The Volokh Conspiracy

but is it liberals or conservatives that owe tha majority of the beer to you?

I get the feeling that if there were ever any way to graph it, it'd make a nice little bell curve.

The other side always looks worse, though. If your position is a little bit on the left, the fringe-tail on the right side seems that much more absurd and far away, whereas the left-side tail isn't all that far out from where you yourself are. And vice versa, obviously.

It is perfectly possible to be a dedicated McCain supporter or a dedicated Obama supporter and be a perfectly rational and good human being. That's a pretty obvious statement, but most of the interwebs seems to forget it.

echo the party out of power sentiment.

i think the right will ratchet it up a few more notches in the next few weeks too. the closer we get to the point of no return on obama, the nastier it will get. the reverse will happen when the next republican approaches power.

its like the business cycle, only with insults!

A.W.,

I think you're wrong on virtually every point, and you fail to mention the numerous opposing points that might be made, but I haven't even heard of the one about infanticide. What law against infanticide has Obama taken a position against?

Hmmm - I haven't heard anyone on the left claiming that McCain is a Muslim terrorist lately.

I take it that most posters in this thread (and the previous one) would respond: "Well, that isn't derangement since Barack HUSSEIN Obama ___is___ a Muslim terrorist."

A.W. reminds us of the scary thing about [IN]DS -- you can't recognize it by looking in a mirror.

Anderson, I guess that makes having [IN]DS a bit like being a vampire, yes?

Hey, I made the "out of power party is more angry/mean" argument in the other thread and nobody took me up on it!

Beyond that, Orin, you know I love you -- as a poster -- but this is just asking for trouble. Which party is less principled and honest? /Ducks/

The left's derangement seems more against Palin, while the right's is more against Obama. Both of them came on the national scene so quickly that people were willing to believe patently false things about them. Although, to tell the truth, after eight years of Bush, it's hard for me to get a good mad-on against any of them.

In the last 8 years, I've heard the most bizarre set of conspiracy theories from my left-wing friends--Bush planned 9/11, the Iraq War was a cash-grab by Halliburton, the elections were all stolen, you name it.

Thing is, with the exception of the 2000 election, none of those is exactly mainstream-left, whereas the really bizarre stuff vs. Obama pops up in mainstream-right blogs.

I mean, McCarthy at NRO was trying to figure out whether Obama is more Stalinist, or Maoist. What a maroon.

I mean, McCarthy at NRO was trying to figure out whether Obama is more Stalinist, or Maoist. What a maroon.

here is a separate question - is NRO really mainstream now that Buckley is gone?

It is perfectly possible to be a dedicated McCain supporter or a dedicated Obama supporter and be a perfectly rational and good human being.

I'm not sure if I've ever encountered a perfectly rational human being in my life. If such a person did exist, I suspect he wouldn't bother to vote in national elections.

The attacks on Sarah Palin have only prooved that our (the Left's) wingnuts are as wingnutty as your (the Right's) wingnuts.

But hey, at least we've closed the wingnut gap.

SIGH.

--PtM

JB:Mooselimb? lol! That explains the pick of Palin, then.

It's not clear to me that comments sections should be the place to measure derangement. Too much opportunity for false flags. I'd guess that there is even derangment in comments, but somewhat more left derangement in authored blogs and traditional media. YMMV. Derangment in comments dwarfs the others, but no individual comment makes as much of an impression as a post at a popular blog, or something in the MSM (in which I'd include Rush and Fox for purposes of this discussion).

I heard a rumor that Obama was actually the pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11. Well, not so much a rumor--but for a fact he still hasn't answered any questions about whether he was or not. Why won't he answer these questions!!1!

SO let me understand the moral calculus of this associative principal of equivalence in derangement:

Pointing to the many failures of the last eight years is exactly the same as accusing someone of being a terrorist.

But more importantly, blaming the choices that people make on derangement syndrome is itself a symptom of what little moral fiber is left:

It's all just happening to me. It's not my fault. It must be someone else's fault, you know, that Other. Not me.

But of course, a centrist is always right and never at fault.

The real problem is that the center has been destroyed and moved to a place that is not the golden mean.

And we have squandered our educational resources on training master rhetoricians who will argue any position.

Sophists all!

I think that the number and extremity of deranged beliefs is probably about equal on both sides. all it takes is a small number of start and propagate a lie.

The difference lies in how accepted the deranged beliefs are in their respective parties. in seems from polls that the right wins this one. more people believe that iraq was involved in 9/11 or that obama is a muslim/terrorist/socialist than bush was responsible for 9/11. and it appears that most in the mainstream left either denounce or ignore 9/11 truther while the mainstream right appears to actively peddle the iraq and obama lies, among others. (of course i could be wrong if the number of deranged people on the right is greater than it is on the left...but that wouldn't change the inevitable conclusion.)

The psychbloggers were on this years ago. Dr. Sanity, neoneocon, Gaghdad Bob at One Cosmos, Shrinkwrapped, and even the AVI have weighed in on this. The name came first with Bush Derangement Syndrome, as people made accusations of fascism, complete with quotes by Goebbels, accusations that he and his friends were getting rich off Iraq or the rise in gas prices, accusations that Jeb Bush somehow stole Florida for him - bizarre stuff, close to conspirazoid stuff. Charles Manson couldn't be as bad. We concluded it was derangement when efforts to temper such comments by asking if people really meant fascist, if they had any, y'know, evidence, or engaging them in terms of mere disagreement fell flat. Conservatives certainly have their All-Caps crew, but you could tone most of them down.

I concluded then that people feel large and brave when they can see their enemies as larger and more evil than they actually are. It feels heroic, a worthy legatee to protesters against tyranny who went before. Speaking Truth to Power is now largely "demonising your enemies safely in the company of your friends," but it feels heroic. This is perhaps why Boomers are the most susceptible to it. Maybe they saw too many performances of Les Mis or something.

It is over-the-top but not deranged to call Obama a socialist; it is an exaggeration based on his more-socialist stances. I don't know of anyone calling Obama a terrorist, and associating him with terrorists is hyperbole (as Ayers and Dohrn were terrorists but haven't bombed much lately, whatever their rhetoric), but not untrue. That is quite different than calling Bush a fascist in the many creative ways the Left has produced over the last seven years. As to Obama being a secret Muslim, I have only one person who sends me emails to that effect, and I've got lots of right-wing friends. I seldom see it on the right-wing blogs I frequent. That accusation is out there, but is more common as a treasure held up by progressives, as it was on this thread.

I will repeat what I just mentioned on another thread. I have worked at NH's state psychiatric hospital for 30 years. In addition to the threats and assassination attempts you all read in the news, we get extras - people threatening public figures, especially during the primaries. Among my well-educated, gentle liberal friends, it was funny when people talked about assassinating Reagan, then serious when it was Clinton, now funny again when it's Bush. I have never heard a conservative speak in humor of assassinating Clinton or Obama. I can list a dozen liberals by name who have thought assassinating Bush was sorta funny. When people think there is only their kind about, they reveal who they really are. I used to be a liberal, and still look like a boomer health-food store clerk, so I fly under the radar.

Granting that I live in low-violence New England, and that the right-leaning sites I visit may be a non-representative sample, I still have no qualms about making a categorical statement: The derangement is not equal, and it is not even close.

There are a handful of conservative VC commenters who reliably make the most absurd, over-the-top, derangement-syndrome comments possible.

Being right-of-center myself, I cringe when reading these comments: No doubt many who are not committed conservatives see them as confirmation that many conservatives are truly deranged.

And why not? The most popular spokesmen for conservatism today - the Limbaughs, Coulters, Hannitys - are these commenters amplified millions of times.

>>>I heard a rumor that Obama was actually the pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11. Well, not so much a rumor--but for a fact he still hasn't answered any questions about whether he was or not. Why won't he answer these questions!!1!<<<

I'd be more interested in Obama releasing his scholastic and health records.

McCain has done that, and he's been hammered on his class standing at the USNA.

Why won't Obama release his records? I mean, he only wants to be President of the United States.

The only evidence of Obama Derangement Syndrome are the claims that he is a terrorist. He does have ties to Communists (Ayers, the New Party) and supports Communist thug tactics (ACORN, Employee Free Choice Act), and wants to make sure there can never be any restrictions on abortion ever (Freedom of Choice Act, vehemently opposed Born Alive Infant Protection Act). He IS an extremely radical liberal candidate.

does anyone know what exhibit number we're up to? i lost count long ago.

I agree that the party out of power tends to become more deranged than its opponents, and that this probably means that the right will become a little nuttier over the next two or four years, while the left quiets down a little. I just hope that the Volokh Conspiracy doesn't become as over the top as Balkinization, with daily calls to revise the Constitution in order to prevent another president as horrible as Obama from taking power. Or that Marginal Revolution doesn't become as nutty as Brad DeLong. Etc.

I really hate this thing where everything is false or true. Can't it be somewhere in between? It is true that Obama "oppose the 'Born Alive Infant Protection Act,'", but "vehemently" is neither true or false, but an opinion. I think that calling things like this false is a sign of Derangement Syndrom. A rational person would identify the "vehemently" as opinion and simply disagree. The deranged say that it is false or a lie. The only lie that we know for sure is that Biden lied about his academic record during his 1988 run.

