I am cranky this morning, so I am about to unload a stream of obscenities:
“Josh Marshall- Shut the Fuck Up.”
Thank you- that was the only reaction I could muster to this piece from Josh:
How low will they go? Now Clarke’s a racist (from last night’s Crossfire …
ROBERT NOVAK: Congressman, do you believe, you’re a sophisticated guy, do you believe watching these hearings that Dick Clarke has a problem with this African-American woman Condoleezza Rice?
RAHM EMANUEL: Say that again?
ROBERT NOVAK: Do you believe that Dick Clarke has a problem with this African-American woman Condoleezza Rice?
RAHM EMANUEL: No, no. Bob, give me a break. No. No.
First- he did not say he was racist or sexist, he asked.
Second, is there anyone, and I mean anyone, who thinks that if the roles were reversed, that Now, the NAACP, and the chattering classes would have not already asked the question, but advanced the idea that ther man is completely and irreparably racist and sexist. Please- go look up face validity.
Third, this is from the same Josh Marshall, who, two days after he was selected to be Senate Majority Leader, accused Frist of racism for a pencil incident and noting that Marion Berry is a shitty elected leader.
And, one more thing, Josh- you can end the “Clarke is no partisan- he is a Republican” bullshit:
RUSSERT: And we’re back.
Did you vote for George Bush in 2000?
CLARKE: No, I did not.
RUSSERT: You voted for Al Gore?
CLARKE: Yes, I did.
RUSSERT: In 2004, you’ll vote for John Kerry?
CLARKE: I’m not going to endorse John Kerry. That’s what the White House wants me to do. They want to say I’m part of the Kerry campaign. I’ve already pledged I’m not part of the Kerry campaign, and I will not serve in the Kerry administration.
RUSSERT: Will you vote for him?
CLARKE: That’s my business.
No shit. Go back to being wrong about North Korea, Josh, because this Clarke rehabilitation attempt is failing miserably.
mark
John,
It would have been hilarious on MTP if Clarke, after all the trashing of Bush he has done, would have told Russert, “yes, I am voting for Bush.”
Max M
Now, you’re a sophisticated guy, watching these hearings, do you believe Clarke is a wife beater and a pederast?
But it OK! He’d just asking! Come again John?
Secondly, the hypothetical reaction of the chattering classes does not in any way alter the merits of Novaks questions or the arguments over its appropriateness.
So um, its an odd thing to get worked up about.
John Cole
Max- Apaarently you have missed all of the dismissive tones and statements Clarke has used towards Condi- refusing to attend meetings, despising reporting to her, etc.
While I do not think he is racist or sexist, if you think that this question would not have been raised if the roles were reversed, you are crazy. And not only would the question have been raised, it wouldsn’t be a question- it would be truth.
Terry
On this one, John, I believe you are dead-on right. Given Clarke’s history with Dr. Rice, there is no question but had he been a Bush supporter, Marshall and all the other loons would have been trying to ride him out of town on a rail as a racist.
For example, just take a look at the comments of Senator Schumer on “60 Minutes” last night relative to Judge Pickering. He painted the Judge as an insensitive racist. Mike Wallace and a number of African Americans from Mississppi who actually know Pickering made Schumer look like a reincarnation of Joe McCarthy. It was somewhat shocking to see a report like this one on CBS, which I guess is a fairly clear indicator of what a complete and obvious asshole and MaCarthyite Schumer is.
Slartibartfast
I guess it’s too late for Josh to return to being wrong on Bush-AWOL. To everything, there is a season. Josh just hasn’t had his right season yet.
Jeff G
Like a noted a few days back, Josh Marshall has become as predictable as my morning dump.
HH
Marshall is not so interested in the lies of Begala of course…
HH
Ya know, it’d be nice if Clarke had actually bothered to tell us certain facts… the most recent being his inability to testify because of exec. privelege in ’99… before they have to be discovered. Then, the “truth teller” we hear so much about might have some resemblance to the actual Dick Clarke.
HH
Begala also challenges for two lies from Clarke’s book. Okay, 1) he fabricates Laurie Mylroie’s claims about Yousef and 2) he implies, based on a facial expression, that Condi Rice is some sort of moron when it comes to al Qaeda, when in fact, she had spoken at length, knowledgably about bin Laden during the campaign.
Justin O.
Bitch better testify, that’s all I gotta say.
TC
I read various blogs on a regular basis, and occasionally follow links in an effort to discover new an interesting voices, which is how I happened across your site.
Ironically, and for the sake of full disclosure, I read Josh Marshall on a regular basis. As I am familiar with his work, I thought that I would offer the following criticism of your comments about him.
