Right Joyful and Vicious at Elizabeth Edwards Cancer Recurrence
Anyone who doubts that the political right in this country is pathological should visit one of their websites to read reactions to Mrs. Edward's cancer recurrence.
Words can hardly describe how nauseating these people are.
I am just linking to one of the Lucianne Goldberg threads but there are many more on her site and the other rightwing sites.
This is standard for the right. Anytime a Democratic, liberal or, I hate to say it, African-American gets sick or dies, they celebrate. A few always express shock at their comrades' ugliness but the majority just goes giddy. Cancer! AIDS! A child dying! This is what liberals deserve.
Last year I heard Lucianne Goldberg (she of the Clinton blue dress and National Review's Jonah Goldberg's mom) asked on a radio show how her people would react if Bill or Hillary Clinton died.
She said she would shut the site down because she would be deluged with celebratory posts. And, to her credit, she would not want to publish them.
But Elizabeth Edwards is fair game, I guess.
It is hard to believe that we are part of the same country as these moral monsters. Do you know a single liberal who celebrated the deaths of Reagan or Ford or the terrible cancer death, decades ago, of George Wallace's young wife, Gov. Lurleen Wallace?
What is it about conservatism that produces people like this.
Is this a new phenomenon or has the crazed right like the Stalinist left (David Horowitz types) always been like this?
Not much we can do about it, except take back the Presidency and achieve 60% control of Congress because the opposition party, the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower, has been taken over by crazy people.
They do, however, call themselves Christians.


Comments (176)
Take a look at the comments made at the Swampland about Mike Kinsley.
March 23, 2007 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
Thanks be to God that someone else reads their sh=t and summarizes because there are somethings that I just will not do - listen to Rush Limbaugh, read Lucianne Goldberg (or her spawn), read the New Republic, Weekly Standard, WSJ Editorial page etc
March 23, 2007 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
1) Do we want to assign "the Right" responsibility for every fool thing said on every conservative website? When Democratic pols are criticized for allegedly extreme comments made on left-leaning sites, we rightly cry foul.
2) I *did* celebrate when Reagan died. And I can't think of a single other gay man I know who didn't.
March 23, 2007 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hate is really what they're all about.
Take away the hatred and they've got nothing to talk about.
That resident troll guy around here, perfect example.
March 23, 2007 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just read a few of these and many of the comments aren't about hate. Of course there's a few whack jobs, but there's some of those here too. (I get so annoyed reading posts here about something Bush's done (i.e. the attorney general scandal) and all some have to say is "Impeach".) Many of the posts I read on Lucianne were actually consolatory, and definitely not celebratory like the title of this thread says.
March 23, 2007 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
John and Elizabeth Edwards have made a huge political faux pas. Rather than a press conference in a garden, the media should have been invited to the bed side of the cancerous Elizabeth when John, ever hungry for a positive photo-op, announced to his wife that she was on her own, old news, a political liability. I mean, look at all the political capital Newt got and gets from admiring Republicans. They know an honorable man when they see one. Geeze.
March 23, 2007 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It is hard to believe that we are part of the same country as these moral monsters."
I don't know what you are talking about, MJ. I read the first half of the 200 posts on the link you provided. Not one "celebrated" Elizabeth Edwards' illness, or said she deserved it.
On the other hand, the meanness you speak of is found on the left too. Here is a discussion http://newsbusters.org/node/11169 about wishing Cheney had been killed in that assassination attempt recently
March 23, 2007 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, to answer your question;
Ernst Roehm's Brown Shirts were recruited from the dregs of society; the bullies, the haters, the anti semites, the homophobes, the undereducated, the criminal element, the psychotics, and the money grubbers, just about the same crowd as the wingnuts.
This type roams the world until they find those alike, then its IN group love, OUT group hate.
They're the people "Hate Crime Legislation" is aimed at.
March 23, 2007 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The people "Hate Crime Legislation" is aimed at.
Exactly right.
War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell
March 23, 2007 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait you mean Jonah "the whale" Goldberg's mom is the fugg-o crone from the Lewinsky thing? Man, how'd I miss that one?
March 23, 2007 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Valdron: "Take away the hatred and they've got nothing to talk about."
Hate is who they are. Gays, blacks, Jews. liberals, Democrats, Gore, Hillary, Obama, etc etc.
It is all about hate.
March 23, 2007 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elizabeth Edwards has not sent thousands of people to their deaths in order to enrich herself and her friends. (In case you miss my point, Cheney has; without apology or sadness or empathy, and without ever risking his sorry ass in the name of our country.)
I am not among those who wish Cheney had been killed in the assassination attempt. I would much prefer that he die of esophogeal or neck cancer. It's about karma.
Jan Knaus
March 23, 2007 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
marc, I agree, I didn't see anyone "celebrating" her illness, but I read only 7 posts before I came across this:
"Reply 7 - Posted by: ingere72, 3/22/2007 1:02:38 PM
Class act b'sitters. They both leave a sour taste in my mouth. Political madness(ambition) personified."
