Republicans to Rebrand Democrats as "Democratic Socialist Party"

[Pangloss]

It wasn't an assertion.

[padren]

From what I've seen Michael Moore is not portrayed as an extremist by the moderate left. He's portrayed as a hero and savior, with his flawed arguments regularly glossed over and/or ignored (though not here, of course). Pretty much exactly how the moderate right views Rush, et al.

I am definitely open to this possibility, I just haven't heard anything of it on the left. If there are links to moderate left politicians hailing him as a hero and savior I am very interested.

But yes, I agree that too many Republican elected officials are "embracing" (to a larger extent) right-wing antics and (especially) misinformation at the moment. What I don't think is that that's an unusual thing for members the opposition party to do in this country. I.E. I don't think this comparison informs us about Democrats. It only underscores what Republicans are doing.

 

I agree that it only underscores what republicans are doing, but I am trying to compare it to Democrats while they were in opposition as a comparison to try to get a bearing on whether this is "standard opposition behavior" or pretty specific to Republicans at this time. They both can be sore losers for sure, but I still think the level of vitriol from official channels are higher in the GOP than they ever were during the Bush years. I could be off and it could be as simple as my own misreading of the left - I am actively trying to prove that's the case and have been for a while - but I just can't find the evidence yet.

[iNow]

It wasn't an assertion.

Ermmm... Excuse me? What are you talking about? That's precisely what it was.

 

 

 

 

If there are links to moderate left politicians hailing him as a hero and savior I am very interested.

I sure hope you have better luck with this than I did.

[A Tripolation]

If there are links to moderate left politicians hailing him as a hero and savior I am very interested.

 

Can you provide one with regards to Rush Limbaugh being the conservative's savior? I think you have implied that most conservatives agree with Limbaugh. If you have, that is hardly the case. He's just the person who screams the loudest, hence, he's heard most often. And who the heck apologized for telling that idiot he's an idiot?

[Dudde]

MSNBC

 

Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele

[padren]

Can you provide one with regards to Rush Limbaugh being the conservative's savior? I think you have implied that most conservatives agree with Limbaugh. If you have, that is hardly the case. He's just the person who screams the loudest, hence, he's heard most often. And who the heck apologized for telling that idiot he's an idiot?

 

First, I didn't say that Limbaugh was considered the "Conservative's Savior" but instead challenged Pangloss to provide case in point accounts to back up his assertion that Michael Moore was considered a savior and hero to the left.

 

I did imply (stated, actually) that Rush is considered favorably by Republican leadership, to which I can cite the rather well known event:

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19517.html

 

 

A second example of "nuts on the right" of course is Palin, who has conjured issues like "death panels" up from the ethers. Has the right finally stopped taking her seriously?

[Pangloss]

I still think the level of vitriol from official channels are higher in the GOP than they ever were during the Bush years. I could be off and it could be as simple as my own misreading of the left - I am actively trying to prove that's the case and have been for a while - but I just can't find the evidence yet.

 

This may even be accurate. I'm just not sure it tells us anything useful. What would we do with the revelation that (and I know this isn't your claim) Democrats are saints and Republicans are sinners? What do you feel this would tell us?

 

 

First, I didn't say that Limbaugh was considered the "Conservative's Savior" but instead challenged Pangloss to provide case in point accounts to back up his assertion that Michael Moore was considered a savior and hero to the left.

 

As I said, it's just an opinion; I didn't claim it was an objectively accurate analysis. But are you saying that the moderate left rejects Michael Moore as a crackpot?

 

Who do you feel goes to his movies? Only extremists?

[padren]

Just more followup information:

 

Here's Rep. Mike Pence defending Rush Limbaugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49CiA0RJ1Fk&feature=player_embedded

 

 

Then there's these comments by Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18049.html

 

Responding to President Obama’s recommendation to Republican congressional leaders last week that they not follow Limbaugh’s lead, the conservative talkmeister said on his show that Obama is “obviously more frightened of me than he is Mitch McConnell. He's more frightened of me, than he is of, say, John Boehner, which doesn't say much about our party."

 

Gingrey responded with:

“I think that our leadership, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, are taking the right approach,” Gingrey said. “I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and your party. You know you’re just on these talk shows and you’re living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of that thing. But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn’t be or wouldn’t be good leaders, they’re not in that position of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell."

 

...which was followed by an apology on Rush's show:

 

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012809/content/01125107.guest.html

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This may even be accurate. I'm just not sure it tells us anything useful. What would we do with the revelation that (and I know this isn't your claim) Democrats are saints and Republicans are sinners? What do you feel this would tell us?

Actually I was responding to this:

Liberals are whiney when conservatives are in power and conservatives are whiney when liberals are in power. They ALL engage in mud slinging...one party is no better than the other.

 

While I agree with the first part I had to point out I disagreed with the latter. When left leaning individuals try to point out the vitriol on the right we are often accused of hypocrisy because "liberals are just as bad" when in opposition. I am not saying you or Tripolation was making that accusation of hypocrisy - but I do feel the equivocation is inaccurate. If it corrects an inaccuracy it's useful.