Are you seriously suggesting that Novak wasn’t CLEARLY implying that Clarke is a racist because he didn’t use that precise word? That strikes me as naive in the extreme. What possible reason could he have include the words “African-American” OTHER THAN to imply racism? Please.
Secondly, do you actually believe, for example, that Mark Shields or Al Hunt would suggest something similar if the roles were reversed? If your answer is affirmative, I’d love to have you produce an example of similar behavior on their part in the past.
The notion that NOW, the NAACP, etc. would have behaved similarly is also a stretch. What was their reactions to critics of, say, Clarence Thomas? Did they accuse them of being racists? No, because the criticisms were substantive, just as Clarke’s are.
Finally, to point to Clarke as having voted for Gore as ‘evidence’ of his partisanship is ridiculous. He was hired by, vetted by, and served three republican administrations. Would he now prefer to see this administration replaced? Of course. However, you are falling into the same trap that the administration has fallen into, namely questioning Clarke’s credibility rather than dealing with the substance of his charges (which, in case you hadn’t noticed, have been buttressed by numerous ‘true-blue republicans).
John Cole
TC- So asking the question “Is x racist” is tantamount to saying ‘X is racist.”
That is an interesting world in which you reside- and yes, I would not put it past Mark Shields- or Paul Begala, or any of the talking heads who tilt heavily to the left.
Eric Sivula
Bitch better testify, that’s all I gotta say.
Posted by Justin O. at March 29, 2004 09:00 PM
Or what, jackass, you will waste some more of John’s bandwidth with your pissing and moaning?
Andrew J. Lazarus
I’m another vote in the John is (faux?) naive category. If it weren’t to insinuate racism, why waste oxygen on the word “African-American”? It’s not like it was needed to differentiate her from the Chinese-American Dr. Jasmine Rice in the Agriculture Department.
Incidentally, yes, the NAACP would make such an insinuation if the roles were reversed, and it would likewise be disgraceful.
HH
USA Today columnist and ubiquitous pundit Julianne Malveaux makes a point of pointing out who is African American and who is not when referring to them…
Justin O.
Oh hell yeah I’m gonna call her a bitch……..
When she has an oil tanker named after her ass I’ll say whatever damn I please.
Justin O.
Let me know the next time when about a few hundred bytes of text becomes a problem Eric
Ricky
Okay:
“Bill An Lee, the Clinton administration’s nominee to head the Civil Rights Division is a tough advocate, several times successfully suing the City of Los Angeles over discrimination. But L.A. mayor Richard Riordan, a Republican, says Lee is no ideologue. He calls him an effective pragmatist. Yet Clint Bolick and other right-wingers oppose Lee. Why? Because he comes out of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Where do they want to get a civil rights’ chief? The Ku Klux Klan?” Wall Street Journal Executive Washington Editor Al Hunt’s Outrage of the Week, July 5, 1997 Capital Gang.
I guess now’s the time to play “but, but, but it’s different”.
Here’s more.
Dave
The notion that NOW, the NAACP, etc. would have behaved similarly is also a stretch. What was their reactions to critics of, say, Clarence Thomas? Did they accuse them of being racists? No, because the criticisms were substantive, just as Clarke’s are.
Your example is more proof of John’s point. Of course the NAACP didn’t scream “racist” at Thomas’s critics — he’s a conservative.
Ricky
I’ve had an open challenge out there for going on 16 months:
The challenge is still open, btw. So far, not one name has been submitted.
Says something about how things are, huh?
Amy
Insinuating and asking, instead of actually stating fasle claims, is how the conservative echo chamber gets away with things. “Is Richard Clarke a racist?”, if repeated often enough, turns into “Richard Clarke is a racist” but without any of that messy accountability for floating false claims. Think John Kerry & botox for just one of a million other examples of this ruse.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Ricky, can you name a single prominent anti-war liberal who hasn’t been smeared as cowardly and unpatriotic? (Two can play this game.)
Rick
Aside from Jim McDermott and one of his two Baghdad companions, who has been called unpatriotic, and by whom?
Cordially…
Ricky
Rick beat me to the punch. I’ve seen almost as many people claim to have been called unpatriotic as I have seen celebrities stand in front of a microphone on television & claim that their speech has been squashed. To go further, I’m afraid that we’d get to the “he’s not really a “liberal”” game (hope not).
But, I haven’t seen anyone claim that Bill Bradley was unpatriotic for being anti-war (and that one’s off the top of my head…I can go on).
TC
Where to begin? (as Josh would say)
Well, let’s start with John’s response to my post:
“So asking the question “Is x racist” is tantamount to saying ‘X is racist.”