March 23, 2007 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see here, there's a lot of fulminating against the Breck Girl, the silky unicorn (i.e. faggot), douchebag, ambulance chaser Edwards; no of course that's not strictly speaking celebration... "These people really stretch the bounds of my character. I find it hard to muster real sympathy for them, even when they deserve it." No he doesn't sound happy at all. "hate filled, power hungry thugs with no soul..." "So sad to see where their priorities lie." "The MSM will laud the Edwardses for their 'bravery' and 'courage' and 'determination' ad nauseum." You're right, he actually sounds upset.... "cross between a cocker spaniel and a rattlesnake." "First, I don't know what doctor in their right mind would ever treat Edwards or his wife...." "Hey, it's the Muslim/CAIR/Democratic/Hillary way!" (???) "immaturity and self-centeredness"... it just goes on like this. Some people throw in a token prayers remark. "Any man that cannot put his family first cannot be depended upon to put America first." (?!!!) "What a sick, twisted, man." "some problem has supposedly befallen a no one..." "Edwards and his wife are both jerks." "monster" "Wrong priorities for both of them." "weasel," "creep," "pathetic," "unfit for command," "Silky Pony," "watch for bi-weekly press releases/news conferences with ''doctors'' gassing on about supposed progress in Mrs. Edwards 'fight'"... about 10 dissents, at least 2 from lefties. So point to you marcf (unless anything's been scrubbed). Thanks for baiting me into reading that whole loose stool of a thread.
March 23, 2007 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm amazed that they can get away calling us "the haters", when they are the most spiteful. More Hypocrisy on the Right.
Of course, we can't tie ALL OF THEM to these comments. I just heard that the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page was decent about it and Dr. Laura did the same.
March 23, 2007 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow Marcf. That makes it ALL OKAY. IT'S ALL RIGHT TO HATE if you can claim that liberals do it too. NO MORAL RELATIVISM here, is there.
So Marcf, do you know what people whose moral standard is defined by what they are prepared to believe of their enemies, are called?
Come on Marcf. Let's take a guess.
March 23, 2007 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
A friend just called and said, "of course they celebrate hate. That is why conservatives have no music. All music, especially folk music, is from the left. Except the Horst Wessel song."!!!!
March 23, 2007 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
That doesn't strike me as a particularly partisan thought. I can imagine several life-long "greatest generation" Democrats I know having it, they mistrust people who are ambitious. Similarly, they can't imagine why Hillary would want to be president after having been through what she went through as first lady, or even be Senator, when with her money she could be doing good works with a foundation and not have to pander to other rich and powerful. It's "why not drop out and spend more time with your wife before she dies," it's the "nobody on their deathbed ever wished they spent more time at the office" sentiment writ large, and is also why a lot of people mistrust politicians, think they care only about personal power.
March 23, 2007 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Took a look at the thread. There's some human compassion and sympathy there.
But there's some hate machines going full bore, no limits, all hate all the time.
March 23, 2007 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting thought. They do have comedy of a sorts. If you can call shoving firecrackers up a cats ass comedy.
You want real sickness, watch and listen to what these people laugh at. Suffering, misfortune, pain.
March 23, 2007 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
removed comment posted in wrong place.
March 23, 2007 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I could invoke Godwin's Law in an indirect way and end this lovely thread which seems to be descending into the "which political blogosphere has more haters" by suggesting:
Richard Wagner after 1850
but instead I'll just suggest your friend ask the Dixie chicks about the country music world and then perhaps check out how much Lee Atwater loved to play the blues.
That's just silly.
March 23, 2007 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is hate:
Hate for a reason is still hate.
March 23, 2007 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's my point, artappraiser. I don't got nothing against you. It ain't personal. It's your logic and your beliefs as expressed in your posts that I take exception to.
I don't respect *your* right to hatred. And I don't believe that *your* right to hatred is justified by what *you* imagine your enemies are prepared to do.
Guys like you are all about high and mighty principles. Love them principles. I got a few of those principles myself.
The difference is that guys like you wear your principles like a coat. You just take em off and lay em over a chair when you wanna feel more comfortable.
And when you lay em down, what do you pick up. Pretty much any old thing that suits your impulse.
One of the favourites of guys like you is "well, the other guys are doing it, so I'm entitled."
You can pretty much justify anything by pointing the finger and saying the other guy is just as bad.
Hell, if you only say the other guy is worse... Well then, there's no floor is there. Guys like you are entitled to do any filthy thing that gives you a thrill.
You could go and take a look at the filth on ol' Lucienne's thread, and if you had principles, you'd say that's pretty goddammed foul.
But no, here you are making excuses for it, like tis all right to be dancing a jig for cancer and suffering and taking the opportunity to call Edwards a douchebag and a fag.
Well, I'm telling you it ain't all right, and no man or woman, Liberal or Conservative, with an ounce of integrity would ever say it was.
So where does that leave you?
Too bad, so sad, sorry old chum, don't wash, and you know where you can stick your Godwin's law.
March 23, 2007 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
reason for rating of the above: you're trollishly baiting another member for his personal opinion, trying to pick a childish fight and lecture him over his civilly- presented personal interpretations. (You might even be trying to get everyone to hate him for what he thinks!?)
March 23, 2007 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spamming?
ROTFL
pathetic
March 23, 2007 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct, You actually decided to check the link.
But I'm just curious what kind of sick mind would read Lucianne's website and come with the following conclusion:
"Hate is who they are. Gays, blacks, Jews. liberals, Democrats, Gore, Hillary, Obama, etc etc. It is all about hate."