Obama - As long as the cash keeps coming in from Chicago I will enjoy my Caribbean vacation.

Vera Baker

There are a handful of conservative VC commenters who reliably make the most absurd, over-the-top, derangement-syndrome comments possible.

When you name your home Casa Conspiracy, you should expect such guests.

Obama opposed a poorly drafted Illinois law that attempted to model after the (Federal) Born Alive Infant Protection Act but which materially differed from it in ways which justified Obama's opposition. Obama supported the Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act and also stated he would have voted for the Illinois law when it was re-presented after Obama moved on to the Senate in a modified form tracking the Federal law that addressed Obama's earlier concerns. So, yes, the charge that Obama opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act is false.

Facts matter.

"I've attached photos of the way I found my van this morning. Evidently, leaving a car parked on the street with Patriot and McCain bumper stickers is intolerable to Obama supporters."


"A likeness of the Illinois senator, in purple spray paint, was stenciled on the front window and outside columns of the Third Avenue headquarters [of the Republican Club of Southeast Volusia] overnight Friday."

Tell us what you really think.

Is there a libertarian derangement syndrome? Is the fact that I don't see any comments as over the top libertarian a symptom?

Orin Kerr wrote, October 13, 2008 at 5:26pm:

Being right-of-center myself, I cringe when reading these comments: No doubt many who are not committed conservatives see them as confirmation that many conservatives are truly deranged.

My test for derangement syndrome doesn't rely on a subjective guess about what particular rhetoric is over the top, or not. It's much more objective, though likely to have a high false negative rate.

Does the potentially deranged one attack those who agree with his basic position for not being sufficiently vehement or vicious to the opposition? If true, the possibly deranged is actually deranged.

Hypothetical example:

Random commenter: "I support McCain, but I don't think Obama is a muslim terrorist."

Obama Derangement Sufferer: "If we let people like you vote, we'll all be bowing to Mecca five times a day! You probably think Barak HUSSEIN Obama has that middle name for no reason!"

The truly deranged have no interest in support for their candidate or position. They want everyone to hate their opposition for exactly the same reasons that they hate the opposition, and nothing less will do. They have lost sight of the purpose, draining the swamp, because they'd much rather fight the alligators that exist only in their own minds.

It looks like A.W. was referring to Public Law 107-207. This law defines terms such as "infant", "child", "person" and "individual" in all U.S. laws and regulations as including any foetus in any stage of development that exhibits any of several signs of life after leaving its mother's womb, whether as a result of natural birth, Caesarean section, or abortion. Opposing this law does nothing to undo existing law against infanticide as such is usually understood. Whether or not one supports this law would depend on one's views not only on partial birth abortion but on whether babies born very prematurely (and therefore likely to be sickly and retarded) or severely deformed, may be killed or allowed to die. These are complex issues on which reasonable people may differ, but it is grossly unfair to characterize opposition to this law as unwillingness to oppose infanticide.

Being right-of-center myself,

Really?

Sometimes I think how much fun it would be to write a script that cross posted commenters between Free Republic and Democratic Underground. It would be the singularity of trolling.

It's silly to pretend that the right is worse than the left right now. Not only is there all of the "Bush lied, people died!" "George Bush is a terrorist!" stuff that's been going on for years, there are the accusations that Sarah Palin isn't really a woman, that she would be gangraped by Sandra Bernhard's black brothers, etc., etc., etc.

The only evidence of Obama Derangement Syndrome are the claims that he is a terrorist.

I think this shows how we can all be more likely to think the other side is more deranged than our own. Blogs have a tendency to debunk lunatic claims from the other side, while ignoring those from their own.

So Dan M., who I presume is to the right of centre and mostly reads right-wing sources, hears about claims like Palin not being a real woman, which most of left have never heard of because the mainstream left don't bother mentioning crazy claims like that. (Or so I imagine, at least I've never heard that rumour, or that Palin wore a pregnancy suit, or many of the other examples of left-wing derangement mentioned in this thread.)

On the otherhand, the right, like the left, doesn't spend much time debunking the crazies on their own side. So Dan M. hasn't heard about how many think Obama is a secret Muslim who wasn't born in the United States, and had someone (William Ayers?!) ghost-write his books.

So the non-crazy among us tend to only read about the other sides' lunatics, and no our own, so we conclude the other guys' have more than their fair share of nuts.

Of course it can't help that we also draw the derangement line in different places. So while I tend to think it is a respectably belief, leaning towards indisputable truth, that the Bush administration said things which turned out not to be true in the run up to the Iraq war, and that people died as a direct consequence of that war, Dan M. thinks that crosses the line into derangement territory.

Mmm, not a single substantive response among you. I will consider my point conceded.

As for when Obama supported infanticide, read here.

Obama actually is a radical and McCain is a moderate. i am not 100% happy with that, think McCain-feingold, but there you are.

Mmm, not a single substantive response among you. I will consider my point conceded.

As for when Obama supported infanticide, read here.

Obama actually is a radical and McCain is a moderate. i am not 100% happy with that, think McCain-feingold, but there you are.

A.W. has to be a troll. It's too perfect.

Of course, if more clear-thinking far right bloggers had their own sites (Ponnuru comes to mind), they'd be worth reading, but what I really want are opinions from people who are consistently willing to question the conventional wisdom coming from their own side.

The problem here is that bloggers (and really, people of all kinds that share their opinions serially and publicly) are naturally selected to be people who have things they want to say and will stick by them. Far more often than not, this selects for people who believe without evidence, as evidence collection in politics is a laborious and fruitless labor. The truth out there is obscured by so much noise that you wouldn't know it was true if it bit you on the nose.

That assumes that the truth is the kind of thing to bite you on the nose.

Yglesias and Drum are entertaining?

News to me.

Obama did tell ABC's George Stephawhatever that he is a Muslim.

Both sides.

Maybe it's because I'm getting older, but I just can't deal with the half-baked theories, wild-eyed insane hatred of Dems and Repubs, and talk about "re-education" camps being instituted by the winner of the 2008 election. It's certainly cost me one friendship, as I could no longer hear theories about how a missile struck the Pentagon, so I and told the person to take that 'stuff elsewhere.

Specific to an issue, I decided I would not listen any further to people who made crude sexual comments about Sarah Palin. That has meant the following talk show hosts I just gave up on.

Bill Press Show (Dem)
Randi Rhodes Show (Dem)
Ed Schultz Show (Dem)
Quinn &Rose (The War Room) (Repub)
Bob Lonsberry Show (available via streaming from WHAM in Rochester, NY) (Repub)

I try to listen to both sides and gather as much information as I can, including opinions on both sides. When I heard Sarah Palin being referred to in the way she was, I said that's enough. Disagree with her policies, but when the sexual comments started, I decided that the above folks had given up on reasoned talk, so I left.

A.S.,

Have we met at a Federalist Society event?

Mr. Lukasiak: we conversed briefly on an earlier post, and you told me you were a commited progressive==but damn, sir--you are a principled commited progressive and have exhibited more fairness than many on this blog. I appreciate your fairness. Thank you for reaffirming my faith in people that I may disagree with on the issues, but never on their personal honesty.

Sheriff Mike Scott Said Barack “Hussein” Obama!, so he's racist.

This YouTube video shows what happened to a pro-McCain march in the Upper West Side of Manhattan. What similarly urbanized place would treat a pro-Obama march in that fashion?

I was born and raised on the Upper West Side. I know the area well, and now I'm almost embarrassed to be from there.

A Zarkov, I've seen Dodgers fans get worse treatment at a Yankees game.

When they call for McCain's head, give us a call though.

Zarkov,

Get serious. The McCain paraders got booed. BFD. No death threats, no calls for beheading, just some booing.

And the captions are a perfect example of conservative derangement.

Try to do better.

The derangement is not that what President Bush said about WMD's being in Iraq being untrue but rather, that it was a LIE.

Then Bill Clinton and the UN and all those manly European countries were complicit. Or maybe they actually used the information they had. No, that's too simple; And it doesn't rhyme!

The government is all-powerful, and never doesn't know what citizens of the world are eating for breakfast.

why can't they demonstrate the reasonable and even-tempered nature of the most popular spokesmen for liberalism today - the Olbermanns, Frankens, Moores, and Mahers?

The point I was trying to make is that these people, Coulter et al, are, to me, conservatism in the US today. And it's pretty repulsive.

Are there more rational conservative writers? Well, NRO is laughable. Maybe there's someone reasonable out there. Tell me.

But of course, a centrist is always right and never at fault.

The real problem is that the center has been destroyed and moved to a place that is not the golden mean.

And we have squandered our educational resources on training master rhetoricians who will argue any position.

Sophists all!

This usage always makes me laugh about the irony that accusing another of being a sophist is in fact a sophism. From Wikipedia, which has a nice statement: "The goal of a sophism is often to make the audience believe the writer or speaker to be smarter than he or she actually is, e.g., accusing another of sophistry for using persuasion techniques."