As I said, it's just an opinion; I didn't claim it was an objectively accurate analysis. But are you saying that the moderate left rejects Michael Moore as a crackpot?

 

Who do you feel goes to his movies? Only extremists?

 

After looking up his sales numbers, I'd have to say a lot of people do see his movies. I can't really speak to the demographics, but I will say I don't think the Democratic Party's leadership would have any issue distancing themselves from him publicly especially regarding remarks such as the "Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil... You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy." comment and I don't think any Democrat leader would be publicly apologizing to him immediately after.

 

Moore may be a "lefty" and he may be filled with vitriol but he really is on the sidelines as far as the Democrats are concerned. He does not enjoy nearly the degree of insider and esteemed colleague status that Rush does with Republicans. While the fact that many republicans apologize for their statements about Rush does say they may not genuinely approve of him or his methods (since they do say things they later do have to apologize for) they still backpedal and effectively condone his position of divisiveness and vitriol.

 

I think that's a difference that warrants distinction.

[Mr Skeptic]

From what I've seen Michael Moore is not portrayed as an extremist by the moderate left. He's portrayed as a hero and savior, with his flawed arguments regularly glossed over and/or ignored (though not here, of course). Pretty much exactly how the moderate right views Rush, et al.

 

Forgive me, but I've about had it with baseless claims from the right lately. Would you care to back this one up?

[A Tripolation]

...which was followed by an apology on Rush's show

 

Crap...I can't believe he would apologize to that venemous jerk.

Well, I don't know is this helps, but believe me when I say most conservatives don't acknowledge Limbaugh as anything more than a noisy figurehead. We can think for ourselves.

 

As for Palin, I think her "Death Panel" remark was slightly prescient, and as such, could be dismissed as irrelevant to the currently proposed health care bill. Though I am afraid I am meandering off far too much from the OP's questions, so I'll stop here.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Forgive me, but I've about had it with baseless claims from the right lately. Would you care to back this one up?

 

With nothing but anectdotal evidence...I can't use search engines at all hardly. But from most of the liberals I speak with, they all seem to share many of Moore's criticisms and views. Maybe I just know one too many radical liberals

[Pangloss]

This one's from the 2004 DNC, with the Carters sitting next to him:

 

The pic above was taken at an official event held by House Democrats, and you can see Kucinich, Conyers, and others in the image. There's a story on the 2007 event here:

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/washington/news.aspx?id=38091

 

This one is from the Oscars, I think:

Edited September 10, 2009 by Pangloss

[Mokele]

Honestly, I *am* a radical liberal, a member of the far-left. I frequent many sites catering to that crowd.

 

And I can emphatically say that *nothing* coming out of the far left is even half as bad as the far right.

 

When was the last time a liberal blew up a federal building was a truckload full of homemade explosives?

 

Or shot a doctor?

 

Or written a law based solely and completely on pure, unadulterated hatred?

[Pangloss]

Moore stumping for health care with SF mayor Gavin Newsom:

 

[A Tripolation]

Honestly, I *am* a radical liberal, a member of the far-left. I frequent many sites catering to that crowd.

 

And I can emphatically say that *nothing* coming out of the far left is even half as bad as the far right.

 

When was the last time a liberal blew up a federal building was a truckload full of homemade explosives?

 

Or shot a doctor?

 

Or written a law based solely and completely on pure, unadulterated hatred?

 

Maybe none of those, but I can give you a personal example, if you'll permit it.

 

It's not violent, but an extreme liberal did try to set free all the cattle at a stockyard I and my father were selling cattle at by sneaking in and opening the gates. Had she succeeded, she would've cost many people a lot of hard-earned money. That's the same as stealing in my opinion.

 

I've also read accounts of extreme liberals destroying crops saying that our fertilizers are polluting the Earth.

 

So, while I can't give you any links, those are some ideas as to the mischief that radical lefties can incite.

[Pangloss]

Just to clarify my two posts above, I'm just providing those pics in response to the demands that I do so. On the larger issue I have to agree with Padren that the GOP has been deliberately associating with extremists, and that it's in excess of what the Democrats are doing. He's made his case, as far as I'm concerned, and I don't think it was ever his point that the Democrats are angels.

 

I just think you have to make the case to conservatives that the CTR demagogues are extreme -- some of them get it, but not enough. I thought they were starting to get it a couple of years ago, but the election of Obama seems to have set them back a step or two. At least that's how I see it.

 

I can tell you that most of my conservative friends think Rush Limbaugh is an idiot and don't watch Fox News. But I know a few who say that and do it anyway. It's like some sort of closet deal, they'll say it and then later they'll drop a Fox News or Newsmax link on their Facebook page about something stupid and I'll roll my eyes and ask them again what they're doing on weekdays from noon to 3pm (then they get defensive and I have to drop it).

 

Two steps forward, one step back, rinse and repeat. We'll get there eventually, IMO.

