Comparing Bush/Obama: audience vetting and the press

In reply to: Villainous Company: What A Difference an Election Makes... in Press Coverage

Hmmm... Weird... I posted there without moderation yesterday... (I wonder if it's the links?)
((To be clear, I don't suspect that Cassandra blocked me... Not so far, anyway...))
------------

I see a huge difference between the carefully scripted and vetted-for-political opinion crowds at the average Bush speech, vs preferring to avoid something on the order of a boisterous transvestite or code pinker contingent disrupting an event. The biggest difference of course, is that a Code Pink member did attend the event, and did hand the President the petition. People opposed to Mr Bush's policies were removed from the audience for wearing t-shirts or having a bupersticker on one's car that didn't tow the "right" line.

As for appearing on FoxNews, that the administration--including the president--oughta do (as long as he sticks with the one's who claim to be journalists, rather than the avowed opinioneers.) I'm with John Nichols as to where FoxNews stands, but opposition questioning (and intelligent responses, of course) make for a better, more responsive government.
-------

Submitted for VC approval 10/17/09, 10:10 AM (or so), IM blog time.

Re: Racism on the menu (At-Largely)

In reply to: at-Largely: Racism on the menu...
--------------

Dr. Don cannot be a racist because he's half black. (Really...... This was his answer to a charge of racism; his photo, as though that clears the matter up, and no further rebuttal is necessary.)

You have him pegged, Larisa. Donald is either ignorant as all get out, or willfully chooses not to see that which goes against his viewpoints. He is a partisan first and a human being second. And one only has to read through the archives of his blogs to see that he's growing more and more reactionary as time goes by. (Rumor has it he was once a liberal, which makes sense to anyone who's seen the vehemence of the convert; the former smoker who won't let anyone smoke on their property, the born-again Christian's desire to "save" the soul of everyone they know, ...)

First he'll claim there are no racists on the right. Then when confronted with the proof, he'll claim there's no racists on the "real" right. Every example is an aberration; that guy may be a racist, but he's not a real conservative; or he's a real conservative, but what he said isn't bigoted.

The game is played exactly the opposite when Donald is attacking someone (or everyone) on the left, of course. If one person makes a bigoted comment at a Daily Kos post, it "proves" that Markos Moulitsas and every liberal who ever read a post or commented there is a racist. Strangely, the same doesn't hold true if the bigoted comments appear on a site Donald Douglas approves of, like Althouse. (I commented on the whole thing here.)

It's a sad little world Dr. Douglas lives in.

Congratulations on getting his ire, because the more wrong he claims you are in AmPow land, the more correct you likely are out here in the real world. There's a link for you at American Nihilist, because I'm sure you must be one... (Everyone who disagrees with Professor Douglas is, after all.)

-------
I hit the "post" button, and my comment disappeared... When I went back to the post, there is no comment... ...and when I tried to repost my comment, the "post" button is grayed out... Does Larisa moderate, or did something fuck up? I cannot say, but that's why this blog exists... I'll check her site in 24 hours to see what may/may not be posted there, then.

Bigoted offensive commenters do not mean one writes (or reads) a bigoted, offensive blog.

In reply to: Althouse: After I note Andrew Sullivan's obsession with Sarah Palin's womb, he responds... by quoting the nastiest stuff in the comments., not because it was moderated, but because, being comment #296, it is very hard to get to & read, and impossible to permalink. (I wanted to refer to it in a comment at another blog, and reposting it here seemed the only way to do so. I "linked" to it at Althouse as best I could, below.)

----------------
It's pretty moronic to blame the blog owner of a popular blog for the bigots and other assorted morons that comment on it, whether the blog in question is Althouse, Daily Kos, or Gateway Pundit.

People (whether owners or commenters) are responsible for the words that they themselves post, and I believe free speech includes the right (& perhaps obligation, even) to let bigots/morons expose themselves for all to see.

If Ann (or Markos, or the GP guy) READS a comment they find offensive, perhaps they should act--either by commenting on it or deleting it if they believe it has no place on their blog, exposure-value notwithstanding--but it isn't their job to police every comment they receive, or--God forbid, moderate for content. (Either allow comments or don't... Vetting each one before allowing them to appear is indicative of someone afraid of confrontation.)

After that, it's up to the readership to blast the offensive and the stupid.

Blaming the blogger, or worse. everyone who reads the blog, for the words of the most bigoted, stupid, or otherwise offensive commenter(s) at a given blog is straight-up moronic. (I've been saying the same to one dang fool (who shall remain nameless, but who, coincidently, tweeted the link here, oblivious to the irony of praising this post for decrying what he himself so often does to the whole DailyKos owner & readership--along with other liberal blogs)--for the last several years.)