I have nothing but contempt for Lucianne's role in 1998, but why MJ has to make things up in such a obvious way and why some of commentators on this blog are so lazy that they wouldn't check the link before starting commenting?
It's a mistery for me why MJ is allowed to to embarrass this great website.
"Hate is who they are"
This is straight from Rush Limbaugh repertoire.
TPM can do better.
March 23, 2007 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's assume that all posters to Lucianne Goldberg's site are rightwingers. Looking through the comments on her post about Edwards, you would be hard pressed to characterize the posters on that site at "joyful" or "vicious".
Here is a sampling of comments:
and so on.
And this was just in the first 15 or so comments. Are there mean-spirited people saying disgusting things about someone with cancer? Of course there are. But to say this is characteristic of the right in general is about as ridiculous as saying that all Democrats are gay-loving al Qaeda sympathizers. Conservatives, like liberals, are a mix of nice people and mean people, classy people and classless people and to pretend otherwise just betrays an astounding level of simplemindedness.
March 23, 2007 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The self-righteousness on this thread scares me. Hey, have a little humility, won't you. There is plenty to distinguish left and right, but the ability to hate is not one. There are many hateful mean despicable people across the political spectrum. Remember, two of the big three murderers of the 20th century were self-identified leftists.
Yes the comments on that site are ugly, sour, and unpleasant, but mostly I'd say they are partisan. They don't like Edwards or any other Democrat. Their main theme is that Edwards is a bad person because he doesn't drop out to take care of his wife and children. We all disagree strongly I'm sure, but it is NOT a celebration or meanness.
It's funny, but this is the kind of accusation that the right always makes against US, that we are all hateful, or all weak, or all unpatriotic, ad infinitum. Actually, what distinguishes us is that we do NOT make such nonsensical sweeping accusations!
March 23, 2007 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"TPM can do better"
very well put!
March 23, 2007 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hating people for what they think is less justifiable than hating them for what they do. But then again what people think often--not always---translates into action.
March 23, 2007 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
For what it's worth, here is my take on conservative penchant for hatred.
At some level, conservatives are anti "progress". At another level, they are in fact regressive (opposite of progressive). They seem to value the more elemental, feral characteristics in mankind. It is not just aggressiveness that enchants them, it is superstitious religiosity. It is blind bigotry and racism, it is everything that Hobbes warned us about ourselves. Liberals are by nature optimistic and forward looking types. Liberals are optimist by nature: creatures of the Enlightenment. Strangely enough, the conservative right wingers have more affinity with European Postmodernism than those of us who actually still believe in absolute reality and values. It's all about which part of your psyche is dominant.
March 23, 2007 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Artappraiser:
I have empathy with your sentiment. But unfortunately Nature is rather messy. You have haters on the left and you have haters on the right, but what we are talking about here is what drives right wing conservatism as a type. It certainly is not flower power make-love-not-war. Hatred is a human trait. We have all experienced it. The difference is that we liberals flee from it while conservatives seem to wallow in it. If you can't see that, then I would say you have not assessed the situation carefully enough.
March 23, 2007 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sick mind? Well, that would be me. Let's go take another look over at Lucienne's shall we?
Now, I'm happy to admit that there are compassionate and sympathetic persons there who empathized with Ms Edwards cancer and understood her wishes to carry on the campaign. I appreciate and admire those people. I certainly respect them.
I don't respect this:
So... that's seventeen out of the first 26. There's 194 posts total so far. Anyone want to go through them all?
Here and there in this bunch, there's these little pro-forma expressions. "Wow, cancer is bad" or "I feel sorry for their children."
But you know what, that's just reflexive bullshit. That's that 'have a nice day' stuff. This stuff is their real faces, their real attitudes. This is who each of these people really are.
Full disclosure, last year I went tearing half way across the country, in order to sit at a hospital bedside and watch my mother die of cancer, day after day. After a while, she wouldn't wake up, just writhe in pain whenever the morphine ran low. She lost weight and got hollower. I couldn't do a damned thing. Friends and loved ones came by and sat with her. She didn't know they were there, she didn't know I was there.
We stood vigil, me, my dad, my brother and sister, trading off shifts, sleeping next to her. We did what we could to offer comfort. I'd wipe her mouth, moisten her lips so her tongue wouldn't dry out. Stroke her hair. Rub moisturizer into her hands. If it was cold, we'd put a blanket on. The nurses came and went. We stayed. And when we weren't there, we kids were looking after Dad, taking care of things for him.
Every day there was less and less of her. Then one day, as we waited, she seemed to be breathing slower. I called the nurse, who didn't seem to care. Called everyone. I held her hand and talked to her begging her for each breath, coaxing her to live just a little longer so that everyone could be there, telling her that we were all coming, racing to be by her side. Maybe I was babbling for nothing, maybe it was just sound without meaning, but sometimes when you can't hear the words, you can hear the voice. And if there was anything left in her...
And she just kept breathing slower and slower as we gathered round, racing to be there. And finally as my brother arrived through the door, her lips pursed and for a second, it looked almost like she might say something, like there might be some flicker of awareness.
And then she wasn't breathing any more.
And I ran out of things to say.
After a few minutes, my father pried my hand from hers.
One by one, we hugged her, held her and kissed her. But there was nothing there. It was inert. My brother went to speak to the nurse.
