Kristof tells us to shut up!

[HootieMcBoob]

Vomit alert! :puke:

It's interesting that he doesn't tell the right to shut up. I don't hear much left/democratic vitriol when I turn on the radio or when I watch TV. All I hear is non-stop right wing ranting. It's intersting that the right wing goon squad doesn't seem to bother him but now that we're starting to find a voice and fight back it makes him nervous. I guess he thinks we should stick with the same prescription of being nice and taking it from the right that has lost us the senate, house and white house. This makes me sick :puke:

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

[Maeve]

1. No, he says "tone it down"

The level of vitriol turns many people off to politics and away from the screamers. I agree with him--I detested it from the Newt and I find it just as disgusting from the left. It's the sort of incivility Skinner has tried to limit here at DU.

[Don Claybrook]

2. But his comments are directed solely at Democrats

The entire column reads as though the onus were on Democrats and that Republicans need not make any changes. All of his advice is directed toward Democrats.

Kristof did, however, hold up the shining example of George W. Bush:

"The left should have learned from Newt Gingrich that rage impedes understanding — and turns off voters. That's why President Bush was careful in 2000, unlike many in his party, to project amiability and optimism."

Is that the sort of statement that's really designed to get Democrats to mend their vitriolic ways? I think Kristof knows better than that.

It was a weak appeal, and not a very good column, in my opinion.

[jobycom]

8. Read it again, you'll see he says Democrats are lowering themselves

to Republican levels. He starts off by condemning the Republicans for acting in a way we found detestable, then says we are in danger of becoming what we detested in them.

Many of us here at DU have been saying that a while.

As for whether the article is well-written, I agree it isn't his best work. It's weak in its examples and not specific in its arguments. I suspect he didn't want us to react the way we are, and so wishy-washed his point a bit.

[HootieMcBoob]

13. wishy-washy sums it up

it's what he thinks is the best tactic for dems. if getting angry is such a bad idea how is it that it's worked so well for the republicans. they control every branch of the government including the media. I disagree with him entirely.

[jobycom]

29. What has worked for the Republicans

Is a campaign of continuous lies and smears combined with a willingness to fix elections. That's where you want us to be?

Again, and this should be very simple-- if we alienate over half the voters, we CANNOT mathematically win. EVER. Are you arguing with this?

As for the article being wishy washy, my point is that he toned down the criticism of Democrats, not that he wanted us to be wishy-washy.

[HootieMcBoob]

33. nobody ever said anything about lies and smears

where do you get that? You have to throw the truth back at them in a way that gets attention. Not a wish-washy way. Don't allow them to speak over you. We don't have to lie. We have the truth. All we have to do is expose them for what they are but the only way to do that is to call attention to it and you don't do that by toning it down.

[sangh0]

52. you are making a HUGE mistake

"Angry" is not the only way to avoid appearing "wishy-washy". Kristof argued that the anger and hatred on our part will not help us because it turns off a lot of people, Democrats included. Your argument is based on a false dichotomy : Either be anger or be wishy-washy

That's childishly simplistic. We have more choices than anger or wishy-washy. Here are some other alternatives:

smart
effective
persuasive
reasonable
compassionate

[9215]

60. You are the one making a mistake

smart
effective
persuasive
reasonable
compassionate

But, as hootie said, you have to get their attention first.



Kristof is wrong. Anger and the expression of it was a key component in drawing peoples attention to the Vietnam War. People that are witnesses to the atrocities committed in war, as the US was in Vietnam, and is today, are hardly going to be "turned off" by people raising hell about it in the streets.

People that wax sensitive about the anger expressed by those protesting and not by what they are protesting are sick, warped mother*&^)#@%.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[9215]

70. reading comprehension low: you misrepresent what I said.

Never said anger was the only way of getting attention but was an effective way. For example Hootie's anger in this post drew attention to it. I know it drew me to it and I am sure it drew others to it, including you.

You have a problem with expressing anger? Even when things make you angry?

I said "a" you said "the" key component. You misread the post here. What are you claiming, that the protests were not "a" key component in drawing peoples attention to Vietnam War? That the activism of the protesters, the Kent State murders, the SDS "invasion" of the 68' Democratic National Convention where not an important factor in drawing attention to the subject of the Vietnam War????????


When you answer this question I'll reply to the rest of your rejoinder, which is riddled with misinterpretation and gibberish.

[sangh0]

75. You said without anger we can't get attention

and if you go back and read what you wrote ("Anger and the expression of it was a key component in drawing peoples attention to the Vietnam War") you will see how you clearly imply that if we don't express anger, then we won't get attention.

What are you claiming, that the protests were not "a" key component in drawing peoples attention to Vietnam War?

No, I'm claiming that it wasn't anger that attracted attention to the VN War; It was the deaths of thousands of Americans that drew attention. Without the deaths, the angry protesters would not have gotten much attention. Without the anger, the deaths still would have gotten a lot of attention.

That the activism of the protesters, the Kent State murders, the SDS "invasion" of the 68' Democratic National Convention where not an important factor in drawing attention to the subject of the Vietnam War????????

Interesting note: After the Kent State deaths, polls showed a majority disagreeing with the protesters. Many thought the protesters got what they deserved. The same thing happened after the 68 DNC Convention riots.

The point here is that anger is not going to get you the kind of attention you're seeking. Even your own examples make it clear that anger breeds hostility to the cause the angry are trying to further. Anger didn't help the SDS, the Black Panthers, or the VN War protesters.

You have a problem with expressing anger? Even when things make you angry?

I have no "problem" expressing anger. However, I find it rarely contributes to a solution.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

84. Nope. It wasn't the anger, it was the idea

that drew the attention that helped end the war. And whatever attention you was drawn with anger, was not the sort of attention you desire. There's nothing evasive about that.

You are saying that the Vietnam war protests contributed nothing to drawing peoples attention to the war. THAT is what you are saying SangO, by not answering my question (yes or no) to that effect.

No, I am saying it wasn't the anger of the protesters that drew attention that helped end the war; It was the injustice of the situation, which was made clear by body bags.

But what is abundantly clear is that the anger expressed by Hootie on this topic drew peoples attention including YOURS and now you are denying it even as you respond to it. When people make noise it attracts attention and you deny this.

I am not denying that anger draws attention. I am saying

a) Anger draws the wrong kind of attention and decreases support for your goals
b) There are better ways to draw ttention than exploiting anger.

[Terwilliger]

72. Some people need to respect their opponents

Reagan was ignorant, but he acted like he was all good...people bought it, and they're trying to lionize him.

