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

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.

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.

MJ says:

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Spamming?

ROTFL

pathetic

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:

I feel terrible for Mrs. Edwards

Best wishes for his wife

Class act, Mrs. and Mr. Edwards. I give them both the highest points across the board. May God bless and keep them.

I wish her well.

The cancer is regrettable

I hope that Ms. Edwards goes into another remission for the sake of her children!

So sad. I'll pray for a miracle for Elizabeth and for comfort for her children.

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.

"TPM can do better"

very well put!

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.

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:

* jb3kids, 3/22/2007 12:49:52 PM. I'm sorry he's blinded by presidential ambition and sees this as part of the quest to get there as if it will make them stronger and better suited for the office of the Presidency.

*WhamDBambam, 3/22/2007 12:54:40 PM- How many of you have held press conferences to announce your spouse's "terminal illness?" Looking for a sympathy bump, Johnny? This unholy cross between a PI "lawyer" and a politician proudly displays his cynicism for all to see.

* ingere72, 3/22/2007 1:02:38 PM - Class act b'sitters [either babysitter or bullshitter, take your pick]. They both leave a sour taste in my mouth. Political madness(ambition) personified.

*glcinpdx, 3/22/2007 1:03:44 PM - If he's still planning on continuing his campaign, then what was the point of the press conference? A chance to get his smarmy face on TV? Fishing for sympathy votes? Nothing else make much sense.

*KimoSaavy, 3/22/2007 1:06:21 PM ..... however, 4 years ago Elizabeth's cancer was on full sympathy display and here we go again. I would like to see the timeline on this thing back then. Was he selected VP candidate before or after the cancer revelelation. What is this guy up to? If he/she/they are using the cancer as a way to garner sympathy from the general public conservatives and liberals alike, and candidacy support for VP? If so, then the pox on them both. NOTICE, he ain't stepping aside and the cancer will become a point of discussion wherever he goes. .... I am much more worried about the guys overseas putting their life on the line for schmucks like the silky unicorn and his nefarious staff. .... right now, my sympathies rest someplace else.

* convert, 3/22/2007 1:07:30 PM - It's such a reflection of the kind of life John has led, however, that we can't help but be cynical about the purpose of this press conference.

*garyhope, 3/22/2007 1:07:35 PM - Despite his vain and narcissistic hair primping ritual video?

* Talega, 3/22/2007 1:12:32 PM - Edwards has enriched his life millions of times by preying on the medical professional. How many physicians' lives have been destroyed by this man through jury manipulation? And now he praises and relies upon the brilliance of the same medical community for treating his wife. God bless her but he can go to hell.

* bearcat, 3/22/2007 1:13:22 PM - I'm sorry, but I, too, think this is a play for the sympathy vote. The fact that they would rather run for president than spend time with the family speaks volumes.

* Bevan, 3/22/2007 1:15:15 PM The sympathy vote worked well for Hillary.....

* pallis, 3/22/2007 1:19:05 PM - Be a man John, silly things like personal power, fame and ego can wait. Your wife and kids can't.

* Safari Man, 3/22/2007 1:20:48 PM - Let's recall this is coming from the man who was willing to take full advantage of Christopher Reeve's travails (see http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/12/edwards.stem.cell/ ). I believe Reply 4 - Posted by: WhamDBambam has nailed it. A simple press release would have sufficed -- this nationally televised press conference was a blatant attempt to get news coverage and sympathy off his wife's travails.

* Rumblehog, 3/22/2007 1:26:08 PM - Disgusting

* Dandeedon, 3/22/2007 1:28:03 PM I'm with the face time and sympathy vote crowd...

* Park Slope Pubby, 3/22/2007 1:29:25 PM - I think it will backfire. I think most people will be very upset that he is doing this to his wife and young children. I think the narcissism displayed in the hair-combing video is displayed here to a pathological degree, and I think most people will realize this and be revolted. Also, on a strictly selfish level, I think most people will not want to vote for a candidate whose wife will be dying in the White House, with small children. It's just too painful. Finally, a medical question: I believe that Mrs. Edwards had these children when she was very old, and that she probably had to take a lot of hormones and fertility drugs. Could there be a relationship between this and breast cancer? I'm just musing, not making any kind of point.

