Tuesday, June 13, 2006
No "Fitzmas" for the left
The Wall Street Journal just sent me an email alert: "Rove won't be charged." Here's the text to the story on their web site:
Top White House aide Karl Rove has been told by prosecutors he won't be charged with any crimes in the investigation into the leak of a CIA officer's identity, his lawyer said Tuesday.
Attorney Robert Luskin said special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald informed him of the decision on Monday, ending months of speculation about the fate of one of President Bush's closest advisers. Mr. Rove testified five times before a grand jury.
Mr. Fitzgerald has already secured a criminal indictment against Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter'' Libby.
"On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove,'' Mr. Luskin said in a statement.
Associated Press coverage here.
Adding this to the victory in California and the huge roll-up of al Qaeda in Iraq, you have to say it has been a good stretch for the White House politically.
UPDATE: The New York Times describes this as a barely dodged bullet, Rove having been "dangerously close to possible charges." You can almost feel the disappointment.
The WaPo, on the other hand, does not characterize the closeness of Rove's shave.
If you need to do the schadenfreude thing, go over to lefty AMERICABlog, click on the comments to this post, and drink in the disappointment. The diehard lefties hope that Rove flipped on Cheney. I wouldn't hold their breath if I were them.
"dangerously close to possible charges". Hm.
When I walk along the sidewalk I'm "dangerously close to possible hit and run accidents."
By M.A., at Tue Jun 13, 09:37:00 AM:
If he can't be charged, he can't be charged. As the admirable Christy Hardin Smith says, "You do not charge someone with a criminal indictment merely because they are scum."
I'm just curious as to why righties are constantly searching lefty blogs' comments sites for horrible or silly things. Comments are for readers, and don't reflect on the content of the blog itself (and imagine what Powerline or Malkin's comments sections would be like if big righty blogs allowed comments). It's like a tacit admission that the leading liberal bloggers aren't crazed moonbats, so righties have to look to the readers for some red meat....
By Chairman eDog, at Tue Jun 13, 09:47:00 AM:
So Markos "Screw Them" Moulistas and Michael "Minutemen" Moore are just blog commenters? And I wasn't aware that "Howard Dean" was simply a screen name, and not, say, Chairman of the DNC.
m.a. liberal bloggers ARE crazed moonbats...just visit Kos and read his "screw them" post regarding the murdered contractors in Iraq that were dragged through the streets and hung from a bridge. The "red meat" is out there for all to see.
By M.A., at Tue Jun 13, 10:00:00 AM:
Is the "screw them" thing really all the right can come up with now? (Even Hannity's obsessed with it.) Apart from the obvious point that it's not much worse worse than some of the things Rush Limbaugh has said about Christian missionaries in Iraq (saying that "There's a part of me that likes this" when they're kidnapped), treating Kos's comment as an anti-American rant is to treat mercenaries as if they were American troops.
It's certainly not nice to say "screw them" about the death of a human being, but someone like Kos who grew up in El Salvador -- where mercenaries constantly made money off the civil war -- might understandably not be very sympathetic to our own mercenaries.
But even if you don't think the comment was justified, well, it's been two years. Find something new. And find something that's as bad as the stuff Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity et al have said in the past two years. Hell, the leading righty blogger, Instapundit, makes casual accusations of treason. The lefty blogosphere simply can't match the righty blogosphere, or talk radio, for venom.
As for Michael Moore, the other whipping boy, here's the obvious reason why Michael Moore is not as bad as Rush Limbaugh. Moore's targets are politicians and wealthy businessmen -- a small number of people. Limbaugh's targets are liberals and/or people who vote Democratic -- that is, close to half the country. Moore encourages people to hate politicians; Limbaugh encourages people to hate their liberal neighbors and friends. And there's the difference.
M.A., Wakeup! Moore is both a
politician and wealthy businessman.
He just hides behind his baseball cap!
"I'm just curious as to why righties are constantly searching lefty blogs' comments sites for horrible or silly things."
The answer is, because it is very easy, and, frankly, because it is so much fun . . . sometimes sad as well, to be sure . . . but it is fun.
Folks who have invested themselves so heavily in erroneous and delusional group-think have to keep scrambling and adjusting when the lights suddenly go on and reality checks in. So, they rush off to moonbatland to spawn their brand new "theories," trying to take into account the latest fact that effectively destroyed their prior rant-filled beliefs.
The funny part is that they never seem to get it.
Hey, M.A. . . . you asked!
M.A....my ass. Limbaugh does not encourage anyone to hate, he encourges them to think for themselves, which I suppose equals Hate on the Liberal Left, since any opposing opinions to their Creed must be shouted down.
