Suek, do you really mean “any” politically active group?

How about:

http://www.libertarianrock.com/
http://cofcc.org
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/
http://www.libertarian-international.org/
http://www.protestwarrior.com/
http://www.ios.org/
http://www.lanuf.org
http://www.advanceamerica.com/
http://www.lp.org/

There are thousands more, but surely just a handful is proof enough? Not in our wildest dreams are _any_ politically active groups original intents linked to communism, that’s ridiculous?! Have you considered that you only list the one’s you don’t like? In the same way as an extreme leftist might only list the far-right-wing/Christian coalition or Nationalist websites as proof of the marching hordes of supremacists and theocrats?

Neither would be a true picture, and I reckon it’s dishonest to portray it so.

Regards,
JohnD

The leftists – communists of yore – have made it a practice to co-opt every politically active group they can whenever possible. Watch for it in _any_ politically active group, no matter how remote the likelihood that its original intent can be linked to Communism. They are like a virus that invades a cell and turns it into a cancer… It’s the activism they feed upon…

Not everyone in the gay community supports the outing. The gay groups have been taken over by leftists that are supported by George Soros.

Actually, I must disagree with the above (skewed) framing of my point.

Nowhere did I suggest doing that, it would be ridiculous. There may be more demagogues on oone side than an other, there may not be, that’s a case for someone with maybe too much time on their hands. My point was the universal failure to call out dishonesty and dirty tactics in one’s own perceived ranks.

Your deliberate mangling of my point, and frankly nonsensical ‘Joan of Arc’ barb/insult, is part of what I’m talking about.

Regarding the War On Terror, on page 5 and 6, Coulter makes the accusations that “[i]n lieu of a military response against terrorists abroad and security precautions at home, liberals wanted to get the whole thing over with and just throw conservatives in jail” and “[l]iberals hate America, they hate ‘flag-wavers,’ they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam (post 9/11). Even Islamic terrorists don’t hate America like liberals do.”

Two of the sources Coulter uses to arrive at these scurrilous conclusions are New York Times columns by Frank Rich and Bruce Ackerman. On page 5, Coulter writes, “New York Times columnist Frank Rich demanded that [Attorney General] Ashcroft stop monkeying around with Muslim terrorists and concentrate on anti-abortion extremists.”

REALITY: I checked the column Coulter cited and found that nowhere in the column does Rich even remotely suggest that Ashcroft curtail efforts against Islamic terrorists. In fact, I checked every post-9/11 Times column by Rich and found that Rich has not made any such demands of Ashcroft. This is one of Coulter’s lies that I e-mailed to Alan Colmes who interviewed Coulter last night (6/25/02) on Fox News’s Hannity & Colmes show. Colmes confronted Coulter with this. Coulter’s response: “that is an accurate paraphrase…” (For a transcript of Coulter and Colmes’s exchange, check the addendum at the bottom of this post).

Also on page 5, Coulter writes: “Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman recommended dropping the war against global terrorism (‘declare war at the first at the first decent opportunity’!) and instead concentrate on ‘home-grown extremists.’”

REALITY: In the column Coulter cited, Ackerman does not advocate concentrating on domestic terrorists (as opposed to foreign-born terrorists, who are the focus of the column). In fact, Ackerman only mentions “home-grown extremists” in passing (“And I do not deny that other attacks may well occur — perhaps committed by home-grown extremists.”)

These distortions of New York Times columns by Coulter are all the more incredible because listed in the Acknowledgements section, in her list of “long-suffering friends who give me ideas and editing advice, which I habitually ignore,” Coulter includes Frank Bruni, New York Times writer. It made me wonder: why didn’t Bruni catch the way in which Coulter blatantly misrepresents two columns that appear in his own newspaper?

The issues run much deeper. Page five is instructive not only because it illustrates how Coulter grossly caricatures the words of political opponents to make them appear irresponsible but also how she misrepresents the words of political allies to make them appear more acceptable. Notice how Coulter characterizes the words of Jerry Falwell regarding his infamous statements following the 9/11 attacks: “In the wake of an attack on America committed by crazed fundamentalist Muslims, Walter Cronkite denounced Jerry Falwell. Falwell, it seems, had remarked that gay marriage and abortion on demand may not have warmed the heart of the Almighty. Cronkite proclaimed such a statement ‘the most abominable thing I’ve ever heard.’”

REALITY: Note how Coulter’s description (“Falwell, it seems, had remarked that gay marriage and abortion on demand may not have warmed the heart of the Almighty”) does not come close to accurately describing Falwell’s comments. First, Falwell doesn’t even address the issue of gay marriage, only “the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle.” Second, Falwell’s diatribe goes way beyond remarking that the activities described “may not have warmed the heart of the Almighty.” Falwell lists divergent groups (the ACLU, People for the American Way, pagans, homosexuals, abortionists, and secularists) and clearly lays partial blame on them for the 9/11 attacks.

Coulter goes on in her criticism of Cronkite’s condemnation of Falwell’s statements: “Showing his renowned dispassion and critical thinking, this Martha’s Vineyard millionaire [Cronkite] commented that Falwell was ‘worshipping the same God as the people who bombed the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.’ (the difference being liberals urged compassion and understanding toward the terrorists). Indeed an attack on America by fanatical Muslims had finally provided liberals with a religion they could respect. Heretofore liberals deemed voluntary prayers at high school football games a direct assault on the Constitution. But it was of urgent importance that Islamic terrorists being held in Guantanamo be free to practice their religion.”

