Democrats are full of hate- Kristoff of the liberal NYTimes

[Uzybone]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/12/opinion/12KRIS.html


with "friends" like these....


snip

"Core Democratic voters are becoming so angry that some are hoping for bad economic figures and bad Iraq news just to hurt President Bush. At this rate, Democrats risk turning themselves into an American version of the old British Labor Party under Michael Foot, which reliably blasted the Tory government and reliably lost elections."

[mhr]

1. Hmm.... Remember All Those Hateful Republicans Spiteful Of Clinton

Ahhhh.... Republican Hypocrisy!

[The Zanti Regent]

13. Yes, and the SCREW YORK TIMES encouraged anti-Clinton hatred!

They made up Whitewater.

THat is a fact.

As for Kristoff, he is a good little Nazi marching goose step with his Aryan brothers...

[wtmusic]

2. And Kristoff is Full of Shit

'Americans are three times as likely to believe in the virgin birth of Jesus as in evolution'

OK. :eyes:

[0rganism]

10. Sorry, he's right about that one

The last time I saw any poll data regarding religious vs. scientific orientation, it did indeed back his idea that

'Americans are three times as likely to believe in the virgin birth of Jesus as in evolution'

I can only say that the blame for this sorry state of affairs lies with a public school system ill-prepared to teach the difference between scientific and religious beliefs. If one is trained to regard them as equal and interchangeable, then all manner of source relativism prevails. You'll find people even here at DU who argue against evolution, and of course on a liberal (read secular) board they'll get shouted down. However, go on a more "neutral" forum and propose that evolution is "just a theory" which "violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics" and see which way the balance of opinion goes.

Some say there's a new evangelism in the air; they may be right. I happen to think it's the same as it ever was; the secular liberal counterculture is an abberration, not the norm. The only thing that keeps scientific inquiry alive in the USA is a constitution protective of minority opinions.

[LeahMira]

16. Baloney!

I can only say that the blame for this sorry state of affairs lies with a public school system ill-prepared to teach the difference between scientific and religious beliefs.

The public school system is well prepared to teach the difference between science and religious beliefs. Now, the question is whether the students and their parents are prepared to accept what the schools and the teachers want to teach.

As for hating, I don't think it's inappropriate at all to hate the ideas and acts that are life-destroying and outright evil.

[fjc]

3. I think he has a point..

and it's good advice. I think there is certainly a danger that Democrats might come to appear as shrill and irrational as the likes of Coulter and Limbaugh. I'm not saying there isn't plenty to be angry about. I'm saying that the Democrats, or the moderates or the progressives or whatever we like to call ourselves have an opportunity here to make conservatives show themselves for what they really are aka Al Franken's book by toning down the rhetoric.

[hlthe2b]

4. well, one things' for sure...

I'm sure as hell fighting those feelings-- everytime I see smarmy boy's face or hear Rummy and his other henchmen spinning their lives while Americans die as a result....

[Brotherjohn]

5. BUT the "hate" is different. What we are doing is actually "opposition".

(edited title)
He casts the two "hates" as the same, as equal. That is simply not the case.

Yes, the Left has displayed increased anger towards the Right of late. But it still does not approach what the Right gave to the left for years. Calling it the same is buying into the thin-skinned Republicans' attempt to label it "hate". By and large, most of the criticism Bush has received is POLICY-based, whereas most of that directed at Clinton was personality-based. The Right simply could not accept a young president from the hippie generation (and who came from the hippie mindest).

When Kristof points out articles where liberals are calling themselves Bush-haters, he fails to point out, or even realize, that they are "accepting" a mantle, for argument's sake, cast upon them by Republicans . These repubs are attempting to equate the current criticism of Bush with that of Clinton in the 90s. In fact, the columnists he mentions are arguing that the "hatred" is NOT the same, and that we are critical of Bush POLICIES, and that Republicans are being incredibly thin-skinned and hypocritical. They are saying "if dislike of someone's policies equates to 'hate', then call me a 'Bush-hater'". But the "hate", if you want to call it that, is inherently different. It is normal politics to hate the policy of the opponent, or even to hate the person because of his policies. That is why there is opposition. But it goes beyond politics to simply hate the person for his personality.

To accept and equate the criticism of Bush today with the hatred levied against Clinton in the 90s is just what they want. It invalidates it as being personality-based, as with Clinton. But nothing could be further from the truth. Contrary to what Kristof writes, we SHOULD heartily criticize Bush at every opportunity where we disagree with his policies. If it makes us angry, we should express that anger. This is not hatred. It is a healthy opposition, something that has been lacking in this country for too long. If we do not do this, and mute ourselves as Kristof recommends, then we will lose. It is not stooping to their level as long as our criticism is backed up by facts and logic, and remains policy-based. To date, it usually has been.

[Brotherjohn]

6. The rhetoric is realy not all that jacked-up.

When liberals have "accepted" the mantle of Bush-hating, they are really saying (and have specifically said in columns such as the ones Kristof mentions) that this "hatred" is not the same. It is simply vocal opposition to his policies.