Moore is a "whipping boy"? He's blameless? What wealthy businessmen and politicians is he refering to when he describes terrorists as "minutemen" who "are going to win"? Hmmmm? Who are they going to defeat? Us, fool....us.
By TigerHawk, at Tue Jun 13, 10:29:00 AM:
For my part, I don't believe that any specific tasteless or out of order one-liner is an indication of much of anything. Kos' "screw them" remark does not reveal much about Kos, and neither do similar strong statements from righties. People who write hundreds of thousands or millions of words a year at blog speed (or even pundit speed) are going to say some intemperate things, unless they are boring.
My purpose in linking to the AMERICABlog comments was not to cite them as evidence of a damned thing. They do not prove that the AMERICABlog commenters are any more or less extreme, at the margins, than commenters on certain righty blogs. They may be, but it is a tough point to determine with anecdotes. No, I just thought they were amusing, and that various of my readers might take joy in their suffering and outrage.
By M.A., at Tue Jun 13, 10:42:00 AM:
TigerHawk - Fair enough.
On that note, the craziest thing has to be the TruthOut people continuing to stand by their "story." As Sadly, No! would say, Sadly, No!
By Charlottesvillain, at Tue Jun 13, 10:59:00 AM:
As usual, Scott Ott at Scrappleface cuts right to the moonbat bone:
In five appearances before a grand jury Mr. Rove employed what one source called “his Jedi mind tricks.”
“But it was all for nothing,” the unnamed source said, “Since the lack of charges against him will only confirm America’s worst fears — that Karl Rove controls everything.”
In your haste to attack Instapundit for implied accusations of treason, you linked to Instaputz, here:
Should we chalk that up to the "Fog of Words?"
Surely we can't call it "friendly fire!"
"As for Michael Moore, the other whipping boy, here's the obvious reason why Michael Moore is not as bad as Rush Limbaugh. Moore's targets are politicians and wealthy businessmen -- a small number of people."
First of all it's funny how people like you try to draw these hair splitting distinctions. Moore only encourages hate of a "small" group of people. Of course it's fine to hate someone because he's a wealthy businessman, or at least not as bad as hating someone who's something else - a wealthy actor, a truck driver, etc. Everyone knows that. Good thing rational enlightened liberals like you point out this distinction.
I don't know of any instance where Limbaugh encourages hate. He often ridicules liberals, which is not the same as encouraging hate.
As far as Moore's "targets", he said after 9/11 that the terrorists shouldn't attack Democrat areas like NYC, but, (by implication), Republican ones should be attacked. What comment like that has Rush made? He also said we deserved to be attacked, which could be considered as encouraging hate or just nutty, take your pick.
Also, Moore lies. He's been demonstrated to be a calculated repeated liar.
He also makes many extremely looney statements similar to the ones this thread is about concerning Rove, like his belief that we secretly have Osama bin Laden in custody.
Close counts only in horseshoes otherwise it is binary, a one or a zero. This was a zero.
By Ace, at Tue Jun 13, 01:24:00 PM:
As for Michael Moore, the other whipping boy, here's the obvious reason why Michael Moore is not as bad as Rush Limbaugh. Moore's targets are politicians and wealthy businessmen -- a small number of people.
Republican politicans and wealthier businessmen than himself, right?
That was probably one of the most intellectually lazy things I've ever read by the way.
Liberals will say anything to justify their behavior.
Thanks for the vindication, it is appreciated.
By Ace, at Tue Jun 13, 01:27:00 PM:
Limbaugh's targets are liberals and/or people who vote Democratic -- that is, close to half the country. Moore encourages people to hate politicians; Limbaugh encourages people to hate their liberal neighbors and friends. And there's the difference.
Um, Moore encourages people to hate Republicans and Republican politicians, which is more than half the country.
Name a Democratic politician he's "encouraged" anyone to hate.
Then, when you're furrowing your brow over that one, demonstrate any evidence Limbaugh encourages any listener to hate anyone.
Thanks in advance.
Unless you have noticed the Left side of the Blogsophere have a hive mentality. They congregate like ants. So in order or to delve into the hive one has to go to the comments or diary sections (another lefty affirmation) to get the pulse (or lack there of) of what is going on on that side of the 'sphere.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at Tue Jun 13, 02:35:00 PM:
It's funny to me. Lefty and Righty blogs, though being on different sides of political debates, share so much in common with each other from the comments to the posts to how they handle positive and negative news for "their side". I love seeing both sides deny this commonality and accuse the other hive mentality, group-think and moonbattery.
By Yashmak, at Tue Jun 13, 03:29:00 PM:
Of course, anyone who denies the commonality is assumed to be a member of the side that would help, right?
