issues hardly indicates that someone is not liberal.
You basically just admitted that to be liberal means to agree with you.
Why not allow this comment to go through? Because it refutes your claims about me?
Pamela Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 27th, 2007 at 3:08 am
Ron
I think Gibson’s rant was despicable. Said that many times. I am not a holocaust denier. Honestly didn’t even know peole denied the holocaust. What is that about? What a ludicrous notion that anyone would deny such a horendous thing.
Thank you. Again apples and oranges. Silly and petty and sad.
Pamela,
Have you considered the possibility that the previous comment hasn’t been posted yet as it came through after 3:00 am here and I had gone to bed? It appears you were commenting as I added my last comment and I didn’t notice yours.
You certainly do not refute anything in your comment. What matters is not what you say now but what you said and did at the time.
At first you laughed off Gibson’s rant as simply something silly people say when drunk. You denied his history of anti-Semitism and defended him. It took a while for you to concede that his rant was wrong, but you still continued to defend him. You also took the side of anti-Semitic commenters who defended him. At very least you could have stayed out of the discussion as I stayed out of discussion of your posts when I disagreed with you.
Ultimately you cut off criticism of Gibson. During the discussion afterwards Ginny even conceded that it was your intent to stop criticism of Gibson. Later you admitted that this issue was hurting your business as customers questioned your beliefs. Cleaning up your act out of fear of losing business does not affect the initial issue.
I never said you are a Holocaust denier and your ignorance of the topic is consistent with your rather misinformed comments dismissing the issue at the time. Holocaust denial is a common tactic of anti-Semites to deny that the Holocaust occurred. Without going into a long discussion of Holocaust denial, it is believed that allowing this belief to spread increases the chances that such things can occur again in the future. Mel Gibson’s father was a prominent Holocaust denier and he shared his views.
Pamela,
Circling back to my previous comment, you’ve made it clear that you define liberal as agreeing with you as you claim I’m not a liberal because I agreed with right wing blogs regarding your support for 9/11 conspiracy theories and acceptance of violence against those you disagree with.
To that I would add that you’ve also shown elsewhere you do not even know what liberal means. After my post on the meaning of liberalism you denied the roots of liberalism as a pro-freedom philosophy. Making matters particularly absurd you used a dictionary defintion, which is hardly the best source, and then your definition actually supported what I was saying.
It is hard to take your comments that I’m not a liberal serioulsy when you don’t even know what the word means. Your defense of Mel Gibson was also hardly a liberal attitude. Considering the development of liberalism as a product of the enlightenment your promotion of astrology might also be considered to be somewhat inconsistent with liberalism. There’s some weakness to that connection, which is why I include references to both liberty and the enlightenment in the tag line.
To Her Highness Queen Pamela , Offical Thought Police of the Liberal Blogosphere:
You sure have an off the wall manner of arguing. You complain about bringing up old matters and then you go ahead and do so. You claim to offer an olive branch and then you argue endlessly.
You sure love to throw out lies and then ignore the fact that they have been refuted, such as when you claim Ron supported Reagan. I also saw you recently claimed on your blog that Ron disagreed with you because of being an avowed athiest. Searching the posts here, as well as doing a Google search, I couldn’t find a single post where Ron advocated in favor of athiesm or any other specific religious belief. I’ve found him quoting liberal Christians, reformed Jews, and Humanists. I’ve seen him defending freedom of religion, including the freedom not to worship.
I think that your limited knowledge of the issues is an underlying problem here. You’ve shown that you do not understand what “liberal” means. You do not know anything about Holocaust Denial or Gibson’s history. You do not understand the meaning of secularism as opposed to atheism. I think that you feel Ron is rude and condescending because you can’t handle it when he provides facts to counter your ignorance.
Ron has also made a number of key points here which you simply ignore and move on to other nutty arguments. It looks pretty well proven that you first attack Ron and then delete your attacks after Ron responds to claim that it is Ron who is attacking first.
There also remains the important difference between what you post and what Ron writes. Ron argues issues. You resort to personal attacks. As Ron said above, these are not equivalent.
You also show a considerable intolerance to Ron speaking out on the issues he cares about. It is clear that at Democratic Daily you would try to keep Ron from expressing views you disagreed with while Ron tried to stay clear when you write things he disagreed with. Since he started his own blog you think you have a say on what he can and cannot say. If you post something controversial on your blog Ron is entitled to comment here, especially when your wierd views have been spread around the blogs and are being used to discredit the true liberal blogs.
And most importantly of all, defending Mel Gibson and anti-semitism is wrong.
At first I thought Michael was just being hypocritical. Now I see that he’s an outright liar.
Sure he’s not as bad as Pamela and her friends at Democratic Daily but in his own way he has been waging a blog war against you starting when he first brought this up.
I think he likes Pamela because she can’t put up any good arguments against his views but is afraid of people like you and the liberal bloggers he attacks in his post. Michael resorts to personal attacks and then lies and says that is what you are doing. Unbelievable.