The answer, in this context, is yes. Obviously, as Amy points out, the whole point of Novak’s implicit racism gambit is to get the people who never scratch the surface (or think critically) to believe that it is a fact because they heard (or read) something along those lines.
“That is an interesting world in which you reside- and yes, I would not put it past Mark Shields- or Paul Begala, or any of the talking heads who tilt heavily to the left.”
This is a bit more complicated. I’m certainly not suggesting that left-leaning pundits and writers would never spin or slant an issue. But the good ones (Shields, Hunt, Marshall, etc.) deal with the substance of the issues on their merits, and would not do anything as transparently partisan and divisive as Novak.
That leads me to Ricky’s response which cites the “”Bill An Lee, the Clinton administration’s nominee to head the Civil Rights Division…” example.
Ricky: You might waant to try again.
Al Hunt was critical of right-wingers who opposed a solid candidate for no reason except that he came from the NAACP. How is that relevant in any way? If it had been the other way around, with Hunt objecting to the nominee for that reason, then your example would have made sense. As it stands, it underscores MY point.
Thoughtful liberal commentators very rarely, if ever ignore substance and play dirty partisan politics. Give me some examples which refute that assertion, and perhaps then I’ll say “but, but, that’s different”.
I’d also like to know if either Ricky or John believe that there is any shred of evidence to suggest that Clarke is a racist. If the answer is “yes”, then I’d like to see it, and so would the others (i.e. everyone) who don’t have any reason to think that. If the answer is “no” then why would you be inclined to defend Novak’s disgraceful behavior?
TC
Ricky
It’s not like I predicted the “it’s different” response.
Of course, you left out the part that was damning, his “Where do they want to get a civil rights’ chief? The Ku Klux Klan?” comment.
And, we all know why. Nice try, but no cigar.
That’s what I was thinking when Julianne Malveaux wished an early death on Clarence Thomas or when Nina Totenberg wished that Jesse Helms grandkids got AIDS.
Or, when Al Hunt asks if the right thinks the best civil rights representative would come from the KKK.
[groan]
I’ve seen none & haven’t thought that at any point. John is quite correct in noting that if the situation was reversed, we can imagine the outcry….heck, I remember when any disagreement with Hillarycare was because people were “afraid of a strong woman”.
But, I’ve seen nothing to hint racism on the part of Clarke & haven’t ‘gone there’, I’ve only responded to individual comments here.
Having a certain ideology doesn’t exempt one from saying or doing things that smear others and your contention that lefties rarely do it is as absurd as someone saying righties do it rarely. All sides do because humans do that sort of thing.
TC
Time to parse, I guess.
The part about the KKK: An uncalled for comment? Sure. Vitriolic? Yes. But hardly analogous to the Novak example in question, as Hunt was not smearing (or attempting to smear) an individual.
As to the other examples, I am not familiar with Malveaux, but certainly agree that there is no excuse for the comment. I find the Totenberg example to be in poor taste, although in context she did not “wish” but was referring to retribution from God. In either case, I am not excusing the comment, but she has been on the public airwaves for decades, and finding one or two anamolous examples is hardly compelling to your case that liberals are equally likely to display that kind of behavior.
You can’t possibly be so blind as to see the startling contrast between Fox News, Limbaugh, Novak, etc. and their counterparts (NPR, etc.) which you consider liberal. Or can you?
It makes virtually no difference whether those on the left occasionally go over the top and say or write something regrettable. The problem is that it is endemic in a certain (rather large) segment of the right-wing media, and I would argue that we are all poorer as a result.
TC
correction:
second to last line “..as to NOT see…”
Andrew J. Lazarus
Here’s what the Attorney General of the United States (you know, the one who stopped taking commercial airplane flights even though we had no idea Al Qaeda was planning a hijacking) had to say about people who opposed his PATRIOT Act. Don’t miss the echo of the Constitutional definition of treason. Are you going to tell me this doesn’t impute lack of patriotism to any Democratic opponents (of which, alas, there were few)?
Ricky
I’m wise enough to realize that when someone feels that anyone who doesn’t agree with their perceptions is “blind” (followed up with mega-parsings) a simple case of hyper-partisanship is the case, TC.
Of COURSE you don’t think the left is as culpable, TC, for when you’re presented with instances where it is undeniable you simply parse into oblivion in an attempt to poo-poo it as “not as bad as the right”.
What’s blind is the partisanship that’s evident, furthere evidenced by the selection of NPR as the ‘counterpart’ (what, the names Franken, Moyers(PBS), Frank Rich, Eric Alterman, Paul Begala, James Carville, among others, not spring to mind?).
