I posted a couple weeks ago about the attempt by disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters to challenge Barack Obama’s citizenship status, or something (I never was quite clear on what exactly they thought they were going to prove), and my amazement at how crazy some folks get about politics these days; but what’s going on now as certain elements on the Left try to destroy Sarah Palin (there’s no other word for it) far exceeds that for sheer malignant looniness.The craziest, and ugliest, is the attempt by denizens of the Democratic Underground (way underground, folks, with this one) and Daily Kos to claim that Trig Palin isn’t the governor’s son, but in fact her grandson, and that she faked her own pregnancy to cover up her daughter’s. Their evidence? Gov. Palin didn’t show much (as some women don’t), and her daughter Bristol was out of school with mono and looked a little chubbier. That’s it. The funny thing about this attempt at political assassination is that previously, Palin-haters have criticized her for putting politics ahead of the life of her son, traveling too late into her pregnancy—her water actually broke when she was in Dallas for a governor’s conference, and she didn’t immediately go to the hospital, but instead flew back to Anchorage; now, those who want to tear her down are forced to argue that she faked the whole episode. Which is crazy, because if in fact her pregnancy was a charade, what would adding to the charade accomplish except to create a whole new set of doctors who could testify that she wasn’t pregnant? The whole thing is completely nuts; it will be a sad day in American politics if Gov. Palin is forced to release her medical records to disprove it.Next to that, the garden-variety sexism of CNN reporter John Roberts seems almost wholesome. In case you missed that story, he was the one who wondered on air if it was irresponsible of Gov. Palin to run for Vice President when she has an infant with Down Syndrome. The question clearly floored his colleague, Dana Bash; in reply, she raised an important question: “I guess—my guess is that, perhaps, the line inside the McCain campaign would be, if it were a man being picked who also had a baby, but—you know, four months ago with Down’s Syndrome, would you ask the same question?” Somehow, I don’t think so.Driving this, I think, is rage that the GOP (in the person of John McCain) had the sheer gall to pick a VP nominee who’s a woman who’s off the (Democratic) reservation. I heard some of that even in Rebecca Traister’s piece in Salon, and I’ve heard a fair bit more elsewhere. We’re seeing, I think, the true heart of a lot of liberal feminism. It doesn’t matter to them that she’s a woman with a chance to make history; if anything, that makes it worse—she’s not just a normal infidel, she’s an apostate and a traitor, and so must be destroyed. The fact that someone would actually write this (on DU, quoted here) sums it up:
I will attack her for whatever reason suits the purpose of making her look bad to my audience.When I am among secular people I will attack her for being a religious zealot. When I am among people from church, I will attack her for being of a heterodox denomination. When I am among liberals I will attack her for her conservative views. When I am among conservatives I will attack her for her for anything they are prove to view as shortcomings in ideology. When I am among women, I will deride the obvious pandering of her nomination and the fact that McCain must not think much of womens’ [sic] intelligence, when I am among conservative men who dislike women in authority, I will rub their noses in it.If I can attack her for opposite reasons over the course of an afternoon, I will consider it an accomplishment.Same goes for Johnny Boy.
That’s hatred—flat out, pure, triple-distilled, 200 proof, weapons-grade hatred. That’s ugly.
Okay, your token liberal is back at his post!
First of all, closing ones’ eyes to the malicious attacks by the Right and then crying about the nut jobs on the Left is absurd. This blog has defended and even shared some pretty inflaming material. So this article struck me with a sad sort of ironic humor.
I have seen some of the things that you have listed and have already been to a few blogs saying how disgusted I am with them. That’s right, your token Liberal is blasting the Left for this nonsense.
But with that said, Right, could you also quit spewing some of this garbage? You know what I mean, please don’t insult our intelligence with feeble comments of justification.