When an idiot is shouting at you, he won't listen unless you shout back.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[9215]

85. Thanks for the tip, but

me thinks he may not be as much of an idiot as he appears. ;)

[Terwilliger]

87. he who? I was talking about most conservatives

I'm sorry to have missed all the deletions though :shrug:

[sangh0]

88. 9215 is having a reception problem

9215 seems to be getting emotional. 9215 thinks everyone's posts are about 9215

[Terwilliger]

89. maybe he's just fighting that infamous 'sangha sanctimony'?

:shrug:

[sangh0]

90. It's possible

:shrug:

[regnaD kciN]

103. Huh?

Here are some other alternatives:

smart
effective
persuasive
reasonable
compassionate

Yep, being all those things is what has caused the Republicans to capture every branch of government, right?

:eyes:

[regnaD kciN]

102. The fallacy in your statement...

Again, and this should be very simple-- if we alienate over half the voters, we CANNOT mathematically win. EVER. Are you arguing with this?

...is that you are assuming, without any proof, that fighting back will "alienate" undecided voters. If showing anger and attacking your foes alienates people, then the Republican Party would have gone out of business long ago. However much you and Kristof want to ignore it, the overwhelming evidence of the last thirty-five years is that anger and hatred directed against a candidate or party will generally result in the defeat of that candidate or party, and not the attacker.

[regnaD kciN]

101. Well, if "lowering yourself"...

...means that you capture the White House and both chambers of Congress, then lower away!

That's the point that Kristof misses -- vitriol and hatred haven't been shown to be 'losing attitudes' at the polls. On the contrary, they have proven themselves to be the most potent electoral weapons of the past thirty-five years. We may all wish this wasn't so, but wishing it away won't work.

Put it another way. (Consider this the Charlton Heston fantasy.) Imagine that there was a city with an overwhelming number of armed muggings. Over the course of a year, maybe half the population would become victims of a holdup at gunpoint. Finally, the law-abiding citizens decided to fight back, and armed themselves. Just as mugging rates were beginning to decline precipitously, some national columnist started chiding the citizens of that city for carrying guns. Don't they realize, the columnist sniffed, that armed citizens only hastened lawlessness and a breakdown of civil society?

:crazy:

[9215]

10. I agree, this is not

about civility it is about shutting the Left up. The Right uses this tactic often. They claim that the dems aren't being civil.

By that extension the Right can impeach a president for getting a blow job, while a fascist maniac Simian pResident in their own midst who leads the country into a pre-emptive war on false premises killing and wounding thousands and sacking the country (Iraq and the US) in the process is supported to the bitter end. They are shallow, callow, gutless wonders lead by chickenhawks.

[Maeve]

11. I don't see it that way at all

First, he does slam the savage "Snarling Right", and says "it is utterly hypocritical for conservatives to complain about liberal incivility". And "At this rate, soon we'll all be so rabid that Ann Coulter will seem normal" most definitely says she isn't normal now.

Dubya DOES have a reputation, however undeserved, of amiability--he has seduced many of the media and the public with his "bushit" phony folksy appeal.

Yes, Kristof aims at Democrats--he knows his audience. he isn't writing for the "Snarling Right", they stopped listening to him ages ago. He's warning the folks who still might believe in the ideals of liberality, civil discourse and respect for differences of opinion.

[regnaD kciN]

104. Not quite...

First, he does slam the savage "Snarling Right", and says "it is utterly hypocritical for conservatives to complain about liberal incivility". And "At this rate, soon we'll all be so rabid that Ann Coulter will seem normal" most definitely says she isn't normal now.

Yes, but where was Kristof when the Republicans were the only game in town when it came to hate-mongering? Was he out there blasting them? Furthermore, when he saw that such extremist attacks were leading the Republicans to victory on a regular basis, did he write anything chiding voters for falling prey to such negativity, or suggesting that things would not get better until the voting public refused to be moved by partisan hatred?

I didn't think so. It's only when Democrats start doing the same that it becomes cause for alarm.

Sorry, but it seems to me like Kristof has a double-standard working here. Republicans, it would appear, are allowed to spew extremist hatred at will, because "that is what Republicans do," and therefore is no more worthy of blame than when a wild animal attacks someone in the forest. On the other hand, if Democrats respond even somewhat in kind (i.e. showing anger but not lies), they are to be condemned, because Democrats and the left are supposed to be "better than that" -- we're supposed to be "gentlemanly," no matter what is done to us. We can't win.

:grr:

[flpoljunkie]

47. My email response to Nicholas regarding "Hold the Vitriol"...

You neglected to mention that the great Molly Ivins wrote the article you mention from The Progressive magazine. Molly Ivins does not hate Bush, and the article made her case against the ruinous policies of Bush--without vitriol. I can only surmise that you did not read the article as you deliberately choose to mischaracterize her argument.

Here is how she ends it:

"It is not necessary to hate George W. Bush to think he's a bad President. Grownups can do that, you know. You can decide someone's policies are a miserable failure without lying awake at night consumed with hatred."

"Poor Bush is in way over his head, and the country is in bad shape because of his stupid economic policies. If that makes me a Bush-hater, then sign me up."

[9215]

51. Nice! Christof is a liar as well

He is denigrating Ivins, not on content, but on the "indelicate" way she says it, which implies she may be less than credible.....

Very good letter.

[Dhalgren]

3. What he is saying is

that if the "Left" keeps up its "vitriol" against the "Right" there could very well be a "civil war". And if that happens, the "Left" will lose. He is saying that the left is out of touch with the mainstream of America - and he may be right. But so what? If the mainstream of America is wrong, what should be done? Nothing? Maybe he is right, but he is clearly warning the left that the right is willing and able to take this conflict to a physical level. Just MHO

[9215]

26. You see what he does?

Kristof very cleverly blames the Left for any future civil war. He is saying to the Left to shut up, don't provoke the Right, be calm collected, civil and LOSE!

It is probably more of a reflection of his own lost battle with his moral conciousness where his "Left" lost to his "Right".

The righteous won the first Civil War, why not this one. Besides if something doesn't change, and soon, we are all going to lose to this fascist cabal--Bush is destroying this country.

[jobycom]

35. I don't think you read the article

That's not at all what he says. He's not talking about fighting Bush, or about pointing out that Bush is lying, and he's not condemning righteous indignation and anger. He's condemning us slashing and burning. He's saying that when we attack Americans, not just Bush policies, we will divide the nation, and lose.

Read recent DU activity. Read the attacks on Christians. On southerners. On moderates. On "sheeple." It's one thing to try to show people that we are right, and even shout while doing it, it's quite another to spew hatred on them and treat them as subhuman.

Democrats ARE acting like Ann COulter. The difference is, Coulter is a fringe fanatic to the Republicans. We are in danger of that attitude becoming our core principle. WE are becoming the party of elitists, and that will destroy our ideology a lot more quickly than any of Bush's lies.