[iNow]

Just to clarify my two posts above, I'm just providing those pics in response to the demands that I do so.

 

And, just to clarify, nobody here demanded you share 3 random pictures from 3 random events with Michael Moore in attendance. The request was that you support your assertion that:

 

Michael Moore is not portrayed as an extremist by the moderate left. He's portrayed as a hero and savior

 

 

You have failed pretty epically at addressing requests for evidence in support of that assertion, and you have done nothing more than offer suggestive photos which do nothing but reinforce the existing story line in your head. It should be made abundantly clear to all readers, however, that what you have provided does not support your assertion in the least.

 

 

However, let's not belabor the point. You have conceded in later posts that it was little more than your own personal opinion, and that you also agree that the GOP has been deliberately associating with extremists, and are doing so in excess of anything done by Democrats or liberals.

 

Let's move forward.

[padren]

Honestly, I *am* a radical liberal, a member of the far-left. I frequent many sites catering to that crowd.

 

And I can emphatically say that *nothing* coming out of the far left is even half as bad as the far right.

 

When was the last time a liberal blew up a federal building was a truckload full of homemade explosives?

 

Or shot a doctor?

 

Or written a law based solely and completely on pure, unadulterated hatred?

 

Just to be clear, I was making a point regarding the Democrats and Republicans, ie their leadership and general party stance - not about the fringes on either side. While I do personally feel the Republicans have some responsibility in that they fan the sort of flames that result in doctors being shot (just an opinion and a whole other subtopic) I don't think you can really blame a party for how far some fringers that happen to be on their side of the general spectrum tend to go.

 

If some guy started shooting capitalists and openly declares Stalin his hero I don't think that would have any relevance towards liberals in general, anymore than the opposite should be true.

 

Regarding bombs and federal buildings do these guys count:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_%28organization%29#Activities_and_Suspected_Activities

 

Again, I am not disagreeing with you in general and I am definitely more concerned with violence from the fringe-right than fringe-left.... just saying you can't paint the main parties with the same brush unless they condone those fringes.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Pangloss I do appreciate those photos though I don't understand the Oscars' relevance.

 

Regarding the 2004 DNC, he was with Jimmy Carter who brought him as a guest. Not sure what that's about, but I hardly saw Carter making political hay out of an association with Moore at the time. For all I know they are friends or something - let me know if you have further details though.

 

The two photos of political relevance I'd say were of the 2007 health care briefing clearly timed to his movie, Sicko and with Gavin Newsom, (San Fran mayor) discussing the city's universal health care program it seems. It does appear he has some weight with Democrats so I will definitely recognize that, though not hero/savior status of course.

Edited September 10, 2009 by padren
Consecutive posts merged.

[Pangloss]

The two photos of political relevance I'd say were of the 2007 health care briefing clearly timed to his movie, Sicko and with Gavin Newsom, (San Fran mayor) discussing the city's universal health care program it seems. It does appear he has some weight with Democrats so I will definitely recognize that, though not hero/savior status of course.

 

That's another perfectly reasonable opinion (or so it seems to me), and thanks for acknowledging my response. I am giving some further thought to the issue and may break this off to a separate thread. You've peaked my interest a bit, and in particular I'm wondering how deep the CTR-GOP connection goes. Some other interesting connections have come to mind in thinking about this thread, such as Neal Boortz co-authoring a book with John Linder. Part of the problem here is defining "extreme". But I think we'd better move on before somebody pummels me over the head.

 

 

Again, I am not disagreeing with you in general and I am definitely more concerned with violence from the fringe-right than fringe-left.... just saying you can't paint the main parties with the same brush unless they condone those fringes.

 

Quite right, and you're correct to raise the Weather Underground (or ELF, as bascule brought up in the General forum the other day) in response to Mokele's point. But as you say they're not Democrats, and it's even hard to characterize them as "liberals", but the same could be said about abortion clinic bombers -- they're not like any conservatives I know or associate with, and they're certainly not authorized by the Republican party.

 

But I think the real point, the place where Mokele and others seem to have reasonable grounds, is that these groups may be closer to mainstream conservative politics, and may be larger and more organized (and more of them) than liberal extremist groups. I don't know if that case has been conclusively made, or if it's just a product of exaggerated analysis about the influence of religion on politics during the Bush administration. In short, are we observing a real phenomenon, or are we just casually lumping in the creationists and prayer-in-schoolers with the much smaller abortion clinic bomber group?

 

But again, I can't say that they're wrong. Not without a lot more info.

[John Cuthber]

Incidentally, do those who opose "social" housing and "social" healthcare describe themselves as anti social?

[iNow]

No, the usual terms they choose to describe themselves are "conservatives," "libertarians," "patriots,"and/or "real americans." I'd suggest we avoid discussing what the rest of us call them, as that's not likely to be very kind or productive.

[John Cuthber]

Well, since they oppose the things I posted earlier perhaps we shouldn't call them anything rude- just accept that they are, indeed, anti social. They should be happy enough with that.