Sorry to bust up your theory, but I vote both Democrat and Republican, depending on the candidate and the issues, and I've got to disagree with you. The logic disconnect and raw vitriol present on the left-wing weblogs far surpasses anything present on the right-wing ones I read. Of course, that's just one opinion to counter yours. . .nothing more.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at Tue Jun 13, 03:47:00 PM:
Not a problem. I didn't pose that as some kind of logic trap, it was just an observation. I expect more responses to my theory that support your opinion not mine, but then again look at the political preference of most people on this blog. I bet if I posted that question on a lefty blog, I'd get the same response but reversed. I visit many blogs and the logic disconnect and vitriol is present on both, usually in the comment sections. I've seen it and have been the recipient of it. I know that rubs both sides the wrong way, but just an observation.
Instapundit is a righty blogger now? You have to be pretty far leftwing to come up with that. Far closer to the middle. 20% far right, 20% far left, 60% everyone else (including instapundit)
By Qob, at Tue Jun 13, 05:54:00 PM:
Michael Moore is better because he encourages people to hate rich people,i.e., a small number of people? Are you saying hatred of minority groups is a good thing?
By Cassandra, at Tue Jun 13, 08:56:00 PM:
Shame on you Bill.
You made me spit out my beer. Next time, warn me :)
By TigerHawk, at Tue Jun 13, 09:53:00 PM:
Catchy P! Great to see you back in the comments section.
I tink that lefty and righty commenters at the margins are both pretty harsh. I have two or three observations, though:
1. Righty bloggers, not really respecting PC ethos, will more often say things that are officially substantively offensive.
2. Lefty bloggers swear much more. Many more uses of the "f" word on lefty blogs than even on LGF.
3. Big traffic lefty blogs almost universally take unmoderated comments. Righty blogs often do not. Is this because righty bloggers have a different attitude about acceptable speech, and shut the comments down because of bad language? Is it because righty and lefty bloggers blog for different reasons (on average)?
4. Harsh righty bloggers much more frequently attack foreign people (either specific people -- say, Jacques Chirac -- or categories -- say, Muslims or illegal aliens). Lefty bloggers are much more likely to say horrendous things about Americans.
5. Lefty blog commenters say much worse things about Republicans as a party than conservative blog commenters say about Democrats as a party.
By RFA, at Tue Jun 13, 10:57:00 PM:
The lefties have a track record of being so wrong, so often without shame. Are they practicing selective memory to excuse their deceptions?
Ahow can the look at themselves in the mirror without embarrasment?
BTW Charlottesvillian...so am I...Can I buy ya a beer at Star Hill sometime?
By Dawnfire82, at Wed Jun 14, 10:20:00 AM:
rfa: The ranks of the moonbat liberals are constantly replenished by the newly graduated ranks of the angry, ignorant, disenfranchised youth. As liberals age, they tend to... umm... relax. (myself included) But every year a new frothing horde makes itself known, and *they* weren't wrong about anything. Therefore, they must know everything.
A favorite quotation of mine attributed to Winston Churchill. "If you're 20 and not liberal, you have no heart. If you're 40 and not conservative, you have no brain."
By Catchy Pseudonym, at Wed Jun 14, 12:31:00 PM:
I'm going to try to make more time to dip my toe in the Blog pool.
You're right, Lefty blogs like to cuss much more. It maybe that their young, angry, or think it makes their point seem cool, I don't know. I should ask that on the lefty blog. "Why do you guys cuss so much?" I can hear the responses right now.
I always wondered why Righty blogs tend to not let people comment. I always viewed it as they didn't want to hear dissenting opinions, or they have control issues. Lefty blogs may let everyone comment because they feel that they have enough people who have their back. (I hear blogs are to liberals what talk radio is to conservatives.) If blogs were mainly conservative, would liberals feel as free to let the comments fly?
Number four is dead on, but as far as five I think it's subjective. People don't like to have their team dished on, so of course they're going to think the other side is harsher with the abuse.
By Lanky_Bastard, at Wed Jun 14, 12:55:00 PM:
Part of the fun of reading a blog like this is to just watch the back and forth.
The laundry list of vaguely reconciled political ideologies that I've adopted as my core beliefs are universally superior to the laundry list of vaguely reconciled political ideologies that you've established as your core beliefs! Furthermore, all of my positions are shown to be superior by your belief in (some absurd sterotypical scarecrow argument that no one actually believes).
Nothing matches the spectacle of Moore fans and Limbaugh fans squaring off against each other. My fat truth-spinning Demagouge could kick your fat truth-spinning Demagouge's ass!
Consider me agreement with Catchy.
By Cassandra, at Wed Jun 14, 04:13:00 PM:
I can tell you the primary reason some righty blogs don't let people comment. We're naturally more rule-oriented than lefties, so if you have a "no ad hominems" rule and commenters keep breaking it, you have to do something. All this becomes tiring after a while.