[HootieMcBoob]

40. if coulter is fringe

how is it that she's on pratically every television news show on cable? She's a NYT best selling author! She's not fringe. She reflects the ideas and opinions of a large number of Republicans.

[9215]

53. BLAM!!

You nailed it.


a :toast: to the downfall of our Simian CIC.

[9215]

71. Damn, the more I think about it

you have material for a strong case that the "mainstream" media is Right-Wing fringe. How's that for an oxymoron?

[9215]

48. Christof is full of shit period

This guy characterizes a heated discussion and some pissed off people who e-mail him as counterproductive. He ignores the historical precedents of "uncivility" that worked to wake people up.

As I said below, people who worry about rules of etiquette while their countrymen are being slaughtered and slaughtering innocent people in a war started by a fascist pResident who lied to get us into that war for his own narrow personal political and financial interests are people with seriously misplaced priorities.

If you don't like the manner in which the message is being sent contact Miss Manners and discuss it.

[stickdog]

96. What a joke.

I couldn't disagree more on all counts.

[SemperEadem]

100. Is that a bumper sticker?

If not, it should be!!!!!!

[jfxgillis]

5. While I agree you and Kristof in principle

HootieMcBoob has it right.

What Kristof fails to mention is that the Republicans WON with these tactics. They've taken the House and kept it. They won an open Oval Office.

They intimdated the mainstream press. They got swing voters to vote conservative just so the screamers would pipe down.

It was not, for instance, until loudmouth vitiolic liberals started shrieking about Trent Lott's Thurmond tribute that Lott became an issue.

I'm sorry, I yearn for a responsible public discourse as much as or more than you or Kristof, but UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT is no solution. What evidence does Kristof have that Southern swing voters will get "turned off" and the Dems will lose? Oh, but there's TONS of evidence (see: Max Cleland) that when we let the righty-screamers shriek unrebutted, Dems lose.

[jobycom]

4. He's largely right, though he doesn't come close to saying shut up

A lot of DUers make the same argument. The real difference between Democrat and Republican is not about what issues we scream about but about how much we scream. The Republicans are the party of exclusion-- blacks, women, poor, and anyone who thinks are left out, and insulted. That's the real Reagan legacy.

But our answer isn't to become the party that excludes Republicans. I vote Democrat purely because we are the party that includes ALL sides, even Confederate flag waving pickup driving southerners. I can oppose the waving of the flag, try to change the symbolism in people's minds, but once I begin to insult the people and their beliefs, I've become a Republican, not a Democrat.

That's where the parties are really merging. It isn't in issues like corporate money, NAFTA, etc. It's in attitude towards others. It's my biggest problem with the Greens.

WE-- liberals-- ARE becoming a group of elitists every bit as xenophobic and exclusionary as the Republicans. And to me there's no point in even voting if that's the case. I don't want to see an America where my side gets to beat up on their side any more than where their's beats up on ours.

That's not to say we should roll over, wave the confederate flag, and let Bush do what he wants. But we need to figure out who and what we are fighting for, not just against, and if what we are fighting for isn't best for ALL people (not just AMericans) then we need to keep figuring until it is.

[jfxgillis]

7. He certainly does

He's saying Dems should forego a demonstrably effective tactic because ... because ... because why?

Basically because the noise is bothering him.

When one party is screaming and the other is whispering, the crowd only hears the screamers. This ain't brain surgery.

[HootieMcBoob]

9. that's my point exactly n/t

n/t

[jobycom]

16. You didn't read it well

He doesn't say "because it's bothering him", he says because we are in danger of alienating most of America, and in a Democracy it is not possible to win when you alienate most of America.

And I don't care if the tactic worked, it's wrong, and we should stick to our principles. If our principles are still equality and inclusion, that is. And when the worm turns, we could be left holding the bag and looking like the meanies.

Remember the bully in high school? He would slap some kid in the back of the head when the teacher wasn't looking, and keep doing it until the kid finally slapped him back. The teacher always caught the kid fighting back, never the bully. America is starting to disapprove of Bush and of Republican tactics-- the teacher's head is starting to turn. If we start slapping back, WE will get blamed.

[Dhalgren]

25. Kristol wants the Dems to lose.

If he gives you advice, do the opposite. As far as the "big tent" goes, we should accept everyone into the tent who agrees with our basic beliefs, but if you are a racist or a Nazi or a reverse Robin Hood I don't really give a damn what your party is - as long as it isn't mine.

[jobycom]

39. Whoa. Kristof. Not Kristol. Big difference.

If you are confusing William Kristol for Nicholas Kristof, you will wind up shooting the wrong enemy. Kristol is a right wing fanatic who works for FOX news. Kristof opposed the Bush invasion of Iraq and led the attack against the Niger documents.

If it were Kristol, I'd disagree with him on principle alone.

[jfxgillis]

95. But the core fact is FALSE

We are NOT in danger of alienating most Americans.

We're in danger of alienating pissant pseudo-liberals like Kristof and David Broder.

There is no contradiction between the principles of inclusion and eqality and the tactics of heaping scorn on our adversaries so long as they heap scorn on us. Does your pretty plan for "inclusion" presume that we include those who despise inclusion.

I don't care if teacher catches us. If we lose, we lose. But we're GUARANTEED to lose if we allow ourselves to be bullied.

[stickdog]

98. You and Kristof are pathetic.

Remember the bully in high school? He would slap some kid in the back of the head when the teacher wasn't looking, and keep doing it until the kid finally slapped him back. The teacher always caught the kid fighting back, never the bully. America is starting to disapprove of Bush and of Republican tactics-- the teacher's head is starting to turn. If we start slapping back, WE will get blamed.

So we should just keep getting punched in the head without complaining and without the teacher ever noticing, right?


Because we wouldn't want to be BLAMED, right?

[regnaD kciN]

106. Huh?????

He doesn't say "because it's bothering him", he says because we are in danger of alienating most of America, and in a Democracy it is not possible to win when you alienate most of America.

Then how did the Republicans win over and over using that strategy?


And I don't care if the tactic worked, it's wrong, and we should stick to our principles.

How pathetic. Since when is fighting back when attacked "wrong?" By that standard, of course, we would still be Her Majesty's Colonies...unless the British also followed your standard of right and wrong, in which case we would, for the past sixty or so years, have been part of the Thousand-Year Reich.

:crazy:

[regnaD kciN]

105. ...because it's not POLITE!

Don't we realize that our job is to serve as the conservative's punching bag? Sure, we may lose every election, but at least we can hold our head high in defeat, knowing that we didn't stoop to the level of the victors.