* Moonspinner, 3/22/2007 1:29:35 PM - Politicians and their wives or husbands (whichever the case may be) are a strange breed of people. The compaign comes first in their lives no matter what. So while some of you are posting how wonderful Elizabeth is and articulate, I'll not forget that Elizabeth Edwards has had some very harsh words for other people. Example: Lynne Cheney's response to John Kerry bringing up Mary Cheney being a lesbian in the debates. Elizabeth jumped right in there with her own nasty and catty comments toward Lynne Cheney. Perhaps Elizabeth will have an awakening about some of the nasty things she has said about others.

* Garage Logician, 3/22/2007 1:32:50 PM - Since he's still running while his wife has a nasty reurn of her cancer, is it OK to keep calling him a faggot?

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.

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.

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.

I've had cancer, I wouldn't wish it on anyone - ever.

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.

Dear Mark,
I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT ME AS MEMBER.
Therefore I belong here.

I don't think Jan means that, I really don't.

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?

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.

For the record: I rated this post a "1" because it made no argument, only an attack on another poster.

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.

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

I get your point, but I am not sure that sarcasm is the best response to the situation faced by the Edwards.

I don't think he misfired.

GeneSmith, 3/23/2007 9:49:22 AM - The Silky Pony made millions shamelessly lying to juries, ''channeling'' the spirit of a dead child at one point. This sleazoid trial lawyer hopes the sympathy vote will give him a bounce in the polls. If it does, watch for bi-weekly press releases/news conferences with ''doctors'' gassing on about supposed progress in Mrs. Edwards 'fight'.

If this is okay with you, well, its okay with you.

"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.

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>

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.

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.

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...

Well then we have our answer.

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.

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:

Bluestocking, 3/22/2007 2:34:21 PM - ...Now John Edwards will have a major advantage over his political opponents, since any type of negative campaigning against him will be strictly verboten. Yet that’s the principal kind of campaigning the Democrats indulge in. And the talk-show comedians will dare not utter a word of even humorous criticism against him. He’ll be completely above the fray, and after a few months could start looking like a serious adult with a heavy burden, maybe even Lincolnesque if he can stop smiling all the time and get rid of the bangs. The best thing would be if the Democratic voters who were planning to attend John Edwards’ speeches and rallies stayed home, knowing he should be spending his time with his wife and children, and embarrassed to be enablers to his desertion of them in their time of need. But counting on Democrats to be embarrassed about anything has long proven to be a vain hope.

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:

Garage Logician, 3/22/2007 1:52:16 PM - If she dies, will his running mate's wife succeed her?

Well, at least someone has kept a sense of humour about this. And this one is just precious:

bropous, 3/22/2007 1:45:14 PM - That said, you can expect the Breck Girl to milk her cancer for every drop of sympathy he can. He is a callous Plaintiff's lawyer, and using sympathy to overcome reason is a hallmark of his disgusting career as na ambulance-chaser. Look for it on the campaign trail on a daily basis. "Ah'm fightin' fo' mah wahf, who, if y'all didn't know, is faghtin' cayunsuh. Liyuz, stayund up an' show thuh jurah, wayut, ah meayun thah vowtuhs, whut that keemotherupaye is doin' to yowah bawdy. Look, ladies an jinnilmen of thuh jurah, I mean, vowtahs, thius iyus whut y'all gawnah look like if y'awl allayow annuthah Republican Preyusuhdeyunt!" (GRIN!) Edwards is a shameless huckster schuyster, and he will capitalize on his wife's cancer, AGAIN.

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:

Dignitary Protection, 3/22/2007 3:23:21 PM - Boy, we sure are getting a lot of Democrat voters on this site!

Ka Ching! Isn't that an interesting comment.

