Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Conor Friedersdorf responds to the recent bashing of Glenn Beck by some prominent conservatives, pointing out that while Beck surely deserves the criticism, so do lots of other voices on the right. He quotes Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post:
"What should thoughtful conservatives do? I've said it before, but it is especially relevant here: Police their own side," she advised this week. "Rather than reflexively rising to his defense when questioned about Beck, why don't conservatives call him out and explain that he doesn't represent the views of mainstream conservatives? Conservative groups and candidates should be forewarned: If they host, appear with or defend him they should be prepared to have his extremist views affixed to them."
And then points out why so few conservatives have taken on Beck despite his obviously crazy views:
One reason is that it's difficult to condemn Beck in isolation. Acknowledging that his show is indefensible--that's the core of her critique--means confronting the fact that Fox News under Roger Ailes knowingly broadcasts factually inaccurate and egregiously misleading nonsense every day. How many conservatives are willing to stipulate that?It also means departing from the conservative movement's standard approach to its entertainers: It's verboten to criticize anyone on "your own side" in an ideological conflict many see as binary.
That last part is a problem many liberals have too, of course, but it's never been as bad as it is on the right. Most importantly, Friedersdorf notes that Beck's particular version of wingnutism is hardly unusual these days:
The point is driven home by the fact that most commentators newly awakened to Glenn Beck's flaws haven't even begun to confront the pathologies running through the stuff put out by the rest of the right's most popular entertainers. Don't get me wrong. I very much admire what Rubin wrote and agree that conservatives must start speaking up when the words uttered by prominent allies don't reflect their values. But does she appreciate that merely repudiating the most blinkered, offensive, transparently untrue rhetoric would require a radical change in how the right conducts itself?Those writing as if Beck is an extreme outlier in the conservative world should use their newly opened eyes to survey the rhetorical landscape. Yes, his style is singular, and his conspiracy theories are particularly colorful. But is his brand of conspiratorial nonsense really any more blinkered than some of what's uttered by other conservatives in good standing? Take Rush Limbaugh, the most popular voice in the conservative movement. Lately, he's taken to making derogatory comments about the first lady's weight. In the wake of the Tucson shooting, he said of Democrats, "What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country." He claims that in Barack Obama's America, it's OK for black kids to physically assault white kids on school buses and that the whites victimized in these crimes are thought to have gotten what they deserved. He regularly uses bigoted words and imagery to stir racial controversy. And here is an abridged list of the people he has labeled racist in the past several years: Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Sonia Sotomayor, Van Jones, Democrats generally, the mainstream media, and the NFL.
Or consider Andrew Breitbart.
Best known for publishing a misleadingly edited video that made Shirley Sherrod appear racist, he says he became a conservative because of the unfair treatment Clarence Thomas received during his confirmation hearings, which makes it very weird that he tweeted this: "If male boss u knew 4 years, hired u job-2-job, gave u raises/promotions & worst infraction was PubicCoke, you know a saint." His newest obsession is proving that Barack Obama is implicated in a "stealth reparations movement". He is implicated in destroying the reputation of Juan Carlos Vera. Most relevant to the Glenn Beck fiasco, Breitbart is the proprietor of Big Peace, a strange foreign affairs website that regularly publishes material every bit as blinkered and conspiratorial as a Beck monologue.
Of course, it doesn't end there. Dinesh D'Souza's theory is that Barack Obama is a 1950s style Kenyan anti-colonialist. National Review's Andrew McCarthy published a bestselling book based on the premise that Obama leads a coalition of leftists that has allied itself with our Islamist enemy in a "grand jihad" against America, and a separate pamphlet alleging that our president "embraces Islam's sharia agenda." He is one of the main foreign affairs and national security writers for movement conservatism's flagship publication.
And he didn't even mention Frank Gaffney, Robert Spencer, David Yerushalmi, Pam Geller or Michelle Malkin.
Politics
Comments
And here I was, way back when, worried that it was bad that conservative magazines were mostly opposed to Darwin.
Little did we know!!
Posted by: John Farrell | March 8, 2011 10:39 AM
For that to happen, Beck would need to stop representing the views of mainstream conservatives.
Posted by: mad the swine | March 8, 2011 10:45 AM
Yeah, I'm sick of people saying Beck is an extreme outlier. If he were, then putting him on the most watched news network in the country wouldn't be profitable.
Posted by: Brandon | March 8, 2011 10:48 AM
The fake outrage against Beck is part of the conservative scam: on the one hand, they get to pretend they're the "moderates" and Beck represents the lunatic fringe; OTOH, by drumming up outrage against Beck, they get to use him as yet another diversion from what mainstream America should be talking about: the complete failure of EVERYTHING conservatives have believed and done.
Sure, sensible conservatives should also include Rush Linbaugh in their condemnation of right-wing rhetoric -- but that would mean remembering that he's the de-facto head of the their party (whose duly elected leader had to kowtow to him almost as soon as he took office) -- a party whose insanty, hatred, and failed policies they themselves chose to support for DECADES.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 8, 2011 10:52 AM
This reminds me of the lack of serious criticism of the fundamentalists by more moderate Christians and Muslims. It's not that this criticism isn't there, it is just muted and mostly ignored by the press.
While fundamentalists are certainly extreme, they are certainly not 'outliers'.