:crazy:

[9215]

19. And now the Right gets us in an introspection syndrome.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

WE-- liberals-- ARE becoming a group of elitists every bit as xenophobic and exclusionary as the Republicans. And to me there's no point in even voting if that's the case. I don't want to see an America where my side gets to beat up on their side any more than where their's beats up on ours.

You never hear the Repig fascists question their own like you are doing here. There sick pursuit of power is for its own sake. The SOBS have every goddamn thing they went after, EVERYTHING--politics, economy, and the Press and you act as if we are playing in something other than a rigged game.

The Left should flip this shit right back in their faces all the time and ignore these accusations of incivility UNTIL the Right, WHICH NEVER DOES, acknowledges its own.

[HootieMcBoob]

21. Amen brother

:toast:

[jobycom]

23. Ah, so since Repubs don't care, we shouldn't either?

The strategy works for them because people aren't paying attention. When they start-- like when everything goes wrong-- they will start. You will have compromised yourself and STILL not won.

There's a line from a Who song that describes the result you want. See if you can come up with it without my help.

[HootieMcBoob]

27. compromised?

I beg your pardon but how does shouting the truth and getting angry amount to compromising ourselves? They shoult lies over and over the big lie that is so outrageous that the people can't believe that they would actually lie about it so they accept it as truth. Come on! When Democrats get a freaking backbone and fight back things will change. I don't believe that this contry is full of right-wing fundamentalists. There are tons of people out there who don't vote at all. I think it's because they don't think there's a difference between the two parties because they never hear anything from Democrats and what makes us different and what makes us angry. If we shout out loud from the mountain tops what is fucked up about george bush and his administration we will be much better off. But then again maybe we should just tone it down and let rush, and hannity, and savage and coulter and o'reilly and those guys be the one's to set the agenda and allow them to shout down any liberal who tries to be polite on their shows. Which do you think is a better strategy? Shouting from the mountain tops or toning it down?

[jobycom]

42. Umm, you haven't read what you think you read

He doesn't say don't shout the truth. Read it again. He is talking about the type of vitriol spewed around here after Dean's comments, when not only the Confederate Flag was attacked, but Dean was almost ousted because he simply said he wanted to appeal to people who flew the flag as well as to others.

Can you see the difference between trying to convert people, and telling people we will not allow them in our party? That's what Kristof is saying. Read it again, more slowly, less angrily. Kristof is not the raving conservative that some here seem to think he is. One post seemed to think we were talking about William Kristol.

No one is saying don't campaign, don't shout the truth, don't fight back. He is saying don't hate, don't exclude. Don't become the Republicans.

[9215]

61. You don't understand what you think you read.

You are missing the forest for the trees.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

69. Your posts in this thread are uncivil and obscene

You call anyone who doesn't see things exactly the way you do "sick", "perverted", etc and you do this several times in this thread. You are also not above using obscene language.

[Touchdown]

62. "That deaf, dumb, blind kid...

sure plays a mean Pinball." ??? ;-)

Or is it..."Tommy, can you hear me?" which is more like what we're going through with the screaming right, right now.

[regnaD kciN]

107. I'll see your Who song, and raise you a Kenny Rogers...

There's a line from a Who song that describes the result you want.

There's a opening line from a Kenny Rogers song that describes the result we have so far gotten with the approach Kristof advocates:

Everyone considered him the coward of the county.

:grr:

[RapidCreek]

111. The strategy works for them because Americans don't respect

those who behave, look or sound like pussies. It makes no difference whether the "pussy" is right or wrong. If he acts like a pussy or looks like a pussy he is loser material. That's why half of the members of this board don't like Kucinich....he doesn't "look or act presidential". IE, he looks like a pussy and has a squeaky little voice. If he were a 6 foot 3 gray back with a baritone voice, those who deem him "unpresidential" would get woodys or get wet respectively.

Why the hell do you think Ahnuld Swatzenegaa is the Governor of CA? You think it is because of his genteel persona? Maybe it's the deep and compelling intellect he exhibits. No, it's because his career has burned a fantasy image into the minds of Californians, which most seek to live through vicariously. He is appealing to them as a politician for the same reason he is appealing to them as an actor....it is not because of who he is or the quality of his work...it is because of what he represents. A sweaty, violent oversexed, meat puppet who every sad, sorry, beaten down wanna be hard guy wishes he was and every sad, sorry, beaten down bimbo fantasizes over. He has successfully created the image of a fighter, tough, ambitious and unrelenting.

The way to get people to notice you is to give them something to notice. It was stated in a post above that Rethuglicans appeal to hate. I disagree. Rethuglicans appeal to anger. Hate is a caused by anger. Both are precipitated by discomfort. Rethuglicans have learned to create discomfort and harness the anger and subsequent hatred which results to their advantage. Through well crafted charismatic means, they convince the electorate to direct their anger and hatred away from themselves and at the weak pussies that they have hypnotized them into believing caused it. The weak, egalitarian minded, elitist pussies who they keep on the defensive (liberals). Americans are angry. They want a voice. They insist on a hero through which to express their anger. We can give them one and help them to direct their anger and hatred toward those who cause their discomfort or we can keep getting slapped in the head, running away and suffering their wrath.

Most of us don't look like Ahnuld or Rompin Ronny. We don't have rich daddies that can create a media mirage of the cowboy hero, in spite of the fact that we may have gone AWOL or driven every business he bought us into the ground. What do we have? We have an intellect. We know the difference between right and wrong and we attempt to live within egalitarian constraints. That's not enough though. We need to start behaving as fighters, tough, ambitious and unrelenting. We need to go on the offensive. We need to start calling a spade a spade. We need to embrace the anger of the American public and direct the hatred it breeds at those who propogated it. I'll say it, I hate George Bush. I hate the man and everything he stands for. Why? Because I, unlike the vast majority of Americans, recognize the simple fact, that he hates me. He starts wars in third world shitholes and wants me and my kid to fight in them, while he and his pals contemplate the quickest way to ship my job there as soon as the evil doers run out of bullets. If and when I get home he tells me I should be happy working for ten grand a year at Walmart selling products from that third world shithole, products I used to get paid a decent salary to make. He forcibly brings children into the world then advocates starving them, keeping them and their mothers unhealthy and uneducated so they too can learn the Walmart cheer and sell stuff from third world shit holes. Stuff the people who live in those third world shitholes cannot afford to buy themselves. He seeks to turn the country my father and my fathers father built into a third world shithole, all the while stuffing his pockets full of MY MONEY. When you are faced with an evil of this magnitude you don't address it with effete pleasantry. You point your finger at it, call it what it is, chase it down, unceremoniously stomp it into a greasy spot and make an example of it. You want to be "nice" and take your place on the cattle car? Go ahead....I'll be sure to inscribe on your tombstone "Here lies a real nice guy....a nice dead guy".