I take it from this comment that Dignitary Protection is asserting that all these expressions of genuine compassion, that 'one in three' constitute a lot of Democrats and Liberals streaming in to chip in their opinion.

He's right to some extent. At least some of the posts are definitely from Liberals. There's a guy, for instance, who references Newt Gingrich's behaviour. That said, I make no assessment as to how many of the 'True Compassionates' are liberals transferring in, and how many are indigenous.

It seems that his view is that the 'Compassion Index' is unreasonably high, and that he attributes it to liberals parachuting in.

This makes me wonder what the real compassion index would be sans liberals and in more normal circumstances... One in five? One in ten? One in twenty?

Food for thought.

Changing the subject after your previous comment was definitively shown to be utter nonsense: The voice of cowardice.

madison1776,

Brad just posts rightwing blatherings on blogs.

MJ seems to have created a space in our little corner of the blogosphere for self-righteous assholes to vent their spleens slamming Brad the Dad with baseless characterizations of "rightwing," "neocon," "Likudnik," etc.  How is this behavior significantly different from complaints that accusations of "antisemitism" are designed to "stifle debate"?

Personally, I liked TPMCafe much better before it grew up into the circle jerk it is now.

Gee Brad, here's the way it is.

I have a cat. It's an old cat, she doesn't move around too well. Mostly she's ornamental. Once in a while, she uses the litterbox.

The results of her effort are not pretty. They're stinky, sometimes runny, sometimes just soft. We try to dispose of them fast. But once in a while, it gets stale and hard and dried out.

Now, assuming that my cat's stale, dried out poop had an opinion and from time to time posted that opinion on TPMCafe...

Well, I think its so obvious that it goes without saying that most people would find the opinions of that stale, dried out cat poop to be more insightful and intelligent than the vast majority of your posts. In most cases, it wouldn't even be close.

That said, I would like to assure you that in my bottomless respect for you, I will always recognize the possibility that your views would actually be up on the level of stale dried out cat poop. It might be difficult, but you know what. I have faith in you, you can strive for greatness, I think you can elevate yourself to reach that target.

Hell, you know what? I bet that if you worked hard enough, your opinion would be worth a steaming cat turd.

That's how much I respect your views. I know, most people would never go that far. But I'm a wild and generous guy. And I think your views could someday be worth it.

How's that for the voice of cowardice, bub?

I guess my feeling about this thread is that I don't see how a debate about whether the left- or right-wing has more of a capacity to hate helps us. It's in the policies that the real difference appears. The policies of the right wing are anti-poor, anti-gay, anti-minority, anti-female. They show a disregard for the interests of the peoples whose countries we invade and occupy. These policies are anti-environment and anti-education, and therefore anti-child, since it is our children who will have to live with the world we are creating.

It doesn't make the situation any clearer if some or most of them spew vitriol-- the policies they support already expose them as haters. Compassionate conservatism is an oxymoron.

Here's my view of the right wing hate machine: How quick they are to jump.

I watched this Olbermann show and picked the following from Media Matters:

"On the March 22 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann designated Limbaugh, the "Worst Person in The World" for, according to Olbermann, "suggesting in the hours immediately following the announcement, that Elizabeth Edwards has again been diagnosed with cancer, that her husband's presidential campaign will continue or end based on whether or not he gets a, quote, 'bump [subscription required],' unquote, in the polls because of her illness."

It was only hours after the Edwards' announcement that the shi* hit the right wing noise machine, starting with Limbaugh, or so it seems, and spreading throughout their system, and what we have is just small example on the Lucianne blog.

The Limbaughs, the Luciannes, etc. (I didn't check any other right wing sources) are simply herding the cattle by putting it out there.

This is a replay of Limbaugh ridiculing Michael J Fox and the uncontrollable movements of his Parkinson's Disease.

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".

Actually, not hard pressed at all. In fact, 'joyful' and 'vicious' comments were running steadily at about two to one over compassionate. That was 17 out of 26, which you'll find I quoted directly elsewhere. Broad finding as about 135 out of 194, and I quoted a few more here and there.