FWIW

It appears that much of the discussion has ignored the fact that wingnuttery is time dependent. That suggests to me that the probability of spontaneous wingnuttery is much smaller that the probability of stimulated wingnuttery. If each process is balanced by it's inverse (it is not obvious that is the case in this context) then one would expect right and left wingnuttery to tend toward equality. If the stimulus is associated with an election that would account for the time dependence. Is it possible for wingnuttery to saturate?

Since the War:
1. Everybody thought Truman was a dope by the end.
2. Everybody liked Ike.
3. The left learned to despise Nixon because of his fervent anti-Communism (which history shows he was right to oppose).
4. The left adored Kennedy and unwisely suppressed his faults (ghost writers, whore-mongering, fecklessness, drug addiction).
5. The left despised Goldwater, ran a campaign of fear (the little girl and the nukes).
6. Everybody thought Johnson was a barbarian. But he pushed civil rights passage with Republican help, and the Party of Jim Crow made the RepubliKKKans into the racists.
7. The Left despised Nixon, the Right didn't despise McCarthy and Humphrey.
8. Nixon lost control of his demons, McGovern preached unilateral surrender and pacifism which scared everybody.
9. Jerry Ford was a bumbling idiot who told New York to drop dead and denied the left its final orgy of Nixon hating.
10. Carter was kind of, well goofy, at least he was a semi-competent Governor. Until malaise and the hostage debacle, and then he frustrated all of us.
11. Reagan was senile, fascist, a warmonger, "Ray-gun", supported Nicaraguan fascists against peaceful progressive leftist revolutionaries.
12. Everybody liked Mondale, but when he said "I'm gonna raise taxes", we said no thanks.
13. Poppy Bush against Mikey D, more of the same versus liberal change. Bush was your first ex-husband. But the right said Mikey was soft on crime, let violent crimminals go free, and when he went for a ride in the tank, everybody laughed at him.
14. Clinton was a likable rogue, everybody knew it, he kept all the Democratic votes, and he owes it to Ross Perot, who split the Repubs and Inds with Poppy.
15. Lots of people can't abide likable rogues, so even though Clinton worked from the center, after his disastrous first two years of trying to pull us left, lots of righties got CDS. Drug running, Vince Foster, Whitewater, Arkansas trailer trash.
16. Clinton didn't get 50%, everybody liked Bob Dole, but Dole and Perot split the vote again. Leftist fems who squealed like teenyboppers over JFK, sold out their ideals to keep those trailer trash ladies from hurting their hero Saturday Night Bill. Repub Congresscritters caught CDS and put on an impeachment show trial.
17. Bush stole the election from the inventor of the Internet, Bush lied, people died, Bush knew about 9/11. Bush is a dummy, evil Cheney runs things. Bush this, Bush that. BDS becomes an epidemic. Chimpy McHitlerburton approved Abu Ghraib, blood for oil. Bush evilly lies about everything.
18. The evil righties lie so much and so often, repeating the big Swift-boat lie about John Kerry, and stole ohio. The BDS epidemic rages on.
19. Anybody who doesn't vote for Obama is a racist. McCain and Palin are inciting the Right rabble to riot.
20. Everybody thought Bush was a dope by the end.

To summarize:

The Left caught xDS first with Nixon. It grew stronger with Reagan. It jumped the species barrier with Clinton. And it became a full-blown raging epidemic with Bush.


Advantage: conservatives, so far. Let's hope it doesn't become a pandemic.

dave n:

If the President believed, as everyone else did at the time, that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and said so, believing it to be true, then it was not a lie--even if the statement was subsequently proven not to be true.

Bush et al made statements that were undoubtedly outright lies. I've already been through this at VC, like here, here and here.

Just a few other classic examples of lies:

- we found the weapons of mass destruction
- he wouldn't let them in
- a wiretap requires a court order

I am sorry you consider Ann Coulter, et al as being the voice of conservatism. I am fairly conservative--and I don't.


Holy Cheese! I AGREE with JBG on something? Did someone turn on the Infinite Improbability Drive while I wasn't looking?

Jaysusmaryanjoseph!

Cicero kept busy accusing Mark Antony of wanting to make himself emperor. Imagine that! Antonius Derangement Syndrome at its worst!

And look what happened to Cicero.

I do think it's important to keep some perspective and remember that until about 1688 or so, politics was pretty much a death sport. Not for the faint of heart.

Hoosier,

No, you agreed with me. JBG was quoting my post. He thinks the left has no body as loony on the left as Coulter is on the right. I would mention Michael Moore, Al Franken, Randi Rhodes and a few others--and that was without even 15 seconds of contemplation.

hoosier:

Holy Cheese! I AGREE with JBG on something?

You might have to put the cork back in the champagne bottle, because the words you quoted weren't said by me.

dave n:

He thinks the left has no body as loony on the left as Coulter is on the right. I would mention Michael Moore, Al Franken, Randi Rhodes and a few others

hoosier read my post carelessly and so did you. What is the story with Rs and reading comprehension?

It's not a question of whether or not there is a D counterpart to Coulter. I asked you to show me the D counterpart to Coulter who shared a stage with, and was glowingly introduced by, the D counterpart to Romney.

Don't forget that Obama ... intends to force the national league to go to the designated hitter

If that were true I'd vote for him. The NL doesn't seem to want to move out of the 1960s on its own.

JBG,

I mentioned Al Franken--and he is considered seriously enough by the Democrats to be their party's nominee for the United States Senate.

Richard cabeza.

That's a dishonest question. The questioner knows it. There is no way of proving a vote is fraudulent once it's cast. Or, if there is, there are no prosecutors interested in following up. See Wash state.
Since the definition of "proof" is somebody convicted, there is no "proof".

LM,

"Better to indulge a little smug superiority here than bang my head against the wall trying to convince my black sheep siblings how much better off we'd all be if only they were white."

Yeah, that's the thing I can't figure out, the left and their liberal enablers have enjoyed basically unopposed control of our established cultural church (Hollywood, Academia, the Press, what's left of the actual Mainline Church) for decades, and yet they insist on playing counterculture. If they'd stepped up and led, they'd likely have had much more political/economic power long before now.

We'll see if they can finally pull it off with Obama.

Nathan M,

We disagree. There is a difference between a lie and a mistake of belief. They are not synonymous. Lying is a conscious act.

Michelle Malkin had a good summary of the over-the-top hatred by unhinged liberals. It is really hard to find an equivalent on the right to the sheer hatred that emanates from the political Left. What is the conservative equivalent of "Abort Palin!" posters? What is the conservative equivalent to the hatred directed at Trig Palin? What is the conservative equivalent of cartoon depictions of McCain as a "bloodthirsty warmonger"? What is the conservative equivalent to a popular humorist finding hilarity at the thought of Palin being gang-raped by black men? Are commenters on Powerline rejoicing at Elizabeth Edwards's cancer, the way Daily Kos commenters rejoice at Laura Ingraham's, John McCain's, Dick Cheney's health programs? (Rhetorical question, the answer is no).

Unhinged Liberals Gone Wild

idiot:

you failed to mention that she was booted for those precise comments

One reason I failed to mention it is because I didn't know. Thanks for telling me.

Another reason I didn't mention it is because it's not terribly material. They were perfectly happy to publish her remarks. Presumably they have editors?

Michael Moore shared a box with Jimmy Carter at the 2004 Dem convention.

Good point. That's actually a fairly good example. I think it's the best you're going to be able to do. In my opinion, Moore's track record of offensive statements can't hold a candle to Coulter's. But I guess that's in the eye of the beholder.

You are an advocate rather than disputant.

What's wrong with being an advocate?

Dave N
AVI,

You are just figuring that out?

Heh!

nathan:

When someone says that "[t]here can be no doubt" about something when he actually knows things aren't so certain, and it turns out that what he's saying isn't true, then I think he's lying.

Exactly. This is an essential point. Bush et al used language like "no doubt," and "absolute certainty," even though the underlying intel was very far from absolutely certain, and they knew that. Those statements are obviously lies.

Actually, I "know" quite a few things because I have seen evidence that makes me believe it is so. I am prosecutor. That is my job.

I have said "the evidence is undisputed" when the other side does not contradict it. Regardless, I take my prosecutorial ethics to the point that I will not charge a case unless I am convinced in my own mind that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I file a charge, have a trial, and the jury finds the defendant not guilty. Have I lied to myself?

This is the best battle of the anecdotes ever.

The moon is a protectorate, not a state. It gets no federal electors.

Hoosier, Saddam told his interrogators that his WMD effort had been disrupted too badly by the events of the 1990s, so he had put the program on hold and didn't have operational weapons. Rather, he bluffed, in order to keep Iran at bay. When that bluff because a problem because of imminent US invasion, he held to it because to admit to the bluff would have been a great sign of weakness in his culture.

There remains the question of how closely he cooperated with Libya, which turned over a significant WMD program to the US and Britain (not, I would note, the UN) the day after Saddam was captured.

I can't believe people are still arguing about doubleyou emm dees, oh emm gee. Haven't you heard the rhyme? Lied/Died? Come on, people, do I have to draw you the graph myself? It tilts up, like a hockeystick. The science is settled, okay?

Hold on, I got my cards mixed up.

MarkField:

I hope everyone checks his or her id at the polls.

It's not up to "everyone," it's up to the government making rules for polling places.