I've had my husband called a baby-killer and been hacked by lefty commenters who just became completely obsessed.
I don't delete or censor comments unless they become personally abusive (usually more of my readers than myself - I will put up with a fair amount of abuse in the interests of maintaining open discourse) after repeated warnings - my one inviolable rule. That is the ONLY thing I'll ban someone for.
I think you're reading way too much into a simple "having comments isn't worth the crap you have to put up with" decision. Lefty blogs, on the other hand, delete dissenting opinions all the time and will even ban a non-abusive commenter simply for daring to disagree with them. I'm not maintaining no righty blogs do this (though in over two years of talking to righty bloggers, I'm only aware of a few instances where that has actually happened, warnings to the contrary, and usually it was because the commenter wouldn't stay on topic) but I've seen it happen over and over on lefty blogs.
Could be an awareness issue - maybe I just don't associate with reich-wingers who do that sort of thing. Watching the way TH was treated when he went over to comment on a post on a lefty blog recently was a case in point.
The commenters got downright nasty, vindictive, and personal almost right away. I literally have never seen anything like that before. And you also don't see us organizing blog swarms like Jane Hamsher has done purposely to deface someone's Amazon page and submit fake book reviews. Jane even bragged about how they'd turned the page into a "flaming sh*t heap". She was actually gloating about it.
Sending comments to newspaper blogs to shout down anyone who dares to disagree with them is another wonderful tactic I just don't get. Dissent is one thing.
Personal abuse defeats the entire purpose of having a comments section. It's childish and counterproductive. If you wonder why some of us are so critical of the Left, stop and reflect for a moment. It doesn't take too many instances of that kind of deliberate destructive behavior for people to decide someone has serious issues. Sort of a one bad apple scenario, except there are far more than one bad apple.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at Wed Jun 14, 04:50:00 PM:
"My fat truth-spinning Demagouge could kick your fat truth-spinning Demagouge's ass!"
LOL... I think that needs to be on a bumper sticker!
Cassandra, one of my big peeves is the removal of comments (unless they're spam or completly and pointlessly offensive). I view comment strings as an archive of an argument. Taking them down because you're losing or don't like the comments is very un-bloggerishnesslike. The blog owner is a referee and participate in the game. You start cheating, people are going to stop playing.
What blog banned a non-abusive commenter? Well maybe shouldn't answer that, they'll send a hate party over.
By Cassandra, at Wed Jun 14, 09:08:00 PM:
I tell you what, CP - I'll try to pay attention from now on and next time I see a comment from a rightie saying they were banned, I'll check it out and contact you.
To be honest, I've never understood why people go trolling on sites from the other side of the aisle. Both sides do it, and it totally mystifies me - like there's not enough acrimony in the blogosphere?
I will say, however, that the VERY few times I've been on Daily Kos, as soon as a right-winger dared to dissent from the party line, they were branded "a troll". Since when is merely offering an alternative viewpoint trolling?
If you swear, get abusive, or purposely try to disrupt a conversation, I'll buy off on you being a troll. But just a contrary opinion?
Cripes. If I reacted that way every time Salon links to me, I'd be ashamed. I've always insisted that my readers be decent to all commenters, even those who come in throwing insults about. In my experience, if they don't get the desired reaction right off the bat, they either lose interest or realize we're just people with a different opinion and they settle down and we can discuss the post.
I think things have gotten so bad in the b-sphere that people walk in with mud in their eyes. That is a sad, sad comment on our ability to behave like human beings, even when we disagree.
By Cassandra, at Wed Jun 14, 09:09:00 PM:
Taking them down because you're losing or don't like the comments is very un-bloggerishnesslike.
I completely agree. I don't remove existing comments. I have been known to ban a persistently abusive commenter, but in almost three years, it's only happened 3 or 4 times. And I get a lot of comments.
Generic Valium Diazepam drug is used to relieve anxiety, muscle spasms, and seizures and
to control agitation caused by alcohol withdrawal. Valium brand medication.
Generic Ativan Lorazepam is used to treat anxiety. This drug may also be used for
seizures, alcohol withdrawal, prevention of nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, tension headache, and for sleeping trouble (insomnia).
Klonopin Clonazepam drug is used to control seizures. It is also used to relieve
anxiety. Klonipin brand medicine is a benzodiazepine used to treat seizures and panic
Generic Prozac FLUOXETINE drug is a Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI) that helps
patients with depression by increasing the availability of serotonin in the brain. Scientists believe serotonin affects many types of activity in the brain,
including the regulation of mood.
Generic Zoloft SERTRALINE drug is a selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI) used to
treat depression, panic disorder, obsessive - compulsive disorders (OCD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD, and a severe form of premenstrual syndrome
(Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder - PMDD).