And that was it, we all walked out of the room. Not looking at each other. Not saying anything. What was there left to say.
We separated outside the hospital, I walked to my car. I unlocked it and sat down. I took a breath.
And then all of a sudden, something awful, something so awful surged up inside me and tried to tear its way out of my throat. It was an animal sound, a sound of grief and helplessness and rage, it was a noise too terrible to hear and too awful to make. And I knew if I let it out, then I wouldn't be able to stop it and so I fought it with everything I had, forcing it back down, containing this uncontainable grief within me.
So obviously, I'm not terribly neutral on this subject, dear friend davai. Some might say I'm decidedly fierce on the topic. Perhaps not as objective as someone like you might prefer.
So be it. I have no more words to describe these people I have quoted. You would make excuses for them? Well then, be welcome to them, I am sure you will enjoy their company. If they find favour in your eyes, then that tells me as much about you as their words tell me about them.
And as to your opinion of me, well, I am happy to acknowledge it. When I consider the source, nothing could please me more.
But I pray that it may someday please you, davai, to invite me to tell you exactly what I think of you. Because that would please me too.
Now, I'm done with this thread. I'm going to go somewhere, where the air is clear. I may come back, I may not. But if anyone is stupid enough to want to continue a conversation with me on this topic, then I will tell you all now, you do so at your own fucking risk.
March 23, 2007 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll withhold comment until Dick Cheney resigns for medical reasons.
March 23, 2007 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad
your skill for marshaling selective factoids is legendary. And that's what I mean by right wingers having an affinity for European postmodernism. Any position can be maintained (and thus made "true") if you manipulate the data skillfully enough.
March 23, 2007 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You pointed to cynical comments, it's true, but they are not joyful.
In any case to indict "the political right" based on a few anonomys comments, is in the best traditions of Rush Limbaugh.
BTW, take look:
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/03/thoughts_on_eli.html
March 23, 2007 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then people wonder why situations like the Middle East can't be solved - look at the comments made by us leftists about Mike Kinsley and the Swampland. It's always so easy to see the other person's faults and think that they're so much worse.
March 23, 2007 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will someone rid TPM of trolls like Brad, Davai and a few others. This is a liberal/progressive site and these guys are rightwing apologists for fascist creeps. I don't belong on Lucianne (if I go there, I'm trolling). These guys are trolls. They are Republicans and racists and do not belong here.
March 23, 2007 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've had cancer, I wouldn't wish it on anyone - ever.
March 23, 2007 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Disagreeing isn't trolling. I wouldn't actually call Brad a right winger (I don't know enough about Davai to have an impression one way or another), but in any case, Republicans and right wing apologists are allowed to post here.
March 23, 2007 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well the thing is, when you're going through cancer treatment, the last thing you want is for life to stop around you - you want people to remain engaged in the world.
March 23, 2007 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're not trolls and they've been here a lot longer than you have.
March 23, 2007 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Mark,
I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT ME AS MEMBER.
Therefore I belong here.
March 23, 2007 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's that, Valdron, I think it's about defining an entire group "as all about hate" when obviously it isn't true. It's also about honesty in looking at one's self and seeing that sometimes we do bad things and good things.
I find both sides guilty of some pretty appalling accusations and hate speech - I was sickened at what people said directly to Mike Kinsley, someone whose politics I think are bullshit, but I sure wouldn't tell him to "go away and die."
I'm really sorry about your Mom, it's a terrible, wasting disease.
March 23, 2007 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Jan means that, I really don't.
March 23, 2007 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, You are Rush Limbaugh of the left, but you are not going to make a lot of money.
Most of us liberals are too smart for you.
This is the reason why most of hate-talk show on the Right.
March 23, 2007 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
On November 22, 1963, I was sitting in my office working when the announcement ran through the place. Like most of the country, I spent the next week or so deeply shocked.
During those days, there were a few that actually celebrated Jack Kennedy's murder. Some were businessmen, some politicians. As one said on the radio, "Serves that Communist right!"
'Nuff said?
March 23, 2007 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
So why can't you say the same thing about Rosenberg's conclusion, based on nothing more than a few scattered comments on one blog and his own preconceived notions, that conservatives are all haters? He has his evidence and I have mine.
Or is it that evidence doesn't matter. You just KNOW that the wingers are all no different than Klansmen.
My own view is that both left and right are about as bad as each other in the hate department. The only differences are that (a) there are simply more conservatives than liberals in this country and (b) radical pundits seem to be more prominent on the right. But pundits are not conservatism or liberalism, only its most visible face.
March 23, 2007 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can there be anything more pathetic than someone complaining about too much diversity in thinking? Sheesh, have a bit of self-confidence, man!
Just so you know, however, I am 41 years old and have voted in every presidential election since 1984. I have never voted for a Republican presidential candidate and I've barely voted for any Republicans at the Congressional level. My father, mother, grandparents and great-grandparents were all down-the-line Democrats.
Calling me a rightwinger is so absurd that I can only laugh.
March 23, 2007 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad the Dad's feelings are hurt. He's a Democrat, he whines. He comes from a long line of Democrats. But so does Joe Lieberman. And, like Lieberman, he will come to understand that he is more at home with Republicans than Democrats. He already is. He may have been born a Democrat but he will live most of his life as a Republican and a neoconservative.