RC

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bronco69]

12. Freeper Alert!!

[truthspeaker]

15. Incivility disgusts me too

as does dishonesty. But they seem to work with the voters, as the Rethugs have proven. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, I'm not in favor of unilateral disarmament.

[Alenne]

14. Yeah you are "dumm" nt

[9215]

44. Oh, darn it, I was gonna

point that out, but you beat me to it. :)

[leftynyc]

20. Have you been borrowing Rush's "medicine"

I understand Kristoff's point but I also understand the deep anger of the Dems. After 8 years of Clinton is a murderer, rapist and being called a scumbag by a Congressman, now the right is whining about how mean we are. Bunch of wusses.

[jobycom]

22. Well, at least you signed it properly

But no shame, my man. When Limbaugh stole that term from the intellectual academics he claims to hate, he just sort of dropped it in the laps of his listeners and knew they wouldn't question him. Congrats.

On the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy-- most conservative columnists admit it was real, but claim "it is over." As for Rumsfield protecting us from "Islamic extremists," he didn't do a very good job on 9-11, did he? What, Bush couldn't bother to read the memo on his desk (the on Condeleeza Rice admitted was there, but that Bush might not have even read)? And ask the Italians this morning exactly how successful he has been at heading off "Islamic extremists." They might spit in your face.

Glad to see you admit that Bush lied about WMD, though. Acceptance will make your conversion easier. As for Clinton lying about them in 1998, that's not what he said. He claimed Hussein was blocking the inspectors, and this implied that he was working on them, and he bombed MILITARY targets until Hussein complied again. And of course unless you really are completely DUMBED DOWN, you do know that Clinton didn't sell any secrets to the Chinese-- even the Republican Congressional investigation concluded that the secrets had been transferred during the previous Bush administration.

Cheer up, dude. Reading DU is the first step to a cure to the DD syndrome. A little truth, a lot more honesty, and some actual facts for a change, are like a shot of penicillin, and may just chase those Republican germs away. (Read David Corn's new book, maybe it will help).

[Catherine Vincent]

56. You got one thing right, George W. Bush is far too stupid.

[Snellius]

17. The depth of Kristof's shallowness is abysmal

Kristof just seems to think this is all a matter of Democrats having a chronic bad hair day. He has no clue why people are so mad. He seems to see some significance in the fact the more Americans have turned away from the Democratic Party to evangelical Christianity. As if Democrats are out of touch because they don't worship Jerry Falwell. Fundamentalist Christianity is not Christian. It's reactionary politics using religion as an ideological cover.

[regnaD kciN]

108. His comments on Christianity were especially abysmal...

Since Americans are three times as likely to believe in the virgin birth of Jesus as in evolution, liberal derision for President Bush's religious beliefs risks marginalizing the left.

Kristof continues the canard that "conservative = religious" and "liberal = secularist." In other words, the only reason liberals have for criticizing Bush's religiosity would be that they themselves are unbelievers, and are thus attacking Christianity in general.

To put it politely, this is a mendacious piece of garbage. I've been a practicing Christian all my life...as are most of the liberal friends I know. The reason we are not conservatives is specifically that we view that political philosophy as fundamentally inconsistent with our calling to be followers of Jesus. And, if we criticize Bush for putting on a show of religious devotion while joking about executions, or condemn the Religious Right for construcing an idolatrous "Christianity without Jesus," we do so from our own religious convictions.

But, to Kristof, it is all very simple: if you criticize the Religious Right, you are doing so because you are anti-religious. Of course, if you don't criticize the Religious Right, they have the field of public opinion to themselves, with no one to counter their claim that "you can't be Christian and liberal." In one case, we supposedly alienate the voters; in the other, we allow the Right to alienate the voters from us. Heads you win, tails we lose.

Sorry if I'm not buying it.

[RapidCreek]

115. Beautifully said!

RC

[kentuck]

18. Some of the above posts seem to validate his points...

Interesting comments to ignore:


<snip>
The most striking cleavage is the God Gulf, and it should terrify the Democrats. Put simply, liberals are becoming more secular at a time when America is becoming increasingly religious, the consequence of a new Great Awakening. Americans, for example, are significantly more likely now than in 1987 to say they "completely agree" that "prayer is an important part of my daily life" and that "we all will be called before God on Judgment Day to answer for our sins."

The Pew survey found that white evangelicals are leaving the Democratic Party in droves. Fifteen years ago, white evangelicals were split equally between the two parties; now they're twice as likely to be Republicans. Likewise, white Catholics who attend Mass regularly used to be strongly Democratic; now they are more likely to be Republican.

Since Americans are three times as likely to believe in the virgin birth of Jesus as in evolution, liberal derision for President Bush's religious beliefs risks marginalizing the left.

<snip>
The left should have learned from Newt Gingrich that rage impedes understanding — and turns off voters. That's why President Bush was careful in 2000, unlike many in his party, to project amiability and optimism.

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.

[jobycom]

24. Nod. nt/

nt

[JackRiddler]

64. Sorry, an entirely dishonest article...

First off, his only "factual" source is an opinion survey by one of these perpetual polling mills. ("More Americans were likely to scratch their noses this week than last, our poll found, a trend experts say indicates blah blah.")

Once again, we can presume that 70 percent of those approached for the survey refused to participate, meaning that as with nearly all opinion studies since the birth of PR during World War I, its truth value is zero. Its manipulation value, however, is high - especially in the way it defines the categories in which we are supposed to think. (What is left, what is conservative, etc.) Read this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=691732

Otherwise the argument qualifies as "centrist bias." It assumes the standard American political spectrum as something self-evident and immutable. It assigns points of view along that spectrum and gives all of these views "some" credence.

It pretends that moderacy within that spectrum must be the best course, as in, "the right says this, the left says that, so the truth must be somewhere in between." This all serves to reinforce status quo and hide uncomfortable truths.

The uncomfortable truth in this case is that the United States under Bush is transitioning to open fascism, and Kristoff is entirely missing the point with his calls for "civility."

Civility is an essential thing, but one can remain civil and yet call a spade, a spade.

As for the God gap: talk about believing the right-wing propaganda. More "God" on TV, ergo this is what more people really think? In reality, the fundamentalists peaked by the mid-1990s. The 1996 and 1998 elections were practically referendums on fundamentalism, and it lost. This is why they have gotten even more shrill and insane since then.

And what a hypocrite. (You can read between the lines and tell how seriously he takes virgin birth as one opinion among many - not at all! - but in the name of civility, he's trying to scare everyone "on the left" into pretend-tolerance for obvious pablum.)

[vision]

65. why did/are fundamentalist Christians turning from Dems?