Andrew, using that rationale the GOP has been accused of wanting to starve children, poison the water and do away with the first amendment. How’s about some NAMES and some actual allegations of unpatiotism instead of interpretations of general statements? You’re the one who put it forth, not me.
Rick
AJL,
Poor example; try again. If memory serves, the Patriot Act passed Congress very, very comfortably, so it isn’t *Ashcroft’s* act.
I’ll take honest, reasoned debate over fear-mongering. That’s why this site is preferable to FreeRepublic and Democratic Underground
Cordially…
Rick
“Are you seriously suggesting that Novak wasn’t CLEARLY implying that Clarke is a racist because he didn’t use that precise word? That strikes me as naive in the extreme. What possible reason could he have include the words “African-American” OTHER THAN to imply racism? Please.”
TC,
Don’t get your knickers in a twist. Novak was merely implying that Clarke is truly a Republican. After all, ‘pubbies ALL have trouble dealing with strong women, particularly minority ladies.
Don’t we, though? Democrats are unpatriotic, and Republicans are bigots; that’s the script.
Cordially…
Andrew J. Lazarus
Ricky, is Ashcroft suggesting that opponents of the Patriot Act are unpatriotic, or not? I think so. Maybe that’s why it passed by such a large margin.
Ricky
Maybe. Maybe not. It’s up to the individual to interpret.
Who are these prominent liberals who were called unpatriotic (I’m not saying that there weren’t any, but a few names would be nice)?
TC
Well, Ricky, your last response to me sums it up: Instead of addressing the specific points which I raised, you attack me for using a loaded word. The current administration would approve of your tactics.
Then, in your only effort to address the issue, you list a string of names (Franken, Moyers, etc.)., and once again buttress my point. Those people, even given the neccessity for a certain amount of hyperbole in the cases of Franken and Begala, simply do not engage in the kind of disgraceful behavior that Novak (the original point, remember?) just displayed.
The most extreme of those by far, is, of course, Franken. But the difference is that when Franken calls people liars, for example, he backs it up with evidence. Even he doesn’t stoop to the sort of baseless innuendo that began this whole thread.
You continue to sputter in broad terms about how liberals are just as bad, yet have come up with a grand total of TWO anomalous examples to back up that ludicrous assertion. Anyone with their eyes open (perhaps you’re not blind-sorry) could find countless examples of this kind of egregious behavior from the right.
Finally, it’s laughable that you would name people like Alterman and Moyers who, through serious, well thought out work attempt to question and, in some cases change the way the public percieves government. You may not agree with their conclusions of insights, but using them as examples weakens your case.
Ricky
***Instead of addressing the specific points which I raised,****
You raised no points. You spun. I have no time for spin.
****you attack me for using a loaded word.***
Oh, please, I attacked nothing.
***The current administration would approve of your tactics.****
THAT’S sure to convince me to consider your stance.
****in the cases of Franken and Begala, simply do not engage in the kind of disgraceful behavior that Novak (the original point, remember?) just displayed.***
Yeah, I guess Franken’s saying that he wants to name his next book “I Fucking Hate Those Right-Wing Motherfuckers!” (p. 107 in his current book) is more “parody”, right?
And lord knows Begala woudn’t smear an entire state because it voted for Bush.
I’m all for debate, but please make it difficult, at least.
****But the difference is that when Franken calls people liars, for example, he backs it up with evidence. Even he doesn’t stoop to the sort of baseless innuendo that began this whole thread.****
As evidenced by his book titled “Rush Limbaugh is a big fat liar”….he’d never stoop for the low road.
****You continue to sputter in broad terms about how liberals are just as bad, yet have come up with a grand total of TWO anomalous examples to back up that ludicrous assertion.****
Jeff Jacoby has been publishing a yearly column pertaining to lefty hate speech. Have a blast (no, I don’t care to see your spin).
****Finally, it’s laughable that you would name people like Alterman…*****
Yeah, Eric Alterman, who wished permanent deafness on Rush Limbaugh.
Good lord…….
John, I think you have a GOP mole pretending to play lefty.
DANEgerus
Josh Marshall is a meme-spewing idiotarian… the most overrated blog out there… His only talent seems to be how he regurgitates the (D) party line through tactical use and spewage of logical fallacies.
TC
Anyone who chooses to review the thread will:
a. see quite clearly the substantive points that I have raised, and which you have, for the most part, conveniently avoided
b. notice that you have failed to address the central point (i.e. Novak) which spawned this thread and stimulated me to post initially.
c. recognize the stark, undeniable contrast between the Hannity and Limbaugh, etc. types and the members of the ‘left’ media who you decry because, for example, of one over-the-top comment in 20 years of broadcasting (Totenberg), or one regrettable comment (Alterman).
d. chuckle at the expression “lefty hate speech”, given the relative rarity of anything approaching that definition.
e. move on to something else.