People are not calling Bush a lying, cheating, murdering scumbag in the mainstream press. They are levying rational criticism at him based on his policies. Sure, sometimes they get angry. Sometimes they may even have to yell, to be heard over the O'Reilly's. But the rhetoric against Bush is generally pretty mild. The Republicans are simply thin-skinned hypocrites. By and large, most criticism of Mr. Bush that makes it anywhere near the mainstream is well-reasoned and thought out, whether you agree with it or not. Just because the right cries out "Bush-hating!" doesn't mean that's an accurate portrayal of what's happening.

Remember the months after 9-11, and before the Iraq War? If the Left toned down their rhetoric, there would be no opposition at all.

(ON EDIT: I apologize for the redundancy. I thought I was replying to two different posts.)

[Bridget Burke]

8. Which rhetoric?

Lots of raving on this website. Most of it's quite understandable.

But, which public figures on our side have come out with outrageous rhetoric?

I remember hearing that Dean had made "negative" comments about our dear pres. Then I heard what he actually said--some carefully worded critiques of the regime's policies. Nowhere did he use the words "AWOL", "coke-sniffing", "chimp", "idiot"--or any of those other useful terms.

[chaumont58]

9. Shirley, you jest!

One side is taking artillary barrages, aircraft strafing, small arms fire. But, Nick Kristof whispers into their ears, "Don't shoot back! You might hurt their feelings."

The repukes have been doing this crap for 10 years. Is it to be one sided forever?
What in the hell does this article mean? Its lunacy!

[tabasco]

7. If you don't hate people who needlessly cause war ...

who do you hate?

[stilpist]

11. He's got me all wrong.

I'm not "becoming" angry.

I've been bullshit for three frickin' years.

- stilpist!!!

[Classical_Liberal]

12. If anything the religious right are responsible for the split

not the democrats. It used to be one could believe in both God and evolution. It only takes a little change at the fcc, with reference to donating their time to local religious groups rather than allowing religious right demogogues to bid on air time, and the moderate religions will reassert themselves. ONe local groups won't be members of the Christian Coalition, and two they won't have to scare people into donating money. I know for a fact that Dean is committed to fcc reform. Kristoff is just another new dem, that is scared to acknowledge the sea has changed to liberal.

[Grins]

21. You're right.

It started a long time ago.

""We are talking about Christianizing America. We are talking about simply spreading the gospel in a political context."
Republican Strategist Paul Weyrich, in 1980!!

And what made them successful? Good people that didn't vote. The RW repubs used the Christian right as a hammer to leverage elections.

""With the apathy that exists today, a small, well-organized minority can influence the selection of candidates to an astonishing degree." Pat Robertson in 1990. It was this apathy of other Americans that became a blessing and advantage to the Christian right.

[zinsky]

14. It Isn't Hate, It Is Resentment

Resentment for:

- Losing the election in 2000 and then urging Democrats to "get over it".

- Saying he was "a uniter, not a divider" and then undertaking the most divisive, class warfare in American history.

- Squandering the goodwill of the rest of the world after 9-11 with his arrogance, hubris and unilateralism.

- Saying tax breaks for the wealthy were needed because the economy was doing so well and we had a surplus, and then saying tax breaks for the wealthy were needed because the economy was doing so poorly.

- For trying to teach our children that we can "kill our way to peace".

- For taking us to war against an army that didn't even have boots in many cases and were using WWII vintage rifles against smart bomabs and Apache helicopters, all because he carried a grudge against their impotent dictator.

- For pushing legislation that forces a woman to carry a fetus inside her body that she may not want or that may not be viable.

For all these things, we resent this misguided and destructive man and his corrupt administration.

[grannylib]

17. You said it well...hear hear! eom

[gratuitous]

15. Launched a wholly unnecessary and expensive war

Got 400 service men and women killed (and thousands more wounded), drained the federal Treasury and siphoned the money directly into the coffers of his political backers, fouled the water and the air, squandered the incredible opportunity afforded by a balanced federal budget, regularly makes promises and breaks them, is more concerned about his own image than anything else, indulges a relentless vacation schedule, and doesn't have a clue about how any of this appears, but we're not supposed to "hate" that, huh, Mr. Kristoff?

Well, pardon the hell out of me for believing in the ideals America used to stand for. I'll get right behind the oligarchy immediately, and jettison any notions of community and fair play. Thanks for setting me straight, Ace.

[weldon_berger]

18. Atrios says it best.

Hey, Nick: blow me.

[rocktivity]

19. Remember how blacks were so "full of hate"

before they got the vote, equal opportunity, and civil rights?


rocknation

[zbdent]

20. You want hate? Ask a dittohead how they feel about Hillary

Clinton.

Or Ted Kennedy.

Or Paul Wellstone.

Or JFK (talk about speaking ill of the dead - when St. Ron dies, there will be no criticism of him allowed in the mainstream press WHATSOEVER!)