If you have not been to a fundamentalist church in the past 15 years you might well wonder why. Has the fundmentalist just turned Republican in the past two years, basically how long Dems have been saying anything negative about Bush? That seems highly unlikely as I was a member of a funamental church in the mid-90's and thier were few that would admit that they were Dems.

So the voting guides have not influenced the Fundies to vote Republican? The drumbeat that President Clinton and as a reult Dems are evil and support the killing of babies that has come from the fundie pulpit has not influenced these voters to become Republican? An active member of a fundie church meets 2-3 times a week for 3 hours at a shot and along with the Christian message is the message that the Dems are wrong if not evil. This along with another 3 hours of Rush on the radio everyday. This did nothing to turn people to Republicans did it? It has all been the fault of Democrats for having a big tent and not being so judgemental and more secular.

Okay so now some Demos are being judgemental and trying to stand up for some principles but are being too shrill? I think it is too little but hopefully not too late. Smack them down baby!

[Classical_Liberal]

112. The religious right has turned the religious against us

We have let them do it too, through alot of really bad fcc ruling that could have easily been reversed under Clinton, but weren't.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. I think we can be strong and steadfast without

getting our own Ann Coulters and Jonah Goldbergs.

I remember from the days of the anti-Vietnam War movement that even people who were sympathetic would be turned off by the occasional protestor who railed against "bloodthirsty fascist imperialist pigs."

Such expressions are not for public consumption.

Think of your movie archetypes, because those are the images that are in the minds of the American people. The strong, silent hero is a fixture in countless films.

Unfortunately, the Democrats have too often been silent without being strong. In fact, they've often been AWOL. That's even worse than raving, because then they're ignored or dismissed as irrelevant.

However, you can be a Robert Byrd, standing up courageously for the truth, or a Molly Ivins, landing clever zingers, without spewing sulfuric acid over everything within a twenty-foot radius.

[jobycom]

30. Damn, Lydia, that's a great post. nt

,

[HootieMcBoob]

31. who are our Coulters and Goldbergs?

Who are the liberal Coulters and Goldbergs that have gotten so many people's panties in a bunch? Al Franken? What lies has he spewed? When has he said that conservatives should be executed? Michael Moore? When has he said that terrorist should fly their plane into fox news? I just don't think they're out there. I just don't see any left wing sulfuric acid spewing. Granted there will always be a random spewer but what are people hearing, really? I don't hear any liberal voices in the mainstream media and all? All the spewing comes from the right and yet Kristof takes exception to the left? His whole problem seems to be with the fact that fundamentalist christians don't feel welcome here. Well the reason might be that they (fundamentalists) are not inclusive and don't feel comfortable in a party that accepts all kinds of different people.

[Snellius]

37. Exactly

It's amazing how many people seem to think that Al Franken or Michael Moore are no different than Coulter or O'Reilly. There is a difference between righteous indignation and cynical sophistry. The left is fundamentally positive in its message, funny, sarcastic, open, altruistic; the right is fundamentally reactionary, humorless, Machiavellian, closed, and authoritarian.

[regnaD kciN]

109. True, but...

However, you can be a Robert Byrd, standing up courageously for the truth, or a Molly Ivins, landing clever zingers, without spewing sulfuric acid over everything within a twenty-foot radius.

...not when someone like Kristof characterizes every criticism of Bush or conservatives as intemperate "hatred," and only sees "evidence" that backs up his point.

You mention Molly Ivins. Surely you noticed that he singled out an article of hers (well, not the article, merely the headline out-of-context) as evidence for his claim:

The latest Progressive magazine features the article "Call Me a Bush-Hater"...

And that's exactly the problem -- Kristof is taking anything we say or write to support our position, and declaring it to be "vitriol," "hatred," or "incivility."

[RapidCreek]

114. The thing is...

the average Rethuglican claims Molly Ivins and Robert Byrd ARE spewing sulfuric acid over everything within a twenty foor radius. Frankly they are....that sulfuric acid is buffered with intellect however....an intellect which unfortunately escapes the sort who vote for the Ronald Reagans, George Bushes and Ahnul Swatzenegas of the world. So what we have are folks who are preachin to the choir.

Therein lies the problem.

RC

[9215]

32. Whenever a Right-Wing

pig tells you to be civil tell him/her to FUCK OFF!

Never do what the fascists and their sychophant enablers want you to do, ALWAYS do the opposite. If they are trying to bring order and stability it is for their own purposes (usually to subdue the righteous indignation of the opposition), if they are trying to create chaos, then try to bring stability.

FUCK UP THEIR AGENDA WHEREVER YOU CAN, HOWEVER YOU CAN short of violence.

IMO the continual bombardment of vitriol from the Left, perfectly justified, combined with intelligent rational discussion of the issues is hurting these bastards.

The Left may lose, or may win in a Civil War, but we are ALL going to lose if these fascist bastids aren't ousted and brought to justice.

[soupkitchen]

34. Be Nice to Nazis

Right Wingers have a long history of respectiving civility. And be sure to say thank you when they put the gun to the back of your head.

[TomNickell]

36. Not exactly.

He's talking about extreme statements. He's got a point--extreme statements about Bush and prejudice toward Southern white guys isn't helpful.

I think -he- is extreme in a couple of ways.

1. I'd rather have a civil war than let the RW loonies have their way.

2. I don't think the Southern White Guys (and other mainstream Repubs) have much sympathy for the RW loonies, either. Ask the avereage citizen of the Bible Belt whether he wants a Holy Roller Preacher as attorney general--He'll say 'Hell, No'.

[ibegurpard]

38. Unpleasant, strident rhetoric from the left

is not even anywhere close to matching the poison that is pumped into the American discourse on a daily basis from the right-wing machine. I question the agenda of anyone who suggests otherwise.

[kentuck]

46. It is natural for the right....

that's why it is successful for them and not for us. We are the peace party. They are the war party.

[w4rma]

43. When they fight you, you fight back or retreat. I prefer to fight. (n/t)

[soupkitchen]

45. Never forget who started the verbal goosestepping, the blitzkrieg of hate

[msmcghee]

49. Yeah, voters really turned against the pukes . .

. . for their nasty ways, didn't they.

Kristoff says - "A new report from the Pew Research Center says that America is more polarized now than at any time since its polling series began in 1987. Partly that's because it used to be just the Republicans who were intense in their beliefs, while now both sides are frothing."

Intense in their beliefs? He totally misses the concept that one can be intense in their beliefs and still be civil.

Democracy depends on a certain amount of goodwill from it's participants. It is the right that has trashed that idea thoroughly - to the point that dialogue is no longer possible - just vitriol. So, blow it out your ass Nick.

[TexasPatriot]

57. the far right pubs did tone it down 4 yrs ago

remember, Bush used his "I'm a uniter not a divider" line on the national stage to great effect.