I expect that even you and I will probably agree on the wisdom of the last point.
Peter
I agree with other posters who diss BJ for such an idiotic comment. I had to stop reading InstaPundit b/c it was just really awful – intellectually dishonest. If it wasn’t dishonest, I would have to believe that the prof was really dumb and/or incredibly naive.
Based on your posts I don’t think I could classify you as ‘dumb’, per se.
Your potential ‘naivete’ would equate to your not understanding the basics of slander / implication / headlines. From the few posts of yours I’ve read, I think you’re a bit twisted, but you seem smart enough to know that there are many ways to imply someone is a racist w/o actually saying the word. Just as you can say Clarke is gay without saying the word.
This leaves ‘dishonest’. That’s horrible, man.
I guess there’s also blind loyalty – which is probably the worst of all of the above – and certainly a reason I’d avoid your blog in the future.
Ricky
***b. notice that you have failed to address the central point (i.e. Novak) which spawned this thread and stimulated me to post initially.***
Don’t have an opinion on it. I already stated that I don’t think Clarke is racist in a comment. Didn’t you see it?
***recognize the stark, undeniable contrast between the Hannity and Limbaugh, etc. types and the members of the ‘left’ media…***
Undeniable only to the hyperpartisan. I provided a link to Jacoby’s columns with reams of examples. Didn’t you see it? What part was difficult to understand?
Ricky
Peter,
I’m sure folks reading your site were just giddy when you opined “the Iraq War possibly marked the first time a militarily-superior country launched a war of proxy for an inferior country.”
That ‘inferior country’ being Israel, as you openly noted. At least you don’t hide it, eh?
Andrew J. Lazarus
OK, Ricky, here’s Zell Miller today.
So, if the 9/11 Commission doesn’t rubberstamp the Bush Administration, it’s energizing our enemies.
Of course, Zell literally votes with Bush more often than do Collins, Snowe, Chaffee, and McCain (maybe more since I saw this list); his convert’s zeal is impressive in its way.
Ricky
I’m still waiting for names of someone who has been called unpatriotic, Andrew, not instances where you’ve had to do a search in order to find something that you interpret and reword to “so, if….” because it’s unflattering to anti-war types.
To be honest, since the person that this posts quotes – Bob Novak – was also against the war, why don’t you call off your search and we just admit that the whole “they’ve been calling us unpatriotic” mantra that was bandied about was mostly hyperbole from folks who were extrapolating what they saw in newspaper letters and/or internet chat rooms. Pat Buchanan & many libertarians on the right were vehemently against the war in Iraq.
I think the point has obviously been made due to the dearth of examples.
Steverino
Oh, how I long for the necessary hyperbole of James Carville, who said, “Drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park, and there’s no telling what will turn up.”
Or Bill Clinton, who during a phone conversation with Dick Morris, said, “You don’t understand: Bob Dole is evil. The Republicans are evil. What they want to do to kids is evil.”
But that was all necessary, and not nearly as bad as inferring someone is racist, right?
What about the Charles Rangell who said, “They used to say, ‘Let’s kill the blacks.’ Now they say, ‘Let’s cut taxes.’ ?” Isn’t that implying racism?
But again, nothing the left does is as bad as the right….
Andrew J. Lazarus
Here’s Zell again calling his fellow Democrats “treasonous
Now, can we agree that treasonous implies unpatriotic??
Syl
Well, first I’ll admit that in the last few months I’ve moved from the left towards the right.
That out of the way, one of the reasons is that I discovered that the right knows themselves and the right knows the left.
The left knows neither.
Ricky
Andrew,
Barbara Boxer called DOMA “unAmerican” (meaning 60% of the legislators who voted for it, as well as Clinton, passed an unAmerican bill). See how easy it is to interpret & project? You can stop playing that game…I have plenty more examples of lefty Democrats calling their foes’ viewpoints “unAmerican”. You don’t want me to open that can.
You can’t find anyone being called “unpatriotic”. Fine. I’m sure it happened, though, but it’s been overblown. Besides, it’s been a grand diversion from the initial challenge, where I’ve still yet to have one name presented to me of a prominent black conservative who hasn’t been called some version of an Uncle Tom.
And, it’s moved the discussion into a boring side-debate…..not fun. Catch you on the slide. :)
Ricky
Correction: It was 60% of DEMOCRATIC legislators who voted for DOMA. The total vote was much more lopsided.
Like I said, it’s best not to go there.