New Huffington Post Column

Infinite high fives for this.Here’s a (specllchecked) relevant quote from Paul Rosenberg on OpenLeft, I think it goes nicely with this piece:

Left and right are not mirror images of one another. This is a favorite centrist Versailles trope–but like all Versailles tropes it is utterly false. The KKK and NAACP were not mirror images of one another in the 1950s, and being a “centrist” “moderate” who condemned them both was not a morally, logically, or empirically superior position. Nor was this situation unique or anomalous: the left has stood for equality, and the right has stood for hierarchy since the dawn of time, long, long before the terms “right” and “left” were first adopted.This doesn’t mean that people on the left can’t be mistaken. Everyone makes mistakes. And since there are no membership cards for broad political tendencies, there can be some fairly crazy folks on the left–check out the “People’s Temple” as one of the more ghastly examples. But the People’s Temple was one localized cult, whose internal hierarchical politics was quite at odds with the egalitarianism that the left in general stands for.This applies as well to the most extreme and notorious examples–brutal dictators like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. One can explain how they came to be–oppressive conditions, violent struggle to overthrow them, leaders of the struggle become entrenched new leaders “in the name of” a new egalitarian order that somehow never actually arrives. This can be explained, but not excused. It is a betrayal of what the left stands for. And that’s exactly the opposite of rightwing dictators like Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, etc., etc., etc.It was not always thus, but the left has been so successful on the whole over the past few centuries–despite the obvious counter-examples–that everyone takes recourse to its ideals when they want to score points. David Duke, for example, was an early champion of labeling affirmative action “quotas,” “reverse racism” and such. And so it is a favorite ploy to try to show up the left using their own ideals. Right now, David Mizner has a Quick Hit, Warren Slams “Christophobia” and “Hate Speech” of Critics, that’s a perfect example of this.

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=10597

Great post, Bob…sadly, I am writing my HuffPost piece right now “Ms. Maddow, You’re Better Than Your Rick Warren Lie”

>>Great post, Bob…sadly, I am writing my HuffPost piece right now “Ms. Maddow, You’re Better Than Your Rick Warren Lie”Oh boy here comes some creative parsing!

It’s totally uncreative – Rachel Maddow lied to her audience about Rick Warren’s 22 minute video. The left needs to be better than that and since I love Rachel Maddow’s show a lot, she especially needs to…

>>It’s totally uncreative – Rachel Maddow lied to her audience about Rick Warren’s 22 minute video.Oh I can’t wait for this!One day the left will embrace all of the right’s ideas and then your dad/mom/whoever can forgive you for being a DFH.

Look – this isn’t even a hard call. Lying is wrong. It’s easy for anyone to watch Warren’s video and compare it to what Maddow said and if they do, she clearly is lying. She deliberately misstates what Warren says by using a soundbite out of context and then proceeds to attack him based on the selective soundbite. It’s as blatant a lie as I’ve ever seen on O’Reilly, Dobbs, or Limbaugh.

Aargh. You kids!Don’t MAKE me stop this car, you two!

Yeah damn Rachel and her using things people actually said against them.

Bob, I’m glad you’re one of the few people willing to give Obama some benefit of the doubt in this.The criticisms Obama has been getting has been both fair and unfair. My concern is the the fair criticism is being outweighed by the unfair. Which is why I tend to side more with Lee on this issue.While I fully understand the anger and outrage over this, I still think a gratuitous amount of overreaction exist. Are people more upset with Obama for something that he’s done, or are they upset over what they fear he might do? If the answer is the latter, then not only do I not think that’s fair, but if you voted for him it’s also hypocritical.

Using a soundbite to prove your own point when it contradicts the ACTUAL point the person was trying to make isn’t ‘using things people actually said’.

Are you disputing her use of the laughable “Christophobia” blurb? Because she’s 100% OTM.

>>>> Look – this isn’t even a hard call. Lying is wrong. It’s easy for anyone to watch Warren’s video and compare it to what Maddow said and if they do, she clearly is lying. She deliberately misstates what Warren says by using a soundbite out of context and then proceeds to attack him based on the selective soundbite. It’s as blatant a lie as I’ve ever seen on O’Reilly, Dobbs, or Limbaugh.