Judging from what I see on campus and on the blogs, I would say the left is the winner for nasty and unprincipled behavior by a mile. For instance, just google "Palin shirt" or look at photo-funny with new script balloons for Biden and Pain - Biden asking about the difference between what comes out of different openings - the punch line being that something retarded only comes out of an orifice other than the mouth. How low can you go - nasty comments about someone's developmentally disadvantaged child is not good clean politics in my book. It is truly degrading. Not so much for the Palins, but for the unlovely, warped persons who think that such behavior is ethical, intellectually stimulating or amusing.

And the T shirt is bad news - I suspect if someone had used it at a Clinton rally, the media would have been full of it, because that four letter word is generally applied to women in a way similar to a six-letter "n" word used to disparage blacks. Spirited political discourse? Not in my opinion. Sexist, like racist, is a term which seemingly only applies to cases where the victim is left of the political center.

Apparently no one on the left is ashamed enough to distance themselves from such low lifes, or even bar them from posting at web sites supporting their candidates. Free speech is sacrosanct - except, of course for any conservative foolish enough to ask embarrassing questions about Mr. Obama's virtually non-existent resume. THAT, by definition, is RACIST.

"I also think right-wing derangement syndrome is severely undercounted by the comment deletion policies of the left-blogs, even the moderate ones. "

left-wing derangement syndrome however is alive and well on this blog and many many others. some of your posts are prime examples.

hoosier:

I actually agreed with JBG on people on our side not distancing themselves from Coulter.

Sorry, I misunderstood. Thanks for explaining.

My reading comprehension problem is a result of my public school education.

I thought maybe it had to do with the fact that you're a history teacher.

I find it funny that JBG is trying his best to insult people

I wish I knew which statement of mine you think looks like an effort "to insult people." Aside from I just said about history teachers.

Are you talking about what I said about reading comprehension? Then your skin is obviously too thin for this joint, and your outrage is a bit selective. Maybe you didn't notice that idiot essentially called me a liar because "I failed to mention" something irrelevant that I didn't actually know.

My junior senator, Evan Bayh, said he'd "bet his career" on it.

Can you show us that quote?

moore:

The problem with those accusing W of lying is that they then need to accuse pretty much all the intelligence agencies of the world, the Clinton administration, and many Democrat members of congress of the same thing.

The problem with those who raise the comparison you're raising is that you overlook the fact that only Bush et al spoke in terms of absolute certainty (aside from one immaterial exception, in the form of a remark by Jay Rockefeller).

The other problem is that "all the intelligence agencies of the world, the Clinton administration, and many Democrat members of congress" were not ultimately responsible for the decision to go to war. Bush was.

There are other problems with the comparison that I will leave aside, for now.

Both W and Clinton said they were pretty sure Saddam had WMD's.

Bush et al were not content to leave it at "pretty sure." They used terms like "no doubt" and "absolute certainty."

Why does W get all the blame?

Because W et al made those statements, and W made the decision to go to war. What happened to the GOP concept of personal accountability?

A Sarin IED was used on US troops in Baghdad

It was used as a conventional IED. According to Duelfer, the people who used it probably didn't realize it was not a conventional shell.

Others were found.

According to Duelfer, only that one Sarin shell was found. If you have proof otherwise, please show it.

Botulinus culture was found

One test tube "was found in an Iraqi scientist's home refrigerator, where it had been sitting for 10 years."

A nuclear centrifuge was found

We found the remains of a centrifuge in the rubble of a wrecked building.

if one wants to get technical, he did have WMD's

It's not that you're getting technical. It's that you're focusing on finds that are so immaterial that they prove the opposite of what you're trying to prove. The bleach and ammonia under your kitchen sink can produce deadly chlorine gas. Why are you keeping WMD in your house?

When that bluff because a problem because of imminent US invasion, he held to it because to admit to the bluff would have been a great sign of weakness in his culture.

The fact that we overlooked his obvious motivations to bluff, and the likelihood that he was bluffing, is a sign of great weakness in our culture.

And the fact that we can't come clean with ourselves about the fact that we let our leaders lie to us is another sign of great weakness in our culture.

juke.
Of course not. There is no way. If the registration is not considered fraudulent, the person claiming to be that registered voter is, by definition, legitimate. Once a vote is cast, it's over.
So, I suppose you're claiming there have never been any fraudulent votes.
There are, of course, votes by people who don't exist. Dead people, for example. But for some reason you don't consider those fraudulent.
No explaining taste, I guess.

Still no substantive response. And to everyone “disagreeing” with me here is what a substantive response looks like:

A.W. is wrong because… [list reasons that refute mine, either by proving that there is nothing to worry about Obama, or there is plenty to worry about with McCain.]

And folks, as far as jukeboxgrad, don’t bother with him. He considers the North Vietnamese to be a credible source of information. That, my friends, is a deranged moron.

aubrey:

I suppose you're claiming there have never been any fraudulent votes.

No. I'm saying that given the conspicuous absence of evidence regarding even one (1) fraudulent vote (at least connected to ACORN), it would be peculiar to conclude that there are a significant number of fraudulent votes.

There are, of course, votes by people who don't exist. Dead people, for example But for some reason you don't consider those fraudulent.

The cases I'm aware of where dead people voted were indeed not fraudulent. They involved various kinds of errors and misunderstandings (like when someone died shortly before or after an absentee ballot was issued). Read the article.

It's getting more and more obvious that you're strongly predisposed to never show proof for the claims you make.

<blockquote>
So we all agree that pretty much everyone thought Saddam had WMD's. But Bush is the only liar because he used more certain terminology? And because the word "certain" was used, all blame for everything wrong about Iraq goes to "Bush lied."
</blockquote>
As I see it, the main difference between Bush and "pretty much everyone" is the rest of us were relying on Bush's characterization of the intelligence, whereas Bush knew or ought to have known the evidence was a lot more ambiguous. In my view, people (like me) who supported the war and believed Bush were not lying. We didn't have access to the ambiguous intelligence, we only heard the unambiguous rhetoric.

As I see it, the difference between people like me, <i>The Economist</i> (which is definitely not pro-Bush now, but did endorse him in his race against Gore and as I recall was pro-Bush at the time), and Evan Bayh is that we based our assessment in large part because we believed what we were told by the Bush administration. The fact that most of us believed them isn't evidence they were telling the truth.

A few people with first-hand knowledge, like Hans Blix, told a different story which ultimately proved to be more truthful, but they were viciously attacked. Most of us (including me) concluded, wrongly in retrospect, that Bush, Blair, and their allies were more plausible.

<;blockquote>
Those who give us the "Bush lied about WMD" argument would have us believe that he lied about it, even though he knew he would be found out when the troops went in and found none.
</blockquote>
I don't think Bush, Blair, and their allies were that mendacious. I think they honestly believed Iraq had WMDs. That wasn't the lie; the lie was that they claimed the intelligence proved this with a great degree of certainty when now we know that even at the time many of the intelligence analysts had serious qualms with it.

It may well be Clinton officials said the same thing. I cannot recall their specific language, but if they painted a picture with the same false certainty I would be happy to concede they lied too.

But this is all rather off topic when I could be posting awesome pictures of <a rel="nofollow" href="http://tinyurl.com/42khqw">true derangement</a>.

nathan:

I think they honestly believed Iraq had WMDs. That wasn't the lie; the lie was that they claimed the intelligence proved this with a great degree of certainty when now we know that even at the time many of the intelligence analysts had serious qualms with it.

That's a nice way of summing up what I'm trying to say.

I don't know why your tags are broken. But here's another link to that great picture you posted. It goes extremely well with this one, via PC.

moore:

So we all agree that pretty much everyone thought Saddam had WMD's

It's not that simple. Various parties made different statements, at different times, regarding different items, and with various levels of certainty. Bush et al were virtually alone in expressing "absolute certainty."

But Bush is the only liar because he used more certain terminology?

You're minimizing the reality. He didn't just claim to be "more certain" than other folks. He claimed that his certainty was "absolute."

Also, it's beside the point to try to figure out if Bush is "the only liar." Bad behavior on the part of anyone else does not excuse his bad behavior. It's just a distraction. And he is the person ultimately responsible for the decision to go to war.

And because the word "certain" was used, all blame for everything wrong about Iraq goes to "Bush lied."

Just to be clear, I didn't make reference to the word "certain." I mentioned the phrases "absolute certainty" and "no doubt."

And you're just trying to muddy the waters and change the subject when you say "all blame for everything wrong about Iraq goes to 'Bush lied.' " I'm making a very simple point about his pre-war statements, and this straw-man argument of yours does nothing to address that point.

I suppose this also lets off all the Democrats who voted for the war

No. I'm not inclined to "let[s] off all the Democrats who voted for the war." I think it would be good if we had a two-party system. But this is yet another attempt by you to change the subject.

By the way, it is often forgotten that most Ds in the House voted No. Also, the claim we often hear (and which you're repeating), that Congress and Bush saw the same intel, is false.

Do you really, truly believe that Colin Powell knowingly lied about WMDs?

I have closely analyzed statements by Bush, Cheney and Rice. Those statements are enough to prove my point. The case against Powell is weaker. He was somewhat more careful with his statements. But he still does not exactly come out smelling like a rose.

there were a whole lot of reasons to go to war

When you look at Bush's major pre-war addresses, the emphasis was on WMD.