And yes, it's even worse to be criticized for one's blog commentary by someone who doesn't allow comments on his own blog. While I agree with Sully more often than not--Palin pregnancy obsession aside--he's barkin' up the wrong tree here...
-------

Althouse: "After I note Andrew Sullivan's obsession with Sarah Palin's womb, he responds... by quoting the nastiest stuff in the comments." 10/10/09 10:23 AM Comment

Bush v Gore, Birther/Truther statistics

In reply to: Divided We Stand United We Fall: Racism increases 67% since January
---
I don't know, mw...

As far as the birthers=truthers theory, I have problems with both the question--There's a difference between believing that the Bush administration had prior warning about the fact that AQ was likely to try something sometime soon that they should've paid more attention to, and believing that Bush left DC on 9/11/01 because he knew the planes were coming. I have a feeling that there's a whole lot more of the former than the latter, although both qualify as "Bush knew...".--and the fact that Rassmussen tends to skew conservative (almost as bad as Luntz, these days.) All one need do is compare Rassmussen results with the results of other polls on the same subject to see that Rassmussen tends to lean right a bit more than the others. ((Yeah, I know you didn't cite the rassmussen poll, but there aren't that many selling that 1/3 of democrats = truthers result.)

Second, even accepting that one third of each party is extreme enough to accept one or the other of these theories, there is also the amount of positive attention that the elected officials of each party are willing to bestow on each theory. How many elected "truther" Democrats can one name? (The only elected "truther" I can find is Ron Paul, and he never said/suggested they were right, just that investigations in the name of truth were a good thing. And of course, he's a registered Republican.) How about elected "birther" Republicans? (How many Republicans signed onto that unnecessary bill saying that candidates must show their birth certificates--like the one Obama released, one assumes? 12, is it? How many more have made statements questioning Obama's birth?)

As for Bush 2000, all one need do is read the consortium report, and skip all the scenarios--(Bush wanted only these counties recounted, Gore wanted only those counties recounted, only over-votes, only two or fewer-corner chads)--except the most important one; when all the votes in which voter intent could be discerned were counted (the standard under law, at the time) in each precinct, who won?
Gore won, but shit happens... At this point, it's old news.

Anyway... Carter & whoever else is making the argument--(Is there much of anyone else?)--is wrong. There's some racism out there among those who don't like/agree with Obama, but most of it is about policy (or partisan political, at least) disagreement. (Personally, I'm more worried about those who echo their political "teammates" rather than thinkin' for themselves... ...and yes, that happens left and right, & probably in about the same proportion...)
---
Submitted for approal 9/19/09, 11:23 AM (DWS blog time)

Wingnut Racism: it isn't an all or nothing proposition

(And yeah, the same goes for "moonbat racism," "black racism," "white racism," "racism among the young," "the old," "christians," "muslims," "straight folks," "gay folks," "men," "women," "???" ...)

In reply to: Divided We Stand United We Fall: Racism increases 67% since January (post and comments)
---

There's a certain all or nothing mentality to much of this "the right are/are not racists" argument around the internet.

As far as I can tell, most of the criticism isn't racially motivated (or is racially motivated, but cleverly disguised behind an arguably valid point). On the other hand, some of the criticism of Obama clearly is racially motivated (or isn't really racially motivated, but is stupidly (or ignorantly) expressed as though it is.)

Joe "the scream" Wilson - xenophobia maybe, and the manners of a barn animal, but not racism.

Obama as witchdoctor, watermelon farm on the White House lawn, - Yeah, there's some racism, there.

The NY Post cartoon with the cop shooting the monkey - That was one of those "stupid or ignorant" situations. The guy didn't mean to refer to Obama as a monkey (and an assassinated monkey, taboot). He just didn't think it through. (The ObamaJoka pic falls into this category, too... While it's more'n'likely not intended that way, there is something vaguely racially insensitive about putting a black man in whiteface and accentuating his lips.)

The Obama birther thing has a "fear of other" aspect to it that I just don't think would be as strong if his black father was from (& Obama himself spent a few years in) England or Portugal. To reach this level, Obama has to be African, (or Arab) Muslim (or both, according to the birthers), or South American hispanic (&/or socialist... I mean REALLY socialist), or maybe Russian/eastern bloc communist. It's not racist, exactly, but the same kinda fear that underlies racism is there...

The bottom line is, it's neither "ALL rightwing attacks on Obama are racist." or "NO rightwing attacks on Obama are racist."

Some (most, if ya ask me) ain't, and some (a few) are.
---

Submitted for approval 9/18/09, 5:32 PM (IM blog time)

Sometimes a banana is just a banana...

In reply to: theblogprof: Video: White Student Beaten On School Bus To Cheering Crowd
---

Sebastian wins the prize.

According to the latest news reports, a 16 year old witness on the bus, as well as the police--including the officer who initially said it looked like it was a racially motivated incident, to him--are telling folks that it was an incident of bullying over seating on the bus, and not a racial incident.

--
Submitted September 15, 2009 7:49 PM (blogprof time)