>>Don’t bother Lee, as far as Travis is concerned, when the left does it, it’s not wrong.While we’re putting words in my mouth, please explain who “the left” constitutes in your example. Be specific.

>>>> While we’re putting words in my mouth, please explain who “the left” constitutes in your example. Be specific.

I guess I’ll have to move on to a different bridge, as I am unwilling to pay the toll.

I’m waiting for Lee’s article because I didn’t see the discourse in question, but I’m having a hard time understanding why the term “christophobia” is attracting such condemnation. My only issue with the term is its probable inaccuracy – I doubt that anyone is afraid of Christians (same way I doubt that the general use of the term homophobia is accurate). But as a general description of anti-Christian sentiment, can there be any doubt of the existence of the same? I’m assuming, therefore, that Rick Warren used (or was made by Rachel Maddow to have seemed to use) the phrase disingenuously. I’m waiting for source evidence.QT

Well Travis, since you’re too much of a coward and hypocrite to say what you mean by your Texan retort, here’s a little fun fact for you.More people voted for Obama in Texas, than they did in his home state of Illinois.http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/

I like you Bob but I’m going to have to disagree with you on the Santorum/Warren comparision.Are both of them bigots? Sure but I would argue that Santorum, as a Senator wielded more direct influence than Warren in terms of creating or shaping actual policy.Warren has influence to be sure and a lot of it, as evidenced by his role in Proposition 8. But there are so many mitigating factors in that situation, his direct influence wasn’t that great.I would argue that pastors, which regardless of how often they skirt the line, are still private entities. Their salaries are paid by the people who sit in their pews.Santorum however, is a public official whose salary is paid by the people. So in my mind, his removal has more to do with the fact that he simply couldn’t keep his mouth shut rather than his personal beliefs. I mean, let’s get real… I’m positive he wasn’t or isn’t the only person who had those opinion in the Senate; I bet there are Senators who feel that way but they know if they want to keep their jobs, they’ll keep their mouth shut.Maybe I’m just an idiot but I’m still trying to figure out what the major deal is. A three minute prayer from a guy who thinks Jews like me are going to hell? And? Not the first time I’ve heard that one, won’t be the last. And I don’t think this ‘legitimizes’ him at all; people who think he’s an asshole will still think he’s an asshole and people who think he’s awesome will probably still think he’s awesome.There’s no political upside for either Obama or Warren but I actually think this really isn’t what it’s about. For whatever reason, they are friends and Obama wants his friend to be apart of this process. I don’t think it goes any further than that and frankly, I really don’t see anything wrong with that.

>>More people voted for Obama in Texas, than they did in his home state of IllinoisMore people in New York City voted than in Indianapolis- how could this be?Oh wait right there’s more people there.

>>More people voted for Obama in Texas, than they did in his home state of Illinois.ltmidknite…that’s a crazy thing to try to win an arguement with!i have asked this before and recieved no answer..please tell me why it is important for the left to reach out and please the right? the major differences which the sides self define are non-negotiable in my mind.

>>> More people in New York City voted than in Indianapolis- how could this be? Oh wait right there’s more people there.Illinois is home to the 3rd largest city in the country (Chicago), while Texas is home to the 4th largest (Houston, home sweet home). Your point is moot right there.Another fun fact, McCain got more votes in California than he did in Texas.Hopefully you’re smart enough to see where I’m going with this. Though I am doubtful.

>>Illinois is home to the 3rd largest city in the country (Chicago), while Texas is home to the 4th largest (Houston, home sweet home). Your point is moot right there.I realize you’re a step behind but surely even you can add together vote totals (not to mention see percentages right next to the numbers).>>Another fun fact, McCain got more votes in California than he did in Texas.>>Hopefully you’re smart enough to see where I’m going with this. Though I am doubtful.Hey, you’re the Texan here.