Those who give us the "Bush lied about WMD" argument would have us believe that he lied about it, even though he knew he would be found out when the troops went in and found none.

Bush made an astute and correct assessment that no matter what was found or not found, that there would be people like you who would defend him, regardless.

He also expected the war to go well. If the war had gone well, most people would have totally overlooked the fact that no WMD were found.

And by the way, you're using another straw man. I'm not claiming that Bush knew, or was sure, that nothing would be found. I'm pointing out that Bush pretended to know things that he didn't actually know. That's a form of lying.

Let me take the point to an extreme, and maybe you'll see more clearly what I'm trying to say. Let's say we found 100% of what he told us we would find. That would not change the fact that his pre-war statements were lies (although from a political perspective, the lie would have gotten no attention). In other words, the problem I'm pointing out is not that he turned out to be wrong. The problem I'm pointing out is that he was dishonest with us regarding what he did and did not know.

There's a very basic principle here: the president should not lie to us, especially with regard to something as important as war. The problem I'm pointing out is not that his statements turned out to be wrong (that's a problem, but it's a separate problem). The problem I'm pointing out is that his statements weren't honest.

How many more were there?

This many other Sarin shells have been found: zero. Why did you claim we found others?

That one shell, especially since it was binary Sarin, would have been sufficient to kill more people than 9-11, if it were deployed into a skyscraper's air intake.

You are greatly misunderstanding how a binary Sarin shell works. If the two agents don't mix thoroughly, you won't get Sarin. They mix when the shell is fired, because the shell is spinning at thousands of RPM. The operation of the shell also requires the membrane to rupture in the right manner. This is why the IED didn't produce giant clouds of deadly Sarin.

You're better off sticking with the bleach and ammonia under your sink.

The centrifuge, btw, was not "broken." It was disassembled and buried in the garden of a nuclear scientist.

We're talking about two different things. Duelfer did find the remains of a centrifuge in a wrecked building. I had forgotten the story that you're talking about, where we found some old centrifuge parts buried in someone's yard. These items dated back to Iraq's pre-1991 nuclear program. It was not evidence of development past that point.

jukeboxgrad

I am willing to say that Bush oversimplified the intelligence. After all, when you are trying to make a case to the public, it's hard to talk about all the uncertainties. Especially since intelligence is almost always quite uncertain. See below.

I also believe that he personally was certain that the WMD's would be found. The intelligence was far from vague (although as later presented to the public, with the Niger silliness, it could be made to appear so). There was very good reason to believe that Saddam had WMD's, was hiding them from Blix, and intended to ramp up WMD activities upon the impending failure of the sanctions. The US military fully expected to be attacked with WMD's at some point during their advance.

So if you want to claim that the difference between absolutely positively sure and pretty darned sure turns "absolute" into a lie, then it would appear that you have standards far in excess of reasonable for the circumstances. It is a literalness that is far more appropriate for a contract or other legal document than for presidential speeches.

You assert

Bush made an astute and correct assessment that no matter what was found or not found, that there would be people like you who would defend him, regardless.

I find that extremely unlikely. The political cost of not finding them was extreme, and it was obvious that it would be - even if the war went well. It is pretty obvious to me that he chose WMD's as the rallying cry *because* of how confident he was that they would be found, and because they represented something easy to explain.

The real terror related threat (not to mention the geopolitical threat), which was worse than the possession of chemical WMD's by Saddam, was more subtle, and much harder to explain. David Kay made a stab at it when he said that, after his post-war inspection when he did not find WMD's, he concluded that the Saddam regime represented a GREATER thread of providing WMD's to terrorists than he thought before the war.

In my opinion, Bush had very bad luck with the WMD's, leaving himself open to demagoguery in the future.

....

As to the binary Sarin, I am well aware of how it works. It is indeed the ideal terrorist chemical weapon, because it is binary. That means that the reagants can be safely extracted from the shell, and can be transported and handled with relative safety. Only when the agents are properly mixed (at the last minute) is it dangerous. One certainly doesn't need to fire it in an artillery round to achieve that mixing, as you imply.

There were other chemical artillery rounds found - I believe most were mustard gas. The total number was in the teens.

BUT... frankly, they are really irrelevant.

The interesting issue is how stringently you define lying in this case, and yet how willing you are to use the term against Bush.

I think this strongly illustrates a fundamental difference between people on this issue: those predisposed to dislike Bush's decision are ready to call him a liar; those of us predisposed to agree with him believe he did not lie.

What is shocking is how far down the road this disagreement leads. The "Bush lied, people died" meme has inflamed the debate and greatly contributed to BDS - far more than rationality would have it. The whole argument is pushed very badly out of context (by the main stream media, also) and used in a very irresponsible manner.

What it should have led to was a serious inquiry into why the CIA is so incompetent. Instead, it turned into an extremely divisive wedge issue. For that, I blame the anti-Bush folks who pushed this argument far past relevancy, and who lied about it themselves (Wilson/Niger as the best example).

So in the context of this thread, "Bush Lied" leads to or is a symptom of BDS.

To assert that Bush wasn't precisely truthful - that he may have exaggerated, as every leader I know of does in these kinds of circumstances - would be one thing. But the emphasis (not by you in this discussion) on the lie being an absolute indicator that the war was founded totally on dishonesty and was prosecuted for some sinister motive is classic BDS, and is remarkably widespread.

Like any historical event, the "rightness" of the war is complex. It is the demagogues who over-simplify it.

Festivus,
I was sloppy about what I wrote, but you knew what I meant.
To me deranged means insane:
1. not sane; not of sound mind; mentally deranged.
2. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a person who is mentally deranged: insane actions; an insane asylum.
3. utterly senseless: an insane plan.

Obama as a muslim or terrorist (yes, I admit that is far out) is not an "utterly senseless" thing to say. There is reasoning whether bad or whether you agree behind these statements.
Palin being raped, aborted, etc. is utterly senseless; insane.

>>Calling Obama a terrorist is clearly reaching, but
>>is it deranged? I do not think so, it is just a
>>very shortcut way to make/sustain the argument that
>>he has terrorist friends/acquaintances.and is accepting of them.

>Oh lord. I have friends who are Republicans and Democrats. >I have friends who are men and women, straight and >otherwise, bike riders and fishermen, meat eaters and >vegetarians, Jews, atheists, Christians and Muslims, farmers and lawyers. What does that make me?

Well, none of the categories that you listed were repugnant or illegal and you are accepting of these friends and the categories they fit in that you provided.

Generally, people do not have friends that engage in activities that they find repugnant, especially those activities that potentially involve harming innocent people. And even more, the friend does not regret the activity nor do they even pretend to regret doing on television.

Also, people, whether rightly or not, often associate those that hang out with criminals as criminals themselves or agreeing with those criminals.
Why would someone who does not do drugs hang out with those that do? They must also being using or think it is ok to use/support the activity.

Orin, when the most stalwart conservatives - like Ron Paul, Bruce Fein, Bob Barr, Richard Viguries, Bruce Bartlett and Paul Craig Roberts - sound like liberals (to Bush supporters) in criticizing the Bush Administration, you gotta know that the so-called "derangment" of the "left" has some solid grounding.

Also, Glenn Greenwald makes a good case that the derangement syndromes are not equivalent.

When mentioning Coulter's relation to National Review, you failed to mention that she was booted for those precise comments. Sorry, I will no longer trust anything you say about lying.

No. She wasn't booted for those comments. You can read Jonah Goldberg's explanation here.

A few quotes:

It was Ann who decided to sever her ties with National Review — not the other way around.

In the wake of her invade-and-Christianize-them column, Coulter wrote a long, rambling rant of a response to her critics that was barely coherent. She's a smart and funny person, but this was Ann at her worst — emoting rather than thinking, and badly needing editing and some self-censorship, or what is commonly referred to as "judgment."

Running this "piece" would have been an embarrassment to Ann, and to NRO. Rich Lowry pointed this out to her in an e-mail .... She wrote back an angry response, defending herself from the charge that she hates Muslims and wants to convert them at gunpoint.

But this was not the point. It was NEVER the point. The problem with Ann's first column was its sloppiness of expression and thought. Ann didn't fail as a person — as all her critics on the Left say — she failed as WRITER, which for us is almost as bad.

So let me be clear: We did not "fire" Ann for what she wrote, even though it was poorly written and sloppy. We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty.

Paul Johnson has criticized Islam as an imperial religion. William F. Buckley himself has called, essentially, for a holy war. Rich Lowry wants to bring back the Shah, and I've written that Western Civilization has every right to wave the giant foam "We're Number 1!" finger as high as it wants.

The only difference between what we've run and what Ann considers so bravely iconoclastic on her part, is that we've run articles that accord persuasion higher value than shock value. It's true: Ann is fearless, in person and in her writing. But fearlessness isn't an excuse for crappy writing or crappier behavior.

The essence is simple. They fired her for bad writing and general insubordination, not for the content of what she wrote, which they seem to approve of.

Dave N.,

I am sorry you consider Ann Coulter, et al as being the voice of conservatism. I am fairly conservative--and I don't. I suspect I could name writers I do admire and you would sneer at them as well--so I won't bother.