Mark my words, Brad. Like all neocons, it starts with your "Israel firstism" and then takes over you entire politics.
All I can say is, go already. Vote in their primaries not ours.
March 23, 2007 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the record: I rated this post a "1" because it made no argument, only an attack on another poster.
March 23, 2007 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference between myself and BradtheDad is more than that we found different things in the same lists.
I acknowledged that perhaps a third of the posters at Lucienne showed genuine sympathy. I also acknowledged that many of those who spewed filthy bile leavened their comments with trite compassionate phrases, and I explained why I found them trite.
BradtheDad simply censored whatever didn't fit to make his point. He made no effort to acknowledge or explain or dismiss the bile. He just pretended not to see it. That's so chock full of integrity.
For myself, I've read through far more posts than I want to from Luciennes.
I would recommend that those who wander through this thread should go and spend some time looking through the inspiration and draw their own conclusions.
March 23, 2007 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark Weinberg you are just being ugly. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are a troll. Just because someone shows a spark of intelligence doesn't mean they are a troll.
TPM is distinguished by THOUGHTFUL liberal commentary. Take a hint.
March 23, 2007 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Mark,
It's so funny.
It doesn't take too long to move from hating Right for hating Back, Jews, Guys, cancer survivors and so on to just hating Jews
directly.
You made my day.
March 23, 2007 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugly certainly but pretty tame compared to some of the vile postings on Yahoo biotech message boards where only money is involved.
As others have mentioned there is plenty of hate spewed out from the liberal side with a decided lack of sympathy for some who have only a different of politics.
Wish it were not so but I fear you misfired this once, M. J.. You don't do it often. Maybe it is because you have too good a heart.
Best, Terry
March 23, 2007 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes...there were some comments that, on their face, were supportive. But if people do check the link they will find many multiple, clear cut, examples of hate being spewed forth (some comments from there are cited by Valdron further up this thread) by some God-awful people. It turned my stomach...
March 23, 2007 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get your point, but I am not sure that sarcasm is the best response to the situation faced by the Edwards.
March 23, 2007 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree BevD. Is it 'obviously not true' when on a representative sample, a full two thirds of those commenting dwell on partisan bile?
Maybe I'm wrong. I haven't read all 194 posts (or whatever its up to now). Perhaps the final tally is compassion 65%, bile 32%. I frankly doubt it.
The bile started early and it stayed mean, and it ran two to one against compassion.
This isn't a borderline case. This is a man and a woman facing something horrific and ugly, massively ugly. This is about as nasty as it gets in terms of the crisis people face. This is the sort of situation that should evoke compassion, that should force people to put aside their partisanship and actually get real.
One in three did. Two in three decided that there was still time to get their kicks in. "Can I still call him a fag." Wow, I'm glad to see that some people have their priorities straight. Two in three were so committed to bitterness and partisan hatred that they couldn't help kicking a man while he was down, or even worse, took it as an opportunity to really enjoy it.
Well, that 'two in three' are bad enough. But what about that one in three.
Is this like Lot's challenge to God. If we can find one of three that is not unspeakably vile but betrays human qualities... doesn't that redeem the whole bunch?
Well, I'm not God, but you sure as hell aren't Lot. Two out of three is bad enought. Two out of three is a pretty hideous majority. You get two out of three, I think its safe to generalize.
But let's stop and look at that one in three. Faced with an absolutely heartbreaking tragedy where all the pieces line up just right... two decent, good looking, sympathetic, white people facing a universal scourge and an absolutely horrific fate that everyone has some experience with... they reached into their hearts and found some genuine compassion.
Well, that's very nice.
But cynical old me. I have to wonder. Supposing the Edwards weren't good looking, or they weren't white, or sympathetic. How about if it wasn't something so universally accessible, but was, you know, peculiar in some way.
Where would that good old compassion meter be then?
I think, BevD, that we're coming to a difference of opinion here. You seem to see that one in three as an acceptable level of compassion, sufficient to redeem the group. That one in three is the compassionate baseline of conservatism. Maybe I'm misconstructing your views, if so, I apologize.
For myself, I think that with that one in three, I'm looking at the high water mark of American right wing compassion.
I think after that, it goes downhill. I think that if the Edwards were black, it wouldn't be 1 in 3, it would be 1 in 6. I think that if the Edwards weren't such a classic case.. change the variables, and compassion drops to 1 in 10. Or 1 in 20. I think from here on in, it all just gets meaner and uglier.
Maybe I'm wrong. Too bad we can't run an experiment.
Supposing for instance, we ran the same story on Lucienne, but instead of the Edwards, it was Al Sharpton and his wife. Instead of something universal and tragic like cancer, Mrs Sharpton was down with something like hepatitis, or hiv or liver failure, say something associated with consequences of past drug use (though nothing proveable as to Mrs Sharpton's actual past).
Let me ask you BevD, and I'd like you to be honest... What do you think the compassion index would be then?
Look me in the eye and tell me you really, truly, honestly believe that the Sharptons would score the same one in three compassion rating. Don't you really think its possible, likely even, that the Sharptons would experience a drop? What do you think?
You may think that I'm simply partisan and prejudiced when I condemn the right for the virulence and universality of its hatred. I see it as simple observation.
I think I'm entitled to make dispassionate observations and then draw my own conclusions. If your conclusions differ, we can certainly discuss them and try to reach a deeper level of understanding.