I'm GLAD we're angry - it's about damned time we were, and i think the right is getting worried about the pendulum swing, but i still think we have to temper that anger with a positive vision. Channel the anger into something positive - something the freeps never did, and it turned them into a very sad group.

[msmcghee]

66. I'd like to think you are right.

That just by being positive - all will be just and fair and our democracy will be safe once again.

But I have reached the point where I believe things have gone too far for that.

Over the next few months I believe the US and the world will reap a particularly bitter harvest. The toxic seeds that were sown by McCarthy, Nixon, Gingrich and the BFEE - will have fully bloomed.

[regnaD kciN]

110. Toned it down...?????

Not from what I can see. Have Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly, Savage (not to mention Delay, Lott, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Perle, ad infinitum) toned anything down over the past four years? If anything, they've become more strident.

However, what they have done is to return to their old good cop-bad cop strategy of having an amiable front-man to cover the mud-slingers. In the 80s, it was "grandfatherly" Ronald Reagan. This time, it was W doing his "compassionate conservative" act. The act hasn't changed, merely the Master of Ceremonies.

And maybe that should be the lesson. There's nothing wrong with vitriol or hatred, as long as it's coming from underlings and hangers-on, not the actual person voters cast their ballots for. There, you need someone with charm and "moderation" that people can like on an instinctive basis, even if he or she is a pure figurehead. Use your "attack dogs" to destroy the opposition, but remember to have a "nice guy" up front so that people will vote for him and forget about the others.

Any suggestions of who would be the ideal figurehead?

[jobycom]

50. Everyone realizes Kristof is not a flaming right winger, right?

I'm getting the idea that some people have confused him with William Kristol. Kristof has been against Bush on Iraq, calling Bush on several lies. He's opposed to drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve. He's been critical of Bush's AIDs policy. He's not a flaming liberal, really. To me he seems like a sort of mainstream mirror with a polite voice, but more of his articles lately have attacked Bush than us.

Here's an article of his printed on TruthOut.org
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=3&num=209

William Kristol, on the other hand, is a right wing hack with no real merit.

I'm wondering after reading several comments about the right wing's tactics here if some people are confused about the source.

[9215]

55. The non-flaming Wingers are the worst

kind. The George Wills, W. F. Buckley and the less erudite Kristof try to make it appear they are even handed, while serving the Right's agenda. This tactic of condemning the Left for incivility is standard MO and I have seen people on the Left repeatedly fall for the bait and go into what I call an "introspection syndrome", something the Right NEVER does.

[jobycom]

59. Oh horseshit

He's no Buckley or Will. He's not very good, either, I'll grant you, but he's been on our side more than Bush's in the last couple of years.

Too much hate is killing this party, and at this point that is no longer the Republicans' fault. You seem really hung up on making us do whatever the right does. Does that extend further? Should we adopt their policies to win, or just their disgusting tactics? Becoming your enemy is victory for your enemy, not for you.

[9215]

63. What happened to your civility?

You seem to enjoy telling everyone else they don't know what they have read, but your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. I didn't equate Kristof with the other two Right-Wing assholes. Re-read the post.

[msmcghee]

67. There's a difference . .

. . between those who use hatred and division for their own purposes and against democratic values . . as a matter of course,

. . and those who repeatedly try to reason with them, just to be ridiculed and debased and called names such as traitors and cowards.

When the latter group finally decides that they've had enough . . then the habitual haters will find what true wrath is all about. And that's why civil wars happen.

[RapidCreek]

116. I call him the scarecrow.

Strawman extrodonaire. Another Colin Powell.

RC

[HootieMcBoob]

58. we know the difference between kristof and kristol

and that's why it's so upsetting.

[Atman]

54. TONE IT UP!

It is the LEFT that is called upon to change its ways.

"Get over it" if you will.

Why does Kristof call for the left to stop being vitriolic in response to the right's vitriol, but doesn't admonish the right for the vitriol in the first place?

Because he is just another right-wing hypocrite.

He made a lot of very salient points, not the least of which is how similar polarization in old Europe led to civil wars. I firmly believe we are on that track now. I think Kristof sees it, too. But, instead of telling both parties to "tone it down," he seems to think only the left has to. So the right can continue to walk all over us, I presume.'

"Get over it."

I say, TONE IT UP. Let's rumble.

[Scott Lee]

73. Kristol: Get slapped, and ask for more

Everything I learned about life I learned from a comfy chair political columnist scolding me for being rightfully angry.

Not.

I don't know what Bill Kristol was smoking before he wrote that load of trash, but I want some for a rainy day. Apparently, we on the Left who have been mercilessly knocked down, spat upon, insulted and even assaulted over the years by the lunatic right have no call to get all uppity and fight back. We are "bringing the system down" by doing so.

Apparently, we are being asked once again to turn the other cheek, don our crown of thorns and weep for humanity as we're bitchslapped in one election after another.

Mr. Kristol, for the most part we've complied with your formula for peace and prosperity over the last so many years. Know what it's gotten us? A loss of the presidency, a majority conservative cell in the Supreme Court, a rightwing Republican Congress, a rightwing controlled media, and daily excoriation in the press. Honestly, I don't think we can take much more of this "success", do you?

It's said that for everything there is a season. I still believe there will be a season for reconciliation and rebuilding. But it isn't now. Now is the time for confrontation and a will to see it through. I put my crown of thorns into the bottom drawer, put on my Kali-Ma Mother of Darkness belt of skulls, knife in my teeth, and prepare to fight until I dance gleefully on the bones of my enemy.

After the dust settles from that, I make nice; fully aware that I will elicit shock and horror from the comfy den harangues of the likes of Bill Kristol.

[msmcghee]

74. Please substitute Nicholas Kristof for Bill Kristol . .

in above post.

[Scott Lee]

92. sorry - thanks. My bad.

.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

77. Maeve, kentuck, and others have the best sentiments here

I don't see why we need to lower ourselves in the process of fighting. I prefer rationale debate over anger any day.

[9215]

86. Even when rationale debate is not working? Or needs a "boost"?

[stopbush]

79. Kristof has it wrong on this one.

Dean's juggernaut of a campaign is almost entirely based on anger, and it is working. The biggest complaint I hear about Dems from non-Dems I know is that we have no backbone. So, as soon as we develop one, our "friends" in the media tell us to tone it down? Right.

It's the same specious argument we hear when the rabid right is running roughshod over the Constitution - "why don't the Dems in Congress stand up to bush?" I would ask - why don't you call on REPUKES to do the same? No, the Dems are suppossed to be civil and hold the moral high ground on everything while the Rs toe the line and do whatever they want, trashing America in the process and winning elections over and over again.