Good for you. But you do have to recognize that Coulter (not to mention Limbaugh) is a hugely popular figure on the right. She certainly appeals to a very large segment of the conservative movement. She may not speak for you, but she does speak for a great many on the right.

Zarkov,

I see. McCain's getting booed, in a neighborhood in which he is predictably very unpopular, is worse than death threats against Obama at rallies - death threats that draw no condemnation from the speaker (yes- I know about the one response by McCain). You want to think about that a little more?

Would Obama get death threats on a march in an urban neighborhood? Depends on the neighborhood I suppose. I've seen enough videos of people going into Mccain rallies to think it entirely probable.

This has gone on too long. I will now answer the question:

Which Side Has the Worse Case of [Insert Name] Derangement Syndrome?:

[George Bush]

The left has a worse case of it.

(This answer applies to the example presented. Insertion of other names may yield different results. Contact you doctor or pharmacist for more information.)

However, I did forget to mention Daniel Larison and Andrew Sullivan -- do y'all on the right still claim Sully? Oh, and Ross Douthat, tho he's a bit desultory as a blogger.

moore:

when you are trying to make a case to the public, it's hard to talk about all the uncertainties

There was no need for him "to talk about all the uncertainties." There was simply a need for him to avoid expressing absolute certainty, given that the underlying intel was very far from absolutely certain.

Especially since intelligence is almost always quite uncertain.

That's true, which is all the more reason that he should not have expressed absolute certainty. Trouble is, he did.

I also believe that he personally was certain that the WMD's would be found.

I think it's not that useful to talk in general terms, like the idea that "WMD's would be found." In order to really understand what happened, we have to look at certain details, for example, the idea that the tubes were "only really suited" for centrifuges. That's what Rice said. It was a lie, and she undoubtedly knew it was a lie, because her statement went beyond even the most extreme position taken by certain hawks in the CIA who were the ones promoting the centrifuge story. They consistently admitted that the tubes could be used for rockets.

There are similar examples in every major area, like yellowcake and bio-trailers. These specific statements are critical, because they were the foundation of the case for war.

Also, the issue is not whether or not Bush "personally was certain" about any of this. He did not say 'the evidence is quite mixed, but nevertheless what I firmly believe in my heart is X, Y and Z.' Instead, he suggested that he had perfect evidence (in certain areas), even though he didn't.

the difference between absolutely positively sure and pretty darned sure

In the specific areas I'm talking about, the evidence was not even good enough to support a position of "pretty darned sure."

The political cost of not finding them was extreme

Really? He got reelected, didn't he? That would have been his critical concern. And the only reason there was "political cost" at all is because the war went badly.

It is pretty obvious to me that he chose WMD's as the rallying cry *because* of how confident he was that they would be found

No. He chose WMD to sell the war because that was the perfect way to scare us. Absent WMD, there was no basis to argue that Saddam was a threat to us.

As to the binary Sarin, I am well aware of how it works. It is indeed the ideal terrorist chemical weapon, because it is binary.

If it was as easy as you claim, you would see it being used more.

There were other chemical artillery rounds found - I believe most were mustard gas. The total number was in the teens.

We found several hundred, but they were old, lost, forgotten, degraded, useless and immaterial.

The interesting issue is how stringently you define lying in this case

When the president is leading us into war, it's not too much to expect that he is careful with the truth. Bush was not. Your standards are too low. When we tolerate dishonest leadership, we can be assured of getting more of the same. And dishonesty is toxic to democracy.

those predisposed to dislike Bush's decision are ready to call him a liar; those of us predisposed to agree with him believe he did not lie

I don't think that's the key distinction. I think the key distinction is between people who have carefully investigated the facts on their own, by reading primary documents, as compared with people who are relying on something they read on a blog or saw on tee-vee. The latter group is obviously much larger then the former group.

Look at my other posts that I cited, and you'll see the links to primary sources which substantiate my claims.

byomtov:

They fired her for bad writing and general insubordination, not for the content of what she wrote, which they seem to approve of.

Thanks. I didn't know. I guess that means "I will no longer trust anything [Assistant Village Idiot] say[s] about lying."

jukeboxgrad writes:

The number of convictions (or guilty pleas) obtained against ACORN workers compares very favorably with the number of same obtained against GOP leaders. Even though the former pool is probably much larger. So the GOP should aspire to operating as cleanly as ACORN.

Your point on the GOP is not germane to election fraud of working for/associated with ACORN.

The original comments were in regards to ACORN and voter fraud. Political parties are not part of this issue, from my perspective. If you have reports of other groups who have have had arrests and indictments related to election fraud like those working for/associated with ACORN, that would be germane.

and the nastiest one of the whole lot said "I don't care that she doesn't have a ***** I care that she doesn't have the requisite knowledge and experience"

That's an awfully heavy burden for one shirt to handle.

I'm announcing right now that in four years, I will vote for any candidate that can produce a picture of himself/herself wearing a t-shirt from (the) Melvins.

e.g.,

www.themelvins.net/pics/shirts/pages/skeletonb_jpg.htm

You have all been advised.

fury:

Your point on the GOP is not germane to election fraud of working for/associated with ACORN

It's germane because I'm making the point that any group or organization is subject to various forms of misconduct, and ACORN's record compares favorably to the GOP's. The groups don't have to be exactly comparable in order for this comparison to make sense.

It's not up to "everyone," it's up to the government making rules for polling places.

I was making a joke: "id" as in "ego". Way too many people vote their ids.

Anderson:

No, conservatives don't claim Sullivan. Your side is welcome to him.

Interesting views you have on whom is "sane".

Have you read Sullivan's Trig Trutherism posts? Are those aceptable political comments from a sane man?

Larison writes for the paleoconservative American Conservative which says it:

"We are of course in considerable part Buchananite—well disposed to the web of ideas that drew millions of voters during three Buchanan presidential bids."

web of ideas = nativist, isolationist, and anti-semitic

Regular conservatives disowned Buchanan and his followers some time ago.

jukeboxgrad writes:


It's germane because I'm making the point that any group or organization is subject to various forms of misconduct, and ACORN's record compares favorably to the GOP's. The groups don't have to be exactly comparable in order for this comparison to make sense.

I'm sorry, I don't find that to be sound reasoning. If you had some information of election fraud for groups similar to the mission/charge of ACORN, that would be relevant. That you bring up the GOP appears to be an attempt to steer the attention (such as it is) from the comments regarding ACORN.

We'll agree to disagree.

Bob

Regarding Sullivan, yep, he is a nut, but to be fair, I think he is better thought of as a gay partisan than anything else. i am convinced his slide from an interesting and different voice on the libertarian side (never saw him as a conservative), to just a BDS nut started when Bush came out for the marriage amendment, fwiw.

fury:

If you had some information of election fraud for groups similar to the mission/charge of ACORN, that would be relevant.

I agree that the comparison you're suggesting would be more relevant than the comparison I made. So are you in a position to offer such a comparison? Do you have "some information of election fraud [or the absence of election fraud] for groups similar to the mission/charge of ACORN?"

hoosier:

Not a great choice of source, one must concede.

I think it's usually the case that an imperfect source, or even a bad source, is better than no source at all (a reader can make appropriate adjustments). I've been waiting a long time for aw to provide a better one.

No source at all is the typical approach for many commenters here, including and especially him.

anderson:

conservative bloggers who aren't hacks

I agree with your list, and I would add Orin Kerr. Hopefully me saying something nice about him doesn't get him into too much trouble with A.W. et al.

fury:

The only group I have seen mentioned in the media the last 3-4 years that has had volunteers and paid staff members arrested or indicted, and pled or found guilty of election fraud is ACORN.

I think you know that's not an answer to the question I asked. And it's a question you prompted.

Are you aware of any other group with a similar mission/charge?

jukeboxgrad writes:

Are you aware of any other group with a similar mission/charge?


America Votes - they state they are the largest grassroots voter mobilization (registration and voting) in the US.

There are several partners to America Votes. ACORN is listed as a partner. Right off the start, I saw Campaign of Community Change lists a goal as "Change to ensure that the priorities, voices and values of low-income and immigrant communities and communities of color are heard loud and clear in Washington, DC." They do have a community voting project that includes voter registration.

I don't recall seeing articles on the other partners having volunteers and paid staffers that have been arrested and indicted related to election fraud like those working for/associated with ACORN.

A.W.,

Please understand that if you think lack of civility is justified to protect America from Vc commenters, you are entitled to have that opinion but not entitled to comment here based on it. It may be that by banning you, the Republic falls, but that is a risk we are going to have to take if you are not willing to be civil. Sorry, but those are the rules.

Orin Kerr: It may be that by banning you, the Republic falls, but that is a risk we are going to have to take if you are not willing to be civil.

Have you learned nothing from my posts regarding Cicero?

Sorry, but those are the rules.

Brutus was a hero, Orin. A hero.

A.S.,

Have we met at a Federalist Society event?

No. Never been to one. I'm not sure the point of the question - I suppose Orin is trying to show right-of-center bona fides? I am surprised that Orin self-identifies as right-of-center; my impression is that he tries to be centrist. Of course, that impression is based on the small subset of issues on which Orin posts here.