It may be that hatred is simply an intrinsic part of the American character, a vital part of your emotional repertoire. It's certainly present on the left. But it is hideously omnipresent on the right. There's a lot of bitterness and bile which animates the right and modern 'so called' conservatism.
But this discussion goes on too long, and frankly, I think it goes beyond us to look at the nature of hatred as a core American value.
Instead, let me turn to your other issue:
I have no idea who Mike Kinsley is. But I get the gist of your comment.
Your attitude, perhaps commendable, is that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
I think that matters are a little more textured than you appreciate.
Let me offer up a bit of background. In the course of my life, I've been blessed to know some very good people. I've also met a fair share of bad ones. It's been an interesting life, occasionally it promised to be a short one. But that's neither here nor there.
By circumstance, I got to meet a number of unpleasant people, pimps, thieves, wife beaters, a bank robber, drug addicts, alcoholics, sociopaths of various stripes, and under conditions which gave me an insight into how they think.
Would you like to know how they think? I'll tell you.
They think, "everybody does it." There you have their morality, the morality of lowest common denominators. The morality of universality.
Of course, not everyone walks into a room where a drunken teenage girl is passed out and proceeds to have sex with her.
But that's how they rationalize their acts. Their morality (and they all make a great deal about their moral foundations, I never met a biker who wouldn't go on at length about 'honour') operates to justify and relieve them of responsibility for their conduct.
I knew a pimp once. Interesting guy, a mile wide, an inch deep. He could be your best friend in the world. He would feel his friendship and devotion to you so intensely that tears would come into his eyes. And it would be perfectly honest.
But here's the interesting thing about my 'pal' the pimp. Assuming that you were his best friend. And assuming that you had something he wanted... Perhaps you merely left your wallet or credit card out where he could get his hands on it. Well then, you'd see a fascinating alchemy. Because all of a sudden, he'd find or imagine or recall some slight or insult. Something you said or did that amounted to or inflated to a complete and utter betrayal of this friendship for you he felt so passionately. It would amount to an epiphany for him. You had toyed with his affection. You were not, after all, his best friend. You were a snake in the grass, a wolf in sheep's clothing, a judas, a monster. You were his most hated enemy and he had a duty to strike back at you righteously in any way he could.
It was fascinating to watch. He could literally turn on a dime. Go from best friend to worst enemy all in a second. And he'd be the victim in his own mind, cruelly betrayed. The amazing thing was that his emotional transformation lined up perfectly with whatever selfish impulse came upon him. Funny how he went through life screwing over everyone the he was ever able to be in a position to screw over... and how they all deserved it.
Now, you're thinking, am I going anywhere with this. Yes, yes I am.
The point is that guys like that are a cartoon. They're a human cartoon, human nature reduced to a caricature line drawing. But its still human nature.
Human nature helps us justify our worst and ugliest impulses. Human nature helps the hateful, the unpleasant, the bileful and the baleful live with themselves and pretend that their virulence is virtue.
The common thread of every bad person, every hateful bastard, is projection. Faced with their crimes, they never take responsibility, this is the single, ultimate, universal. They don't take responsibility.
They pass it on. Take one of these people and point out some bad thing they've done... Not a smidgen of responsibility. "They deserved it." "They asked for it." "They had it coming."
Complain to them of bad behaviour? "My enemies do it too."
That makes it okay, you see. If your enemies do it, then you don't have to take responsibility for doing it yourself. You can just go ahead and do it, secure in the knowledge that you are 'moral' that its 'tit for tat' or 'self defense' or somethign or other.
The moral barometer becomes whatever the enemy is doing.
More accurately, the moral barometer is whatever they believe or convince themselves that the enemy is doing.
More accurately, the moral barometer is whatever they believe or convince themselves that the enemy is willing to do.
Do you feel the abyss opening up under your feet?
Because a moral barometer based on your worst fantasies about your worst enemies is a moral barometer without a bottom.
To use an example of bottomless evil, consider that Hitler genuinely, honestly, truly believed in his heart of hearts that murdering six million jews as an act of self defense. He had to get them, or they would get him. Or something like that. He was the victim. They had it coming.
Again, we come to cartoons. Human nature drawn so bluntly in black and white lines, blown up and exaggerated so as to become caricature. But still human nature.
This is where I'm going though.
You strike me as an empathic person, a fair minded person. Maybe I idealize you. I don't know you, but I'd like to think well of you.
So, you see some offense committed on one side, you perceive the hypocrisy of the other side committing and complaining of that same offense. Good for you.
But this opens you up to, for want of a better phrase, condoning evil.
The people who spew hatred on Lucienne will never take responsibility for their hatred. They'll merely justify it. Edwards, they tell you, has it coming.
Better yet, the left does it too. Their defense is to point fingers. They take no responsibility for their own conduct, their defenders deal not with their offenses, but rather, they point fingers.
The democrats, the lefties do it too. They're equally guilty. Instead of acknowledging that calling Edwards a fag when his wife has cancer is vile, they simply say 'well, someone said something vile about Dick Cheney.'
Well, perhaps they're right. Perhaps someone did. But that doesn't change the fact that they crossed the line themselves. Whoever said the vile thing about Cheney didn't throw a rope around them and drag them down into the cesspit. They went willingly, eagerly even. The fact that someone was an asshole and said something ugly about Cheney, doesn't give them a license to say ugly things about Edwards.