>>>ltmidknite…that’s a crazy thing to try to win an arguement with!How do you know it’s crazy when Travis refuses to elaborate what he meant by a “You’re a Texan” retort in a previous post? He’d have to be man enough to actually answer that.>>>i have asked this before and recieved no answer..please tell me why it is important for the left to reach out and please the right? the major differences which the sides self define are non-negotiable in my mind.

>>How do you know it’s crazy when Travis refuses to elaborate what he meant by a “You’re a Texan” retort in a previous post? He’d have to be man enough to actually answer that.http://i42.tinypic.com/15rxjja.jpg

>>Another fun fact, McCain got more votes in California than he did in Texas.look at the counties that voted mccain. if it wasn’t the tax breaks for the rich it was counties that mirror texan beliefs.btw, i have nothing against texas. you are just trying to defend a red state with crazy data.

>>> Hey, you’re the Texan here.You’re damn right, kid. I’m a proud Texan.I’m proud to live in one of the most culturally diverse and cordial states in the union. Texas is like California and New York without the high cost of living.So to call me a Texan is not an insult to me in the least. I’m just trying to help you get in touch with some repressed bigotry you seem to have.

>>cordial>>Texas>>your postsdohohohohoP.S. Have you figured out the flaw in your mathematical argument yet?

>>Contrary to popular belief, there are such creatures gay conservatives and there are homophobic liberals…this goes back to my original question posted as well…what are the major differences between the right and left?

>>>> http://i42.tinypic.com/15rxjja.jpgSo are you’re saying Texans think about Sperm whales? Well they are an endangered species, and there are a lot of conservationist in Texas. So I guess you meant that as a compliment.

>>Well they are an endangered species, and there are a lot of conservationists in TexasBy volume or per capita?

>>>> btw, i have nothing against texas. you are just trying to defend a red state with crazy data.

@ Gypsy…I’m game.I’m not sure you’re looking at this the right way. I don’t think it’s a matter of the left having to please the right, I think it simply boils down to the fact we’re playing by a different set of rules. Which is to say, Republicans have continually shown they are willing to break the rules and they can get away with it because they have their hands deep into everything that could stop them (i.e. corporate media, the military industrial complex and the judicial system).This is the reality we face, whether we want to admit it or not. Barack Obama could try and issue signing statements, repeatedly subvert congressional authority, give the UN the finger, allow his Vice President to bounce around the legislative and executive branch, expand executive powers beyond comprehension, sit on his hands while a city drowns, walk into a war on false pretenses and pretend like Constitution exists but for one, the media (who, surprise, isn’t in the ‘tank’ for him at all) would be in his ass in ways that would make the 90′s look tame.Moreover, it wouldn’t make him any better than the guy we got rid of, even if he used overreaching executive authority to benefit us on the left. Yeah, it would be awesome… but it wouldn’t be right.Trying to play by the rules when your opponent happily breaks them is hard and when you couple that with the fact the ground is still relatively fertile for conservatism, you can understand why some people may want to tread lightly.Oh I know democrats had huge victories in 2006 and 2008 but look at what had to happen. America had to practically fucking fall apart before people started to realize what the fuck was going on. Meanwhile, Al Gore had to scrap and claw his way through an election with an inept C student because his old boss got a blowjob by an intern.The liberals who think we’re (somewhat) out of the woods just because Obama won by seven percent haven’t been doing their history homework. When you factor in McCain’s dreadful campaign, and a Republican president who left this country in hell, we shouldn’t have even had to turn on the television on November 4th to know the outcome.Bottom line is the Republican party and conservatism has pretty much been in power for the last forty years. That’s not going to just change in four years or probably even eight years.Finally, to borrow from the Dark Knight, they have exhibited time and again that all they want to do is, “Watch the world burn.” They don’t care about the people and they don’t care about governing. The Grover Norquists of the world wants to drown government in the bathtub and all of us with it.That’s what we’re up against and I suspect like Batman (yes this example is a bit dramatic and nerdy but bare with me), we’ll eventually have to make a choice… either we continue to try and go about things the right way even though they won’t or we start getting our hands dirty.