If those are the sorts of things that BradtheDad would be hard pressed to find as 'vicious' or 'joyful' well, I guess that tells us a lot.

Brad quotes seven out of the first fifteen. But are these honest quotes? Is he cherry picking? Is he manipulating the quotes?

Let's go take a look at the full quotes:

* logiclogger, 3/22/2007 12:52:04 PM - Best wishes for his wife but I also do not understand his reasoning to continue his candidacy. He's not even polling 4th.

* jb3kids, 3/22/2007 12:49:52 PM - I feel terrible for Mrs. Edwards but feel awful that he's going to continue. Put that optimism into family time and maybe another cause, not into the demands of running for office. I'm sorry he's blinded by presidential ambition and sees this as part of the quest to get there as if it will make them stronger and better suited for the office of the Presidency.

* convert, 3/22/2007 1:07:30 PM - I hope that Ms. Edwards goes into another remission for the sake of her children! It's such a reflection of the kind of life John has led, however, that we can't help but be cynical about the purpose of this press conference.

Notice how there's always a "But." The expression of sympathy, is always followed by a "but" where the poster feels free to be cynical, self righteous, judgemental and hard hearted.

Funny how BradtheDad missed those isn't it?

Here's my favourite. It's his 'the cancer is regrettable' quote. Think about that. Wasn't that a weirdly stiff and formal way to express sympathy. Can't you feel the grudging unwillingness to express a decent human sentiment. What a peculiar choice to demonstrate the decency of Lucienne's posters.

Get a load of the full quote:

KimoSaavy, 3/22/2007 1:06:21 PM - I am not trying to be mean because cancer is mean enough and I don't have the guns to compete with it, however, 4 years ago Elizabeth's cancer was on full sympathy display and here we go again. I would like to see the timeline on this thing back then. Was he selected VP candidate before or after the cancer revelelation. What is this guy up to? If he/she/they are using the cancer as a way to garner sympathy from the general public conservatives and liberals alike, and candidacy support for VP? If so, then the pox on them both. NOTICE, he ain't stepping aside and the cancer will become a point of discussion wherever he goes. The cancer is regrettable, but right now, I am much more worried about the guys overseas putting their life on the line for schmucks like the silky unicorn and his nefarious staff. She'll hopefully get well, right now, my sympathies rest someplace else.

He's not trying to be mean, but somehow, he succeeds admirably. Isn't this just spectacular? Dredging up the past, muttering darkly of conspiracy theories. Yes, Ms Edwards cancer was a cunning democratic ploy to sway people's human emotions. What a scumbag.

Also, what a charming representative. Interesting that BradtheDad found him worthy of quoting. Even more interesting that BradtheDad was able to cherrypick five words in a hate-filled four paragraph paranoid rant. I can't imagine that BradtheDad didn't read the whole thing, or appreciate it for what it was. It takes deliberation and malice to misrepresent Kimosavvy's real view so thoroughly.

This one here that BradtheDad quotes is almost sympathetic:

smobooks, 3/22/2007 1:08:30 PM - There is a less than 20% chance she will be alive in 5 years. Their youngest are 6 and 8 now. You do the math. How can they leave these children with the nanny (or whoever) to campaign when they know Elizabeth's time on earth is short? If it were me and I insisted that my husband keep the campaign going, I hope he would tell me I'm insane and quit the race. The Edwards have more money than most of us can dream of, they have three beautiful living children...enjoy them! What memories are these children going to cherish about their mother -- the phone calls from her from Iowa or New Hampshire or being tucked in and read a story every night? So sad. I'll pray for a miracle for Elizabeth and for comfort for her children.

You know what. I think that there's *some* compassion and decency showing there. But the quality of this mercy is queerly strained. Read it carefully. Before the compassion comes the judgement - The Edwards are clearly bad parents. Edwards is by clear implication insane and unloving. Why the gratuitous reference to wealth...? And of course, finishing up with more bad parenting judgement.