But they act as if it does. The offense against Cheney gives them free reign to be morally offensive to Edwards. In fact, their moral offensiveness to Edwards is more than license, its justice, its righteousness, its imperative, its revenge. It's payback baby, yeah!
It's the ultimate 'get out of jail' for free card. It's the perfect moral trump. Its the complete absolution from responsibility.
No matter how vile you become, no matter what moral travesty you commit, all you have to do is jerk your thumb and say 'well, they do it too.' In fact, freedom is that all you have to do is believe they do it. In fact all you have to do is believe they are prepared to do it. Then you can do anything. Everything is justified, everything is licensed.
You see, I've seen way too much of this. I can smell this logic of criminality and moral bankruptcy. I'm tuned to this sort of dishonesty. And I will not tolerate it.
If someone starts a thread about how Dick Cheney should suffer a long and lingering cancer. Well, that's flatly offensive, and decent people should tear strips off them. I certainly will.
But if someone starts a thread about assholes who chortle and spew bile at Edwards over his spouse... And someone comes up with the claim that the liberals said the same thing about Cheney. Well, that's pointing fingers. It's not dealing with the bile or the spew. It's justifying it it. It's making excuses for it. And its legitimizing it.
Do you see what I'm saying? There's legitimate fairness. And then there's enabling and excuses, evasion of responsibility.
I simply refuse to tolerate it. Ever.
And that's it. I've often harped on this subject. I don't think I've ever made quite this much effort to make my views clear. I hope that I've been able to give you an insight into my perspective, and to help you understand why I am so uncompromising in my opposition to a certain sort of argument.
Lastly, thank you for your sympathy.
March 23, 2007 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think he misfired.
If this is okay with you, well, its okay with you.
March 23, 2007 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a passing thought, but is the Lucienne site moderated. I believe it is. I believe that like FreeRepublic and other right wing sites, there is some monitoring and objectionable opinions are regularly purged.
Someone shows up too liberal on Lucienne, well, they and their posts are just gone. Perhaps I'm wrong, I suspect that someone around here can tell us.
But in the event that I'm right, then riddle me this. This appalling vile spew that vomits through the Edwards thread.
It's not being purged. It's not being censored. It seems Lucienne has decided that this is a perfectly acceptable set of posts, well within the framework of right wing discourse.
Does this tell us something about Lucienne? Does it tell us something about her community?
Let me offer a thought experiment.
Suppose TPM started a Lynne Cheney cancer thread. Suppose people started posting the same sort of vile spew we're seeing on the Edwards thread.
What would happen?
Would there be a wave of liberals who would stand up and say that this sort of talk is obnoxious and offensive and people should show some goddammed compassion? I think they might. I'd damned well be saying it.
But I don't think I found any posts like that on the Lucienne thread. Not in the first 26, and not in the latter random dozen I looked at. About a third expressed genuine sympathy, but I did not find a single conservative who was willing to criticize his or her brethren for their lack of compassion. It seems when it comes to spewing venom, even the compassionate conservatives believe in tolerance. They may not spew it themselves, but they'll quietly sit there and let it happen.
Or, would Josh, or some of the moderators of the list take a good look at what was happening, become repelled and shut down the thread or purge it?
Decent chance of that. I would think.
What do you think.
March 23, 2007 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The democrats, the lefties do it too. They're equally guilty. Instead of acknowledging that calling Edwards a fag when his wife has cancer is vile, they simply say 'well, someone said something vile about Dick Cheney.' ... The fact that someone was an asshole and said something ugly about Cheney, doesn't give them a license to say ugly things about Edwards. But they act as if it does. The offense against Cheney gives them free reign to be morally offensive to Edwards."
You put a lot of energy into this Valdron and you deserve an answer. Fact is, I'm the one who mentioned Cheney, and I agree with you 100% -- bad behavior does not excuse bad behavior of others. Nobody ever said it did,
I made two points. First, as ugly and mean as that "partisan bile" website may be, there was no gloating, "celebrating" the cancer, as MJ's title (now moderated) and text would have us believe. "Celebrating" made the ugly site sould much worse than it actually was, IMHO. Second, I reacted to MJ's "What is it about conservatism that produces people like this." I find this "We're so much better than them" to be despicable. The talk about Cheney is no better, and I excuse neither.
March 24, 2007 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention the pro-Israel right which goes into ecstatic paroxysms at the death of Israeli peace activists. Today's NY TImes notes the death of leading Israeli anti-Occupation activist & NYU linguist Tanya Reinhart. She was also a student of Noam Chomsky's.
Here is the e mail I was sent by a Colorado based Kahanist calling himself the lovely name, Treason Ferret:
We figure that hundreds of thousands of people will want to attend the first annual set of festivities celebrating the end of Reinhardt's career of imbecility. We understand the scalpers are already charging 200 euro per ticket, even though people have to bring their own beer. So get with the spirit guys.
We plan to award the collected writings of David Irving…to whoever comes up with the best corpse disposal suggestion.
Richard Silverstein
Tikun Olam>
March 24, 2007 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh & lest anyone think the right has the market cornered on hate check out a few DailyKos threads. Over there commenting is blood sport. When I used to post diary entries there people tried to reach down my throat & pull my guts out. The place can be a real sewer if you say the wrong things. I was banned & I've been a happier person for it. Much happier here, thank you.