>>Of course it seems crazy if you can’t think beyond the concept of blue states and red states.Or if you understand rudimentary statistics…

>>>> P.S. Have you figured out the flaw in your mathematical argument yet?

My findings are in the mail.

>>>>Moreover, it wouldn’t make him any better than the guy we got rid of, even if he used overreaching executive authority to benefit us on the left. Yeah, it would be awesome… but it wouldn’t be right.

Yeah, the president representing the interests of the people who elected him is an awful idea.

Great Huffpo Piece Bob! Kudos to you, i really enjoyed it.

>>I don’t know about you, but I voted for Obama because I’m sick and tired of this type of thinking.that IS why i voted for obama because i am sick of the right telling/judging/condemning me for wanting to start a family on my own terms, wanting ALL people to have their civil liberties, wanting the world to be a habitable place in 100 years!again no one has mentioned the MAJOR differences between the two parties because they know they are rooted in religion, greed, and bigotry!alex i am with you but i can’t extend myself to those who give me a f’ you, most of the time not even with a smile!

Tell you what gypsysoul, why don’t you start by telling what the differences are as you see them.

@ Travis:Representing those interests can’t be done (legally) with a magic wand.Moreover, I’m willing to bet if you sat a sample of the 53.8% (I think) of the population who voted for Barack Obama in one room you would likely see a wildly diverse group of people who may and may not want all of the same things that you do.@ Gypsy:I hear you but again, as I’ve said over and over again, Obama is only the start. There’s still a long, long, long way too go. Judgment and such will likely never go anywhere and the fight for equality has been raging since… well… since the founding of this country.

look at your little election map and you can clearly get a grasp of what the major differences are.to dumb it down…(not for you LTM just in general)christianity…abortion…guns…race…immigration…

So Alex, you propose we do…absolutely nothing?

>>equality has been raging since… well… since the founding of this country.i am cherokee, my family has been f’cked over since columbus…hehe, but not really hehe! (smiling)

*Re-reads what I wrote*I’m pretty sure that isn’t what I said. But the axiom still applies… Rome wasn’t built in a day.

@ Gypsy:Yeah man… Native Americans… shit… the rest of us don’t have shit on that. ; )

kill whitey…sorry did i say that out loud?

wow, nothing kills a thread like a “kill whitey” shout out!

Hahahahahha… win.Shhh… you can’t say that out loud Gypsy! ; ) That’s only for the secret minority meetings!

>>>christianity…abortion…guns…race…immigration…

FYI, my maternal granddad was half Cherokee.

no shit LTM, (sorry my eggnog must kicking in)again i state look at the election results. see a trend in the type of people and their political preference?i don’t think pro-choice, black and latino conservatives were who the base was targeting, do you?

ok, last post doesn’t make sense…rather…i don’t think pro-choice, black and latino conservatives are the base the right were targeting.

O si yo LTM! (cherokee hello)

Uh, QT, I’m coming late to this, so, sorry for the late response, but here goes:I’m fucking afraid of Christians. Not all of them, certainly. For instance, I’ve grown fond of you. But the general population of Christians? I’m afraid of them.Harvey Milk was not assassinated by an atheist. James Zappalaporti, a Vietnam Veteran, was not stabbed to death by a Muslim. Brandon Teena, a transgender man, was not raped and murdered by Hindus.And 19,000 couples were not forcibly divorced by Buddhists this November.

Bob,I am so baffled by this ungoing quarrel. At this point in time, do you and those who disagree with this choice WANT PE Obama to back down on this issue? What will this say about his leadership? For a 3-minute prayer is it worth him caving in because some people are mad at his choice? Do we want him to backpedal every time a sector of his populace feels that he is not meeting ALL their needs? What do you really want, and if he gives you what you want, how will that impact his governance? I know I’m on the outside looking in, but, to me, this much continued heat on the subject almost seems like we are saying we cannot trust PE Obama. Hasn’t he repeatedly shared his position on homosexuality?