I gotta say, that when my mother was dying, if someone came up and offered me this sort of compassion, I would not have taken it well. I would not have perceived it as honest or decent. I would have seen it as another example of 'but', where petty and small minded judgementalism and vicious hard heartedness ruled, while congratulating itself on its generosity.

These two quotes were honest and genuinely compassionate. BradtheDad didn't modify, edit or massage these two in any way.

SallyVee, 3/22/2007 12:57:28 PM - Class act, Mrs. and Mr. Edwards. I give them both the highest points across the board. May God bless and keep them.

* sepcodale, 3/22/2007 1:04:41 PM - The campaign will be her therapy. It will keep her mind off of deadly things. With that kind of an attitude, her life will be extended for many months or years. I had a friend just die of Breast Cancer last week. Looking at her just a couple of weeks earliers, you would not have known. I wish her well.

I'd like to offer my compliments to Sepcodale and to SallyVee for their genuine compassion. They offered no 'buts', no caveats, no cynicism. Their words were unleavened, their compassion was not conditional or reserved.

Ah, but Brad said this was his sampling (7) from the first fifteen or so. I suppose we should leave off where BradtheDad left off. He said first fifteen? What was the fifteenth:

Talega, 3/22/2007 1:12:32 PM Edwards has enriched his life millions of times by preying on the medical professional. How many physicians' lives have been destroyed by this man through jury manipulation? And now he praises and relies upon the brilliance of the same medical community for treating his wife. God bless her but he can go to hell.

Wow. Can't you just feel the love? I wonder how come BradtheDad missed out on cherrypicking this guy. Embarrassment of riches I suppose. Or just embarrassment.

So, ladies and gentlemen, what's our scorecard?

Out of the first fifteen, BradtheDad ignored eight. He misrepresented five. He actually referenced only two genuine cases of decency.

Hell of a record.

You can pick out psycho posters anywhere that comments are not pre-screened.

Fair enough. What do you say to the fact that the psycho posters on Lucienne are running 2 to 1?

I dunno. Seems to me that a lone nutcase is one thing. You're sort of sliding past the fact that the nutcase contingent seems to be the overwhelming majority on Lucienne.

For sure there are some hate sites.

Is Lucienne officially a hate site?

What do you say about comments on most any liberal website regarding Ann Coulter?

I say its completely fucking repulsive. Funny how you seem to be working so hard to defend Lucienne's community.

I say two wrongs don't make a right. I say that pointing fingers elsewhere to avoid having scoundrels held responsible is simply bobbing for evil. I've been saying this at great length through the entire thread.

But thanks for offering up this bankrupt and disgusting argument one more time. Because, what the heck, maybe I'd believe it this time. Or maybe not.

Are the comments hate-filled or just retribution?

I'd have to go with 'hate-filled' along with those 'two wrongs don't make a right.' Coulter is deserving of legitimate criticism. Her offensive comments should be thoroughly condemned. But gratuitous hatred? What's the point?

Coulter invites the hate messages with her own, of course.

And.... that makes it right? Wrong? Consensual? Where are you going with this? Is there some sort of idea that you're developing? I'm curious.

Matter of judgment. I abhor vile attacks on Edwards through his wife's illness and, even worse, the death of his child.

Nice to hear that. Conversion on the road to Damascus? Or a long time deeply held opinion that you've just been hiding from us all along? Ah, no matter. Better late than never. I'm just glad to hear that from you. It speaks well of you.

It's funny how I wound up with the impression, just by reading your posts, that you were defending that kind of behaviour. Or at least giving it a pass. Yep, that sure is funny. Did it strike you as funny? Life, its a funny old thing 'ennit?

What have you shown by suggesting such messages are OK with me because I thought the original posting was a bit overheated?

Was it a bit overheated? Hmmm. Well, I guess we'll have to consider that aspect of it.