"Michael Drake remembers that the Vince Foster murder myth received "oodles" of time in the mainstream press. I remember that it was mostly G. Gordon Liddy and a lot of emails." (AVI)

I should've said "mainstream right." FOX, Rush Limbaugh, et al. are "mainstream" among conservatives, and they've flogged the Vince Foster "murder" trope extensively (and to this day, 15 years later).

I sincerely don't think there's anything remotely like this on the mainstream left. 9-11 conspiracy theorists, for example, haven't gotten so much as a quantum of play in the mainstream left. (Okay, there was Rosie O'Donnell...) Even the Nation and Noam Chomsky reject such conspiracy claims.

Maybe there's an example of an analogous claim that's received substantial, extended play in the mainstream left. If so, I haven't seen it. Absent one, I think you'd have to conclude there's a pretty clear imbalance of imbalance.

A.S.

"I am surprised that Orin self-identifies as right-of-center"

You are aware that had anyone suggested that any of the original federalists (with the exception of, perhaps, Hamilton, and I believe they were mistaken even there) were right-wing at any time they were alive, that one would have been laughed out of the room? No, I don't believe that things have changed so profoundly in the time since that that label fits any better.

Libertarians are called right-wing, but what that label connotes and what libertarians believe do not align sufficiently for the label to reach the standard of accuracy.

It may be that by banning you, the Republic falls

I doubt that it would fall entirely, but too many innocent people might be forced to have gay abortions (H/T to PC).

And I'd like to just take a moment to celebrate a point of agreement between those who think liberals are deranged and those who think conservatives are deranged -- viz., that at least one of us is deranged.

I'm not a divider; I'm a unificator.

Michael Drake

I thought the word was "dividifier."

(Yesterday I pointed out-- in front of class, naturally-- that one of my students had called Truman's early Soviet policy "confuseded" in his paper. I pointed out that I can't take points off when those sorts of ironies are involved.)

idiot:

His suggesting that NRO "seems to approve of" her sentiments is a statemet for which he has no warrant.

The editors of a publication have ultimate responsibility for what ends up in the publication. They let her print that column. That tells us something about who they are. If the shoe was on the other foot I have a hard time believing that you and lots of other people would not be saying the same thing.

Libertarians are called right-wing, but what that label connotes and what libertarians believe do not align sufficiently for the label to reach the standard of accuracy.

JMHO, but most (certainly not all) libertarians have pretty consistently supported the Republican party over the last 40 years or so. While I haven't done an actual count, it seems to me that the more vocal libertarians here are, even after all we've been through, supporting McCain (though sometimes with expressions of regret). Sold their souls, in my view. Which, of course, libertarians are entitled to do.

Sold their souls, in my view. Which, of course, libertarians are entitled to do.

Ha!

But I would've expected them to get a better deal on the transaction.

Can we agree that Hamilton doesn't fit into the right-left binary? But that John Jay was the most consistantly "right" of the major founders, federalists, and Federalists?

Also, the most forgotten. Perhaps there's a connection.

(Also the one with the most . . . uh . . . "unique" relationship to the slavery issue. But I don't know where that fits into the spectrum.)

Why not?

His approach to Constitutional interpretation.

His view of the role of government in the economy.

His tax policies.

He wore a wig and wasn't a good shot.

"election fraud thugs from Acorn."

"Communist thug tactics (ACORN. . . .)"

". . . several people connected with ACORN have been connected with fraudulent voter registration over the years. . . ."

Sounds like ACORN Derangement Syndrome?

But maybe I just have Derangement Syndrome Derangement Syndrome.

Can we agree that Hamilton doesn't fit into the right-left binary? But that John Jay was the most consistantly "right" of the major founders, federalists, and Federalists?

Also, the most forgotten. Perhaps there's a connection.

(Also the one with the most . . . uh . . . "unique" relationship to the slavery issue. But I don't know where that fits into the spectrum.)

The whole spectrum was brand new in those days (it's the French Revolution which really creates it). The problem is, the defining issues tend to change. In the 1790s, support for the French Revolution seems pretty clearly to put someone on the "left", while opposition to it would make one "right".

Jay is comfortably "right" in that sense. Trouble is, he, like Hamilton, was anti-slavery (very much so in Jay's case). By later standards, that makes him "left". Hamilton was a big government fan (well, relatively speaking), which was "right" in those days but became "left" much later on.

The way I see it, if I like what they did they're on my side and if I don't like what they did they're on your side.

This is because over that time they were the party advocating more limited government.

Depends on which issue, I guess. I always saw the Dems as advocating less government control over the things I thought were important, like abortion and free speech. Regardless, it sure has taken a long time for the libertarians to recognize that, even on the issues they apparently care more about, they've been played.

I agree with your list, and I would add Orin Kerr.

I'd also add the Volokhs and Ilya, though I'm not sure if any of them would self-ID as conservative (I'd guess EV the most likely). And though I may blow up the consensus with this one, of the more "mainstream" conservative bloggers I find David Frum pretty un-hackish. All that said, I certainly don't think the rest are all hacks. A significant percentage, including some on this site, are nakedly partisan, but not every partisan is a hack.

"it is reported that [Obama] has sort of plausible deniability about some of his supporters wearing the shirts at Palin rallies, but, of course, without his permission. Wink, wink."

To which BrianK Comments: "so not only is obama a muslim and a terrorist sympathizer but he is also omniscient? why is obama responsible for the actions of every single supporter he has?"

Now, if you would show me where in my post I ever claimed Obama was Moslem, I would greatly appreciate it. Or is this something you've found solid proof of? Because it contradicts what I, and presumably most sentient people have understood for the past year - Senator Obama's a Christian, a long-time member of an Afrocentric, largely African-American congregation of a politically liberal denomination. So I would appreciate the source of this news, or a retraction. Because I didn't claim Obama to be a Moslem.

Now, as to the charge of terrorist sympathizer, I think it is a more justifiable claim. I believe I noted that Senator Obama seems comfortable with a choice of friends and associates that I find unappealing. I think calling William Ayers a terrorist is not unreasonable - he is someone who was a member of the Weather Underground, and he helped build bombs. some of those bombs actually killed people. Ayers has never found reason to renounce his violent past, just soft-peddle it because people in the mainstream find it objectionable. As he himself has admitted in print, he's guilty,and free as a bird. The prosecutor fumbled the case, and Ayers walked. Calling Ayers an "activist" is disingenuous, and demeans activists for causes like peace and non-violence.

Should Senator Obama be omniscient? No. But it would be nice if the press and the blogosphere would admit that some of his supporters are behaving rather badly. And since some folks have been calling upon Senator McCain to ask his supporters to tone down the rhetoric, don't you suppose Senator Obama should make the same call to his supporters?

I agree - anyone who continues to call Obama a Moslem is a good candidate for the term deranged. Back to the original point of the post - there are plenty of nutty people making dreadful comments in the public square, but it would seem that the Left has done more of it for the past half century, and has shown a greater degree of splenetic commentary than the people on the right. Derangement does seem to be the correct term for anyone who would use the C-word to describe ANY female candidate, or the N-word to describe any Black candidate.

That same ancien regime was resisted just as truly earlier in England and later in America by a plurality of forces, including those whose values are celebrated today by the Federalist Society. Nor is the ancien regime merely an historical concern. Wherever social mobility is materially impeded, similar forces are at work. The liberty cherished by the founders is a countervailing force, and thus, by definition, not right wing.

The existence of slavery makes it more complicated than this. If you want to make Lincoln's argument that the values of the Declaration of Independence express the nation's commitment to social mobility, I'll agree. And I don't know any liberal/progressive who'd disagree. But the support of the right first for slavery and then for segregation makes it hard to defend any apostolic succession here.

"But the support of the right first for slavery and then for segregation makes it hard to defend any apostolic succession here."

I don't follow. They were right wing (and, incidentally, largely Democratic - party affiliation does change with the times) precisely for supporting slavery and segregation. The values enshrined in the Declaration were the banner under which these illiberal practices were fought. How could those values or those who celebrate them be right wing?

Lincoln was in no way right wing.

Opposing the illiberality of the left no more makes one right wing than opposing police brutality makes one a criminal.

I'll shut up now after one more comment. I'm not being pedantic. When, for good reason or ill, for the healthy majority of the smartest and most influential people under 35 worldwide a primary connotation of the label "right wing" is "illiberal", it makes no sense for those who value liberty so dearly to thus label ourselves.

anderson:

I don't really think of him as a "conservative blogger"; like Howard Bashman, he's more of a "conservative who blogs."

Good point. I was trying to think of a good way to say that, and I couldn't. But you did.

brian:

who are the left counterparts of ejo, smokey, clayton cramer, etc?

I think A.W.'s feelings might be hurt because you forgot to mention him. And what a shame that we don't have The Ace to kick around anymore.

I once put together a little greatest-hits collection.

Orin: I have never thought of Ron Paul as a conservative, much less a "stalwart" conservative.

Why would you NOT see him as conservative - because up is now down, and "conservatism" now means being the big government war party?

Ron Paul wins a 100% ranking from the New American's "Conservative Index" (now "Freedom Index"), which rates Congressmen based on the traditional definition of "conserative" — "adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements."