The moderates (which is actually me, but compared to this blog I look to be far to the left) are tired of feeling like they need to bathe every time they read blogs, or flip through the news channels (FOX). The slime is absurd and interferes with our ability to coalesce as a country when the elections are done. We have some real problems, and this sleaze does nothing to help solve them.
Please join me in calling a halt to anti-christ radical muslim rhetoric and the nonsense listed here. It needs to be stopped on both sides.
I mean, is it is too much to ask that we actually talk about the candidate’s platforms for a change?
Sincerely,
Disgusted in Seattle
I’ve always thought that the perfect way to slander someone is to call them a liar. How can they defend themselves when you think you can’t trust anything coming out of their mouths? That’s the kind of trash people in the political realm do all the time. I’m not worried about her; I think she knows how to live this nonsense down.
I feel out-done. All this lefty was going to do was to criticize her for regular stuff like wanting to teach creationism alongside evolution in public school science classes.
I’ll have to step my game up :/
I agree with Disgusted in Seattle – the nastiness needs to be stopped on both sides, it does nothing to serve our country in our time of need. I applaud Senator Obama for making the sensible statement that Palin’s personal family matters should be off limits.
The Clinton’s personal family matters should have been off limits too….but I seem to recall impeachment proceedings which the GOP spent millions in taxpayer money on because of a marital infidelity – the truth is, they wanted Bill Clinton out of power because his policies threatened their financial interests.
By the way, the media is spinning Palin to be a reformer, but according to a Reuter’s article, native Alaskans are upset with her about claiming to have said no to government spending on the “Bridge To Nowhere” in her VP acceptance. She in fact did NOT give the earmark money back to Congress – some “maverick”. Here’s a link to the article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN3125537020080901
Taking the comments in order:
First off, you aren’t in Seattle. Maybe you say that on your own blog, but I know the difference between King County and Clark County; it’s the difference between Jim McDermott and Brian Baird. Both are liberal, but Rep. Baird at least has a mind of his own.
Second, you may be in Vancouver, but you seem to think more like Portland. Your views might well be in the middle of the range for the Rose City, but for the country as a whole, you’re solidly on the left. What is it about liberals to want to call themselves moderates, anyway? Maybe it’s the result of only seeing a range of liberal viewpoints in the media–you don’t really have a feel for the rest of the political spectrum in this country. (Trust me, I know well where the extreme right lies . . . I have to deal with them, too.)
Third, “inflaming” doesn’t mean “anything I want to rule out of court about the candidate I favor.” If you don’t like it, that’s your problem, but there’s nothing I’ve posted that’s been outside the bounds of reasonable discussion. (You’ve attempted to distort some of the things I’ve posted, but that’s another matter.)
As far as shots from the Right, I’ve passed by the claim that Michelle Obama talked about “whitey” in a speech and the ad blasting her husband for not taking care of his half-brother in Nairobi; in fact, I haven’t even critiqued her speeches because I wasn’t comfortable going after Sen. Obama’s family even when he put them front and center. I haven’t blogged about his cousin the radical Islamist. I haven’t put up any posts about John Edwards’ affair. And like John Mark Reynolds, there are other things that I won’t even dignify by repeating here, because they are (as he says) sick and unfounded. Much like the purely invented “rumors” about Bristol Palin, now debunked, were sick and unfounded.
Similarly, I haven’t mentioned most of the malignant things being thrown around by the Left, such as Andrew Sullivan’s utterly unsupported charge that John McCain invented the story of the guard who drew the cross in the dirt. I’m not interested in talking about such things in most cases, for two reasons: one, I don’t think repeating them just to complain about them does any good; and two, if I write about them, I have to think about them more. What prompted me to put this post up wasn’t the smear on the Palins itself, but rather the quote I closed with; I think that might even beat the most unhinged Clinton haters from a decade ago. My reason was trying to understand the tidal wave of impersonal malice that hit Gov. Palin, not based on any previous experience of her, but simply for being there. I expected the “experience” reaction and the belittling; I did not expect “the politics of personal destruction” to rear its head, and certainly not so quickly as that. Therefore, I wanted to take a moment to analyze the situation.