Put words down on a paper or a screen, and people get this idea that they say what you mean. Isn't that peculiar?

Isn't that cute. It's all steaming. I knew you had it in you.

Please, don't ever be mistaken about the depth of my regard for you.

You are quite right, at least in my own respect. I acknowledge that I'm not quite completely rational on the roots of the matter here.

So be it.

On the other hand, there's some interesting issue posed.

For instance, I thank we can all agree that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones, 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' yadda yadda yadda.

I admire this attitude. I'm not sure that I personally am so morally elevated. But I certainly admire and respect those who genuinely are so blessed.

But let me pose this:

Is such high mindedness really the appropriate response when people are throwing stones through your plate glass window. Is forbearance and contemplation really the best strategy when you're being stoned by those less moral and enlightened?

As an alternative, how about: "Hey assholes, you don't have the right to throw stones right now."

I doubt very much if MJ believes ALL conservatives are joyously celebrating the news of Mrs. Edwards' health.

I think I said elsewhere that hatred and eliminationism as a staple of the American right, or in a larger sense, hatred as an intrinsic American value, is a far larger topic than this thread can contain.

I have made observations, I have formed opinions and come to conclusions. But I will avoid the larger discussion for now.

Looking things over, I'm disturbed at my lack of restraint. Not that I repudiate any opinions, but I am disturbed at the ferocity with which they are expressed. I feel that I'm swinging a cutlass in a nerf battler. There's an edge of civility missing.

I felt that I would be okay if I just stayed away from particularly emotional threads such as Israel/Palestine topics. It occurs to me that I remain too easily provoked. I think I may have to absent myself from TPM.

On March 24, 2007 - 11:16am Zionista said: madison1776,

Brad just posts rightwing blatherings on blogs.

MJ seems to have created a space in our little corner of the blogosphere for self-righteous assholes to vent their spleens slamming Brad the Dad with baseless characterizations of "rightwing," "neocon," "Likudnik," etc. How is this behavior significantly different from complaints that accusations of "antisemitism" are designed to "stifle debate"?

Personally, I liked TPMCafe much better before it grew up into the circle jerk it is now.

If this is as bad as you say I'd stop coming here.

People say really emotional things that on reflection they wish they had stated differently. I never have, but I'm sure others have. (just kidding)

Thank you for a thoughtful and eloquent reply.

People are by nature imperfect. Even the best of us have our bad moments. We're obligated to strive to be better, and I think that we have an obligation to demand better from each other.

The question is how we treat our excesses and bad conduct. The left and liberals should police themselves. No one should be reluctant to say that intemperance is wrong. I suspect that they'd say it to me quite a lot.

But the fever swamp of right wing excess is quite real, and indeed, it is cultivated and encouraged. This is more than a little disturbing.

I feel that the obligation to police ourselves to demand better behaviour of each other, while valid, should not be an excuse not to challenge the right. In the middle of a sexual assault is not the time to go soul searching. Bad behaviour must be met with challenge. There's a time for soul searching. That's not it.

Let me offer a brief comment on one of your passages:

Most people, though, never learn that lesson and they seem to lack the empathy and compassion that would allow them to feel pity and sorrow for others. Those people who post at that site are broken people, they're not full human beings, and I pity them as much as I pity Elizabeth Edwards because to go through life unable to empathize, to put oneself in the other person's shoes isn't a whole life. They're caught up in a cycle of violence and hatred and seem incapable of pulling themselves out of it - and what a horrible way to live.

All true. But I pose this question.

How do you deal with such people? Pity is a luxury, and if they're burning down your house or stealing your property, or lynching a few negroes, well, pity is an expensive luxury.

Moral superiority is all very nice. But it doesn't avoid the fact that they are vicious, and they are perfectly willing to go on being vicious.

I ask these questions because I've seen the harm that such people do, and have seen many instances of what they are capable of.

It strikes me that we should avoid ever offering them any legitimacy. We should never cater to finger pointing, or any of the manifold excuses by which they absolve themselves of responsibility and project their sins onto others.