Here's a telling tidbit from kristof's article:

"The most striking cleavage is the God Gulf, and it should terrify the Democrats. Put simply, liberals are becoming more secular at a time when America is becoming increasingly religious, the consequence of a new Great Awakening. Americans, for example, are significantly more likely now than in 1987 to say they "completely agree" that "prayer is an important part of my daily life" and that "we all will be called before God on Judgment Day to answer for our sins."

"The Pew survey found that white evangelicals are leaving the Democratic Party in droves. Fifteen years ago, white evangelicals were split equally between the two parties; now they're twice as likely to be Republicans. Likewise, white Catholics who attend Mass regularly used to be strongly Democratic; now they are more likely to be Republican.

"Since Americans are three times as likely to believe in the virgin birth of Jesus as in evolution, liberal derision for President Bush's religious beliefs risks marginalizing the left."

So, let's follow Kristof's logic: if Americans are now more likely to trust in witch doctors and exorcism than the legit medical community, we Dems better get on board with that or we risk being "marginalized." Since single-issue voters like white evangelicals are leaving the Dem party to join a race-baiting, anti-intellectual party whose leaders' embrace Jeebus not as a spiritual leader but as a polarizing political tool, the Dems need to stoop to their level of ignorance and dishonesty or we risk being "marginalized"? Since Americans are more likely to believe in a non-provable virgin birth expounded in the Xtian distillation of an ancient myth (that preceeded the Xtian adoption of said myth by centuries) while ignoring the scientific evidence of evolution, we Dems should work not to enlighten dim-witted Americans, but, rather, buy into the myth ourselves for dishonest political ends, thereby adding legitimacy to the lie (and disowning our own enlightenment in the process). What's next, Nick? A return to the Salem Witch Trial era? Great!

No thanks, Nick. Ain't gonna happen...and thank Odin for that!

On edit: it would be interesting to know what Kristof *would* allow Dems to be angry about? Apparently, illegal wars, lies, Patriot Acts, the murder of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, the needless death of hundreds of our troops for no good reason and other repuke lawlessness don't cut it for him (yet the RW can get all in a tizzy about removing a f*cking piece of granite placed illegally in a courthouse). Also on edit - changed Bill to Nick.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

80. Kristoff can kiss my....

ASS. You think that the Repugs got this way by playing nice?

:puke:

[ThorsteinVeblen]

83. RAAAAAGGGGGEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!

RAGE AGAINST THE DYING THE LIGHT.

Being angry, bitter and outraged has not hurt the Republican Party.

In fact, it has done nothing but help them. Help them destory regulation on corporations. Help them impeach a president. Help them intimidate the weak men who call themselves "liberals". Help them destroy the Democratic Party.

It is time to fight back. If Kristof doesn't like it, he better get the hell out of the way before he is plowed over.

The Democratic Party is already losing elections, by being the exact party Kristof wants it to be - weak, ineffectual, cowering, consiliatory.

[Terwilliger]

91. When a Dem stands up and the first thing he says is * is a traitor...

I'll trust him.

I think one of the problems the Democratic party has is that it tries to be all inclusive, when the point of the party is to be the opposition to the other side.

I think people on the right would respect Dennis Kucinich much more than the rest of the field because they know he's thinking from a relatively set liberal view, whereas most of the others (especially Lieberman) are just playing politics.

[MIMStigator]

93. He's a pansy n/t

n/t

[sangh0]

94. What do you have against pansies?

They are very beautiful flowers. Go pick on some mums!

[Uzybone]

97. Its a ridiculous and dishonest article

putting Molly ivins atricle up as an example of liberal hatred when the column in question was clearly not saying that is typical of these mainstream media types. Shouting that Kristoff opposed ANWR and the invasion just shows you have been thouroughly duped by these so called moderates in the press. They'll throw you a few bones here and there, but when its nut cutting time they bow down to power like the neo cons do. Comparing the rage over unfounded lies about Clinton to the righteous outrage over thousands dead is ridiculous as well.

[SemperEadem]

99. Perhaps, it's the numbers..

" I don't hear much left/democratic vitriol when I turn on the radio or when I watch TV. All I hear is non-stop right wing ranting. "

That's because:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A46442-2003May27¬Found=true



Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) cited a radio study that examined the nation's 44 top-rated stations over a week and found that they broadcast 312 hours of conservative talk programming, compared with 11 hours of liberal shows.

Dorgan pointed out that these stations are owned by only five companies, a fact he said demonstrates that fewer owners means less diversity of opinion. He asked Murdoch what he thought.

"Apparently, conservative talk radio is more popular," Murdoch replied.

Uh, maybe, perhaps if there were 156 hours of liberal talk programming instead of 11, then we could see if Murdoch's assertion is true. He draws an incorrect inference with his reply. Inundating the markets across the country with non-stop programming slanting to just one point of view is not, by its very definition,a fair and balanced approach to take.

[HootieMcBoob]

113. here's their logic

they say that liberals don't listen to talk radio.

Imagine a town that has only one store and that store sells candy only. They also put signs up outside of the store saying that they don't sell vegetables, or meat, or bread or dairy products and when you go inside the store there is non-stop condemnation of every food product except candy. So, as a result, everyone who goes into the store buys only candy. Then, the owner of the store comes to the conclusion that no one in the town eats vegetables or meat or bread or dairy products because the only thing ever purchased in the store is candy!

That's the way they think.

[incapsulated]

117. If Kristof's premise were true..

Then why are Moore and Franken's books so popular? Why is it that when liberals finally start taking off the gloves, they get popular and get airtime? Maybe people are sick of the one-sided fight that has been going on for years now.

Another difference is that the "anger" directed toward the Democrats in general and the left in particular was a purely manufactured and insincere campaign to discredit and blame us for every wrong done in the past half-century. The real anger that was so slow to express itself from the left, is a genuine outrage at both the policies of the right and at having been bullied by them for so long. Oh, and that little incident down in Florida was the final straw, btw.

We are afraid that this tactic will only work for the rethugs because we are not used to playing this game, I think. We are sure it will backfire because we are used to taking the "high road" and arguing ideas rather than slogans. We are afraid that we will become "as bad as them" if we "stoop" to such tactics.

I don't think we have a choice or much to lose, myself. Except our country, of course. Although we have to be careful, since we are not experienced at this, but we have always given the opposition far too much credit. They really are as stupid as they seem in many ways, that's why they resort to name calling and simple slogans. Given the fact that we are by far the bigger brains in this fight, we should be able to use so-called "negative" tactics with far more honesty and smarts than they do.

Although articles using the word "Bush hater", show our real inexperience. You want to make the case for "hating" Bush, without saying "I hate Bush". You never heard the right say "I'm a Clinton hater", they knew better. They just repeatedly made him out to be slightly better than Hitler.