Also, I further haven’t posted the “Messiah” ad, because I thought that it was over-the-top and silly. Since you persist in pushing the paranoid canard that that ad is calling Sen. Obama the Antichrist, though, I think I’ll post it, and analyze it, in the hope that you, too, will come to actually understand it.
Finally, you could take a lesson from your candidate on this one. No whining from him on “but they do this, too”; he simply slammed his fist down and said, “No.”
Joyce: true statement. They knew this was coming, Bristol no less than the rest; if Gov. Palin handles it well in her speech, she’ll be basically past it.
Doug: sorry, but that snark ill-becomes you. 😐 Note what Sarah Palin said when asked to clarify the remarks she had made in the final debate:
“I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum. . . . I won’t have religion as a litmus test, or anybody’s personal opinion on evolution or creationism.”
The ADN further noted that “Palin has occasionally discussed her lifelong Christian faith during the governor’s race but said teaching creationism is nothing she has campaigned about or even given much thought to. . . . She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.”
Peggy, your memory’s faulty: the investigation was into the Clintons’ real-estate dealings. The matter of Monica Lewinsky came up as a sidelight, and it was President Clinton lying under oath that prompted the perjury. (The whole situation was oddly parallel to the investigation that put Scooter Libby behind bars: an investigation was launched that discovered no crime, but a crime was committed in the process, and then prosecuted. The difference: the Republican was convicted and is in jail, while the Democrat was protected for political reasons.) Question for you, then: do you believe that the President should always be allowed to get away with felony crimes, or only if the President is a Democrat?
(Also, your statement that “Clinton’s policies threatened their financial interests” was well out of date by then; with the GOP controlling both Houses of Congress, the party as a whole was pretty happy with economic and social policy.)
Finally, just so we’re clear on something: I think it goes without saying that there is nastiness on both sides in our political climate, and that nastiness is reprehensible whether it helps or harms one’s own favored side. I therefore am not going to apologize for not saying it. By and large, I’m going to continue ignoring such things as much as possible–again, in this age where “going viral” is often the smear artist’s fondest hope, I think repeating them usually does more harm than denouncing them does good.
Rob,
I wrote my post while visiting Seattle for business, so the label was accurate and amusing. You do know that people travel around here on the West Coast right? 🙂
The labels: Liberal and Leftist, I think are used by conservatives to describe anyone who disagrees with them. Which, from their perspective, is probably left of their particular leanings so in their mind it must be true.
I am in truth a moderate strongly supporting tenets on both sides of the political spectrum.
Anyhow, you and I have an ongoing conversation about what is appropriate to mention and let me give you props, you are always receptive to the comments. And if you feel as if you made an error, you will 1) correct it immediately, and 2) apologize for the comment.
But have you written one post deriding the nastiness of your fellow McCain/Palin supporters? Have you linked to a post of “interest” that was inflaming? Do your suggestive titles infer nastiness (only to be refuted by the contents of the article)? Rob, the answer is no to the first, and yes to the second and third.
I liked the idea that you were floating around in this post and really, really wanted the message to spread far beyond just the liberal nuts.
I don’t write posts deriding anyone’s nastiness. I did, in this instance, decide to write about the nastiness in order to analyze it. Otherwise, I prefer to leave it alone rather than assisting its spread.
On the evidence, you’re a liberal who feels conflicted over the fact that you’re pro-life despite your best efforts. That doesn’t qualify you as a moderate. The fact that you infer things, beginning as you do with your preconceived notions as to what conservatives believe, does not mean I’m implying them. (Readers “infer,” writers “imply.”) And the fact that you decide to get inflamed by something is not, ipso facto, an indictment of it.
In short, you misunderstanding me does not by any means necessarily constitute an indictment of me.