Richard Silverstein
Tikun Olam>
March 24, 2007 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see. Two or three anonymous writers posted on Huffington Post that the world would have been better off if Cheney had been assassinated, and Huffington Post deleted these posts as soon as their editors became aware of them.
And that's "no better" than over one hundred posts accusing the Edwards of everything from P.R. pandering and closet homosexuality to a sociopathic level of narcissism? Without, apparently, a single post being deemed offensive enough to be deleted?
March 24, 2007 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it would be purged. That's what happened with those few tasteless posts on HuffPo, and I have no doubt that Josh's standards are at least as high as Arianna's.
But hey, it's fun to pretend that the Right and the Left are equal offenders when it comes to hate speech. G-D forbid that reality should ever intrude on our so-called Culture Wars.
March 24, 2007 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can pick out psycho posters anywhere that comments are not pre-screened.
For sure there are some hate sites. The newsgroups used to have flame groups where people could enjoy flame wars to their hearts content.
What do you say about comments on most any liberal website regarding Ann Coulter? Are the comments hate-filled or just retribution? Coulter invites the hate messages with her own, of course.
Matter of judgment. I abhor vile attacks on Edwards through his wife's illness and, even worse, the death of his child. What have you shown by suggesting such messages are OK with me because I thought the original posting was a bit overheated?
Best, Terry
March 24, 2007 4:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the left spews hate as comparable as the right, then we should see it manifesting itself with the recent announcement by Tony Snow, a colon cancer survivor, that a tumor has been found in his lower abdomen and he will have it operated on
this coming Monday.
March 24, 2007 5:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you go back to my original comment, you will see that I wrote the following: "Are there mean-spirited people saying disgusting things about someone with cancer? Of course there are."
I simply said that you cannot, on the basis of that thread, conclude that hate and viciousness characterize conservatives in general, as Rosenberg said. It's unjustified and silly, but in keeping with most of the drivel he writes.
And if you're looking for hate-filled comments from the left, try spending a few minutes on Democratic Underground or similar sites.
March 24, 2007 6:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Sounded an awful lot to me like you were offering up Cheney as the excuse.
Shall we go back and look at your earlier post. What I took from it is two things:
1) "They're not so bad."
Well, I went and quoted a bunch. If you feel that those aren't so bad then... Seemed very much that this was behaviour you were more than prepared to tolerate, and even, given (2) to excuse...
2) "The Liberals did the same (or worse) to Cheney"
Maybe they did. But here's the thing. We weren't looking at the Liberals talking about Cheney. The time to smack people for that is when you find it. We were talking about Edwards.
Knowingly or not, your conduct amounted to finger pointing.
I don't know you. Maybe this was deliberate on your behalf. Maybe you were excusing and justifying vile behaviour.
Or maybe you were going 'pox on both your houses' and thinking you were being fair. What was Lenin's phrase? "Useful idiots"? The trouble is that even if we attribute best intentions to you, your passive moral posturing both excuses and justifies vile behaviour.
You offer up a license and a defense to those who spewed bile. In the end, I can't really know why you did it. I can only deal with the effect of your words.
You claim that you agree with me that bad behaviour does not excuse bad behaviour.
But in fact, that's exactly what your posts did.
You want my suggestion? I think that our positions are sufficiently well articulated that additional argument from me really won't add much, and that you realize I find your defense entirely unpersuasive. So here goes... I've already given these sorts of issues lots of thought, I'll keep on wrestling with moral issues.
Why don't you go off and think about it for a while. No pressure. Just take this back with you and think about it...
March 24, 2007 6:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Finger pointing as a defense. The voice of moral bankruptcy.
March 24, 2007 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well then we have our answer.
March 24, 2007 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excusing evil by pointing the finger somewhere else.
March 24, 2007 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brad writes: "I simply said that you cannot, on the basis of that thread, conclude that hate and viciousness characterize conservatives in general, as Rosenberg said. It's unjustified and silly, but in keeping with most of the drivel he writes."
Rosenberg is published everywhere including the NY Times last week. Brad just posts rightwing blatherings on blogs. This is like a cockroach calling a blue jay ugly.
March 24, 2007 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is interesting that MSM could track down problems with posts by John Edaward's bloggers regarding Catholics and posts wishing a bad outcome for Dick Cheyney's blood clot, but overlook equally distasteful posts from the right.
Is Drudge the internet guide for MSM?
CNN supposedly has an "internet reporter", so have less of an excuse.
March 24, 2007 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's like biting tinfoil. Profoundly unpleasant but hard to let it go. I skimmed through them all. Out of 194 posts roughly 135 expressed hostility or hatred. The two to one ratio held up remarkably consistently.
This included gems like:
This isn't particularly atypical. Indeed, apart from the fact that its more elaborate and more coherent than usual, it seems to represent the dominant attitude. Here's another winner:
Well, at least someone has kept a sense of humour about this. And this one is just precious:
This post is enlightening for its indulgence in a bit of subtle race baiting. Or perhaps not so subtle. It's a well established practice to render racist parody in 'dialect.' No one is suggesting that Edwards is black, but the use of a racist 'dialect' tactic implies that something is swimming around in a fetid cesspool of a mind.
This one is best of all:
K