The article reinforces my point that the so-called "Bush Derangment Syndrome" can hardly be said to be "deranged" when most of its "symptoms" are shared by non-neocons on the right, for good reason.

I hesitate to add another charge, because so many others have already done yoeman's work. I must, however, respond to an earlier comment. If someone has already made this point - sorry, I have not read every comment and have skimmed over some sections. Jukeboxgrad, thanks for posting in blocks :<)

In response to:

In the last 8 years, I've heard the most bizarre set of conspiracy theories from my left-wing friends--Bush planned 9/11, the Iraq War was a cash-grab by Halliburton, the elections were all stolen, you name it.

Anderson said:

Thing is, with the exception of the 2000 election, none of those is exactly mainstream-left, whereas the really bizarre stuff vs. Obama pops up in mainstream-right blogs.

Rasmussen Poll

35% of Democrats believe Bush knew of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. I realize that "knowing in advance" is not the same as "planning the attacks", but IMHO it is tinfoil-hat territory to believe either. And anything believed by 35% of Democrats qualifies as mainstream-left.

My apologies for contributing another charge in response to a post decrying such claims.

I think this thread is an appropriate place to quote Chris Buckley quoting his dad:

I've spent my entire lifetime separating the Right from the kooks

A couple of interesting comments on that article:

instead of shedding the dead weights in their party the republicans are shedding the thinkers. Rather than dump the neocons and evangelical loonies they are dumping the people who think for themselves. Do you wonder where the old republican party went? I sure do. I don't recognize these clowns at all.

And this one:

As a conservative myself, I too have become completely disillusioned with the Republican Party and its rampant anti-intellectualism, particularly embodied in one Sarah Palin. The Republican Party without its conservative intellectual foundation has no future. It will become the permanent minority party of the willfully ignorant and resentful. A party of failures.

"I think A.W.'s feelings might be hurt because you forgot to mention him. And what a shame that we don't have The Ace to kick around anymore."

Orin, A.W. might be wrong and uncivil, but jukeboxgrad is as uncivil here when he goes out of his way to taunt his interlocutors.

the well-named lulz:

jukeboxgrad is as uncivil here when he goes out of his way to taunt his interlocutors

I go out of my way to taunt only those who have gone out of their way to be taunt-worthy. And if you envision a world of argument devoid of mockery, you might as well envision a world of argument without words. The history of mockery is long and grand. You might find that even Jesus did it a few times.

On blogs especially it sorts of goes with the territory, so if the sight of someone ridiculing the ridiculous is offensive to your delicate constitution, you might want to put less time into reading blogs and more time into a more genteel pastime, like, say, shooting wolves from airplanes.

A.W. might be wrong and uncivil

That "might" gives you away.

Hoosier,

Hamilton's background makes Obama look like Beaver Cleaver. He's on my side all the way. That and he hated Burr.

jukeboxgrad writes:

I go out of my way to taunt only those who have gone out of their way to be taunt-worthy. And if you envision a world of argument devoid of mockery, you might as well envision a world of argument without words. The history of mockery is long and grand.

And yet I still don't want it at this blog, unless it's done in a very gentle way. Keep it civil, folks, and yes, even if you think "the other side deserves it."

Markfield,

"In my view, the FS is the intellectual descendant of the ancien regime, and it's the liberals today who represent the Enlightenment. Obviously, YMMV."

Except I'm a liberal today who says that liberalism has enough real enemies without creating false ones. If you want to claim that the FS is the intellectual descendant of the ancien regime, you'll have to do better than mere assertion.

As to Hamilton, when one speaks of a ruling class, one cannot ignore what it is that such "rule" entails. The French Revolution was a contest for who would control the absolute power of the French state. In the colonies, no such absolute power existed nor was it likely to arise. Thanks to our pluralistic institutions created, maintained, and defended by liberals of every stripe, nor has it yet. Those who celebrate such pluralism are no foes of liberalism.

As to Hamilton, when one speaks of a ruling class, one cannot ignore what it is that such "rule" entails. The French Revolution was a contest for who would control the absolute power of the French state. In the colonies, no such absolute power existed nor was it likely to arise. Thanks to our pluralistic institutions created, maintained, and defended by liberals of every stripe, nor has it yet. Those who celebrate such pluralism are no foes of liberalism.

Fair enough, up to a point. My problem with Hamilton is that he's far too authoritarian with the government he created. I think there's a place for individual rights which Hamilton didn't seem to care much about as long as the government acted according to the majority. I'd say the same about Jay.

As for the FS, that's too long a debate to enter this late in this thread. I'll leave it as a matter of my opinion for now.

MF,

"My problem with Hamilton is that he's far too authoritarian with the government he created. I think there's a place for individual rights which Hamilton didn't seem to care much about as long as the government acted according to the majority."

Could well be, my take may be colored by personal affinity. I'd say Hamilton's bark was worse than his bite, and he always knew Washington would keep him from getting too far off the chain. Like Obama and Palin, Hamilton was tossed into the fray far before his time and, like those two, pretty much made it up as he went along. Philosophically, I lean toward Franklin, for what its worth.

I don't consider the republican burghers of New Amsterdam, fresh from employing their economic liberty to effectively resist the too amorous advances of the ancien regime's paragon par excellence in the Old World, to constitute a "ruling class" in any meaningful sense. Besides, they gave us three great Dutch presidents.

"As for the FS, that's too long a debate to enter this late in this thread. I'll leave it as a matter of my opinion for now."

Fair enough. I'll grant that you likely know more actual FS members than I. Having co-opted several Lefts in the 20th Century, I'd say that it would not be beyond the Ancien Regime's formidable powers to do likewise with a relatively obscure society. I haven't seen it, but then again, I haven't looked very hard.

As for what I perceive to be the sticking point: economic liberty. Perhaps I've been too ethnocentric, there have of course been multiple Enlightenments in human history. The common thread I've found is the bulwark provided by economic liberty against military/church tyranny. Such liberty necessitates social mobility and the free exchange of ideas, with the flowering of science and the arts which flows from such exchange. Our own technological age was made possible by two fruits of an earlier Islamic Golden Age: al-jabra and the Arabic numerals we use (and a place value system imported by Muslims from the Hindus).

lulz:

the unpleasantness on these comment threads is not a one-sided affair -- you too, have contributed to it

My policy is to speak as I am spoken to, more or less. In other words, I think it's proper to send unpleasantness back where it came from. If you come across an example (past or future) of me violating my policy (i.e., by being the initiator of the unpleasantness), I'll be grateful to hear about it. So far I haven't.

OK:

even if you think "the other side deserves it"

It's not so much that I think the other side deserves it. It's more that I don't believe in unilateral disarmament. You do a good job of policing your threads, but your colleagues don't, for the most part.

But you have. I quoted you goading A.W. and The Ace above, which I thought uncalled for and unnecessary. Your needlessly abrasive response to me is also a case in point.

From your subjective perspective, there will always be people who "deserve it," although whether they truly do is not up to you to decide. Otherwise your answer is self-serving: you get a free pass as long as you perceive that they "deserve" reciprocal unpleasantness. If you don't tone it down, I hope Orin will. That is all.

juke:

You never include me in these lists! And Orin refused to threaten me with exile. And yet I called Kevin R. a "sweatbeetle-dickweed." (Because he said the National League would be better with aluminum bats.)

Am I being un-uncivil? I can't live with that.

Orson.
Ayers, like many in the academy, is technologically incompetent. Otherwise he'd have killed a lot more people.

orson:

the Republican Party ad equating Obama to Bin Ladin is contemptible, and McCain certainly should be aware of something a state party is doing … once he knew, he should have condemned it

See here:

Earlier this week … Jeffrey Frederick, the chairman of the Virginia Republican party, gave GOP volunteers talking points on “the connection between Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden.” … Instead of repudiating Frederick, McCain is set to appear with him.

I guess when McCain said he always repudiates the unsavory statements coming from his supporters, he wasn't really being honest with us.

Terrorism is wrong in my book. … From my perspective, terrorism is terrorism

Then you should know about McCain's own little terrorist connection:

Otto Reich was said to have been instrumental in the release of Orlando Bosch, a Cuban exile, from jail where he was serving a 10-year sentence for blowing up Cubana de Aviación Flight 455 on October 6, 1976 while en route from Barbados to Havana, killing 73 people. … Otto Reich now serves as a policy adviser on Latin America for the John McCain's presidential campaign.

Why is McCain taking advice from someone who helped free the killer of 73 airplane passengers?

people who think Ayers should go free because it was a long time ago

He's not free because it was a long time ago. He's free because the government used illegal means to pursue him. Sound familiar?

The people who would hire, retain, tenure and promote a person like William Ayers are worse than Senator McCain.

I hope you'll tell us how you feel about Mark Sanford, the Republican governor of South Carolina. He serves as the Ex-Officio Chairman of the Board of Trustees at the University of South Carolina, where Ayers holds the title of "Distinguished Scholar." We haven't heard a peep out of Sanford, condemning Ayers, and condemning the decision to grant him this title. I wonder why. Maybe you should consider the possibility that it's because Ayers has actually done some good things.