It is an awkward thing to advocate intolerance. But I do not think that we have any choice but to insist that people be responsible for their own conduct. Soul searching is worthy. Giving the vicious a pass because we have regrettable moments of meanness is a mistake.

If I may ask, I still don't know who Mike Kinsley is or what that whole swampland thing was about.

Would I be remiss in asking for context?

Then I suppose that's one difference between you and me, JohnW1141.

On March 24, 2007 - 2:51pm Zionista said:

Then I suppose that's one difference between you and me, JohnW1141.

Another difference is I'm not a professional victim.

First of all I thank you for the compliments and extend the same to you.

The point I was trying to make is that I don't feel any moral superiority to the people who act like that. I pity them because it is an incomplete life.

I have to say that these people aren't burning down our house or stealing our property - they're shooting off their mouths and no matter how unpleasant and cruel and stupid their remarks are I have to tolerate it because they have the right to be mean and stupid in their speech. I don't have to like it or approve of it, but I have to tolerate it because the constitution says I do and the principles of the constitution mean more to me than the vicious remarks of broken people on a political forum. Fortunately the constitution and society give me the means to deal with people who are stealing from me or burning down our house. I can seek justice and retribution but I can't seek vengeance or retaliation. I can't bear those nazi skinheads, but if I were to go to their rallies or whatever and shoot them or burn their whatever they're living in I would be as intolerant as they are not to mention guilty of a crime.

Yes, people have be responsible for their own conduct but in a society that values maximum freedom, we will always have to tolerate the wicked, the stupid, the mean spirited and the vicious until they commit a crime for which society then has the right to demand retribution. Until we all become enlightened, compassionate human beings, that's the price we pay for freedom.

I don't look at them as taking something away from me, I look at them as taking something away from their own humanity. It's frustrating and angers me, but I have no control over their behavior until they cross the line to physical or personal harm - and then I can only ask that society redress my grievances, I still have no right to retaliate. I can certainly point out their stupidity, their cupidity, their hypocricy and their venality but I can't make them stop it. Our constitution doesn't allow us to punish people based on what they're capable of, it allows us to punish people for what they've done. We simply cannot demand that people who are vicious speech mongers be put away or shut up - we resolved that conflict by tolerating hate speech so that no speech can be shut down because some people don't like it.

Again, I'm not giving them a pass, what they said is horrible but I can't remedy it because society says it is not a crime, and I cannot take the law into my own hands.

Valdron,

After reading all of your posts what you laid out was an indictment of the Lucianne blog showing that regardless of the unqualified sympathy of the few, the tenor of the blog is hard right wingnuttery and this indictment stands regardless of what is seen on the left.

"Do we want to assign "the Right" responsibility for every fool thing said on every conservative website?"

Agree, and on the Lucianne site there were actually several positively decent and affirming comments in the first ten or so.

I haven't, but have lost many family to it, and have to agree. What's astonishing is the facile way we turn to fine distinctions of victimology to justify hating the "other". 

I don't agree with BradtheDad on much, but would like to suggest that we try a little objective excercise.

I'd bet that we could ask a redstate.com reader to comb through some of TPM's posts, and they'd find a significant number of them as hateful and spiteful as anything MJ points to in the OP. There's a cottage industry of hate in this country, an everyone trades in it. 

The Right doesn't have a monopoly on this. It's about time we all took a good look in the mirror, or we'll end up doing our own version of ethnic cleansing here, only it'll be between red state and blue. 

I agree with you - it's getting to be too much.

Well, I have nothing against any of them receiving justice for their crimes. They should face justice.

Good one! That'll show me....

nascardaughter,

...in any case, Republicans and right wing apologists are allowed to post here.

But that's not the point.  Too often in these discussions diverse opinions are broadly characterized and summarily dismissed as "rightwing," "neocon," etc., in a lazy way to avoid having to construct and articulate a viable argument.

You mean the way that certain people lazily denounce someone who is disagreein