REALITY: Slander contains over thirty-five pages of endnotes, but Coulter gives no support to these vituperative accusations. Apparently, Coulter couldn’t find a quotation from a member of the left, not even a fringe character like Noam Chomsky, to support her contention that one liberal—much less liberals in general “urged compassion and understanding toward the terrorists.” Similarly, Coulter’s outrageous statement that “an attack on America by fanatical Muslims had finally provided liberals with a religion they could respect” is nothing more than a groundless smear. This statement assumes: 1) That prior to 9/11, liberals didn’t respect religion; and 2) The one religion that liberals finally decide to respect is the religion of extremists who committed a horrific terror attack that killed close to 3000 people. Again, Coulter provides no examples of a single liberal who hated religion prior to 9/11 and then who embraced radical Islam after 9/11.

In addition, as someone trained in law, Coulter should know that it is pure sophistry to compare opposition to mandated sectarian activity in public schools with the religious rights of prisoners. Again, Coulter gives no example of liberals who thought it was “of urgent importance that Islamic terrorists being held in Guantanamo be free to practice their religion.”

Yes you are right.

Thanks for your responses.

OK. But there it is. So now what? Will you be the Joan of Arc in this turmoil and lead us out of the swamp?

Is there any reason to believe that opposing and equally criticizing both sides of the “stupid” aisle will lead anywhere?

I will posit this: I have read Michael Moore’s diatribes and I find his works full of lies and cheap misconstructions of logic. Likewise, I have read Ann Coulter’s works and find her tongue to be acerbic, her wit sardonic and her metaphors ironic. But I have not seen a lie or a willful misapplication of logic.

It is Moore who uses the tools of the demagogue. Coulter is just an old fashioned street brawler.

You are right about the views within the homosexual community – some do feel that it is hypocritical to practice something you hate… but then that gets into a discussion on sin and how ppl deal with that. In your response, though, you say the word “persecution”. I guess I don’t see this happening in quite this way “But if I found out that a persecutor of Christians was a closeted Christian, you better believe I’d out him or her. In a heartbeat.”
The dynamic of tension is just too great to make that a real case scenario. If someone is a real Christian, has Christ indwelling them, they can’t be a persecutor of their own and I would probably argue that couldn’t long persecute anyone, it is inimical to the gospel. The closest thing I can come up, in light of your example, is the idea of Schindler of “Schindler’s List”. If a seeming oppressor is closeted in order to help the oppressed (in this case the sympathizer with Jews in the Nazi era)…would you “sure ‘out’ them”? I know it isn’t exactly the same, but this whole idea of ‘outing’ just smacks of political blackmail to me. The entire leverage system for it is squarely within the fact society and Christians are unfairly weighting homosexuality.

So what is the guys sin..that he is a practicing homosexual or that he votes on the side that many of us believe is the right side of the issue: to maintain marriage,etc? That is, if the whole ‘outing’ has any substantial truth to it. Does this mean that any congressman who votes for marriage integrity in law and society must also not be divorced? Where is our standard? Upholding what is right in its concept, or dismissing an issue by ad hominem?

The real question as you raise it here seems to be more on whether such a person, who appears to be hypocritical, is worthy of holding public office.

Not whether we would rationalize Mike Rogers actions, which is how it reads in my mind. If we answer the actual question I doubt we would empower howlers like Rogers who do commerce in peoples shame.

but I appreciate the attention you brought to the issue… you do a stand up job in all your hard work on the internet!

It’s not an insult, it’s the truth. Tolerance does not equate to acceptance, much as the DIMocrats would have you think otherwise.

Apparently you believe tolerance means acceptance?

Hi Redbeard, thanks for speaking up.

‘Dirty politics’ is rather a redundant phrase isn’t it!?

In the five years that I have reviewed/pored over the ‘blogosphere’, I still shake my head in great disbelief that people can support such partisan-propganda and demagoguery on BOTH sides of the stupid aisle. I tend to tune out as soon as I hear: “They are WORSE than US”

But what gives me enormous respect and confidence in humanity is that civilized/good people have the ability to *not* engage in the ignoble art of the demagogue.

Yet sad it is to view otherwise intelligent people ‘debate’ in such a fashion.

#45 is a timely example of the kind of talk to which I am referring. The commenter openly states that GT is not only ‘DIMocrat’ (Democrat=stupid, I was the flavour of this intelligent wordplay).

This first insult was then rounded out with further claims that GT was illiterate and did not undertsand the meaning of words (like other ‘DIMocrats).

These insults and generalizations are arguably designed to stymie any actual debate raised from GT’s points/questions, and then , of course, stymie outwards towards the perceived ‘liberalism’ of GT.

Scale up the same talk to a public platform and pay the pundit – and #45 becomes the Michael Moore, or Ann Coulter.

Et voila.

The only way to improve dirty politics that I can see is to have the merciless *integrity* to call it when you see it.

Especially (if you like partisan politics) in one’s own ‘ranks’. Especially that! of course, there are those who cannot see.

As Percy Garriss opines in ‘Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid’:

“Morons. I’ve got morons on my team”

Regards,

John

Do you? ”

Heliotrope, before I would even attempt to answer such a question, who do you mean when you speak for ‘we’?