Posted by: peicurmudgeon | March 8, 2011 10:57 AM
I see it as part of moving the perceived center further to the right. Each new iteration of a "Beck" character allows those on the right to say they are the center or center-right. I would love to see actual left wing radicals as crazy as Beck get air time, so that the perception of the center would actually be closer to the center. If true left wing radicals had air time, it would be even more obviously wrong to call President Obama a left wing radical.
I don't know if it's a conspiracy, but it certainly helps the right wingers to claim the mantle of center-right when they compare themselves to the more extreme right ramblings of Beck and his ilk.
Posted by: HeartlessB | March 8, 2011 11:07 AM
Call it what you will,but I have met those with a militant attitude, and it's seems to me that it's only time before the idiots start shooting!
Posted by: EboTebo | March 8, 2011 11:16 AM
Following onto HratlessB's comment: bashing Beck allows conservatives to say things that they used to trash liberals for saying, without having to admit that the liberals were right when they said it.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 8, 2011 11:19 AM
If we're going to beat the drum in criticizing idiotic delusional conspiracy theories by people or groups who enjoy a national bully pulpit than we can reach far below Glenn Beck and point our fingers directly at Congressional Republicans'. Their monolithic denial of science's description of climate change, its harm, and its predicted harm is far and away the most dangerous conspiracy theory Republicans cling to en masse. This is not merely a lone wingnut with a radio and TV show, but the entire caucus of one of only two political parties who are successfully thwarting debate on what to do about looming threat which threatens the wellbeing of humanity.
From my perspective the GOP's denial of the reality of this issue, where their "do nothing" policy position and House Republican votes we even stop doing research and communicating findings, can only be logically supported by claiming it's a conspiracy by science - which many are more than happy to do while the media spectacularly fails to scrutinize their them beyond their easily falsified talking points. Conceding that there's perhaps a 10% chance science is right when in fact science is highly confident in its general predictions obligates these Republicans to support continued and increased study and debating and formulating mitigation policies, which they refuse to do.
Glenn Beck's a wallflower compared to the audacity of arguing to this level of irrationality. I think Republicans are getting away with it because the American people remain ignorant of the status and predictions of climate change. I think it's also partly due to the shoe-string budgets science has to communicate its findings, e.g., its graphical presentations are mostly amateurish at best, and it rarely frames all its predictions to their finality prior to breaking down their predictions by time period (where the more benign results are now or earlier which therefore allows the ignorant to justify continued procrastination). And in spite of science's incapability at adequately communicating its findings, House Republicans just voted to stop funding efforts to communicate findings altogether like their vote to stop spending a paltry two or so million dollars a year to fund the IPCC.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 8, 2011 11:53 AM
Beck is a cog in the right wing propaganda machine. He does a good job of frightening elderly folk with a slight patina of dementia.
Conservatives can bank future deniability by murmuring "I disagree with a few things Glenn Beck says" during an interview.
Bask in the glow of demagoguery now, denounce and purge later. Repeat as necessary.
Posted by: Pinky | March 8, 2011 12:01 PM
I sort of sympathize with all of these "mainstream" conservatives singling out Beck for criticism, if only because it's incredibly obvious Beck is a con. When many in the movement genuinely believe that Obama wants to eliminate the black race, however, how do you counter a con man who is largely just adding drama to old yet widely believed John Birch scripts?
Posted by: Blotto von Bismarck | March 8, 2011 12:02 PM
"Lately, he’s taken to making derogatory comments about the first lady’s weight."
It just boggles the mind how a guy who spent most of his adult life being a fat slob, and today looks like the Pillsbury Dough-boy after a few rounds of chemotherapy, can criticize someone else's figure.
I guess next he'll go after Charlie Sheen for having a drug problem.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | March 8, 2011 12:22 PM
Bask in the glow of demagoguery now, denounce and purge later. Repeat as necessary.
Mike Hickabee did that in the middle of 2008: he denounced, in oh-such-pious-tones, all the insane hatemongering his fellow bigots were directing at Obama -- months after the damage was done and his camp were able to reap most of the benefits to be had from it.
And where did he make that pivotal speech? Tokyo.
And do y'all remember how all that insane hatemongering came to a dead stop when that staunch sensible conservative took a principled stand against it? Nah, me neither.
Posted by: jRaging Bee | March 8, 2011 12:48 PM
Shit, shit, SHIT, I accidentally left that extra "j" for "jihad" in my name. Now the Obama-Islamoliberal conspiracy to destroy America and spread Sharia law has been blown. Sorry, comrades, I guess I won't be getting those 72 virgins after this...
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 8, 2011 1:01 PM
Thou shalt remember Saint Ronnie and keep his Eleventh Commandment wholly:
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | March 8, 2011 1:16 PM
Everything I think in a few short paragraphs. Well, not everything, but close.
Preaching to the choir, though.
Posted by: Jennifer Krieger | March 8, 2011 1:24 PM
Beck's contract with Fox is up at the end of the year. Look for Ailes to let him go quietly. Then, conservatives will point to him and say, "See? We purged the crazies from our midst," and then make a false equivalence with someone on the left. Meanwhile, the Breitbarts, D'Sousas, Gaffneys, and Gellers of the right will continue to put out rhetoric only slightly less crazy than Beck's and not be called on it.
Posted by: greatbear | March 8, 2011 1:44 PM
Ed,
Show me a link to an equivalent post about the whackaloons on the left, y'know, most of the columnists at DailyKOS and HuffPo, and my day will be complete!
Posted by: 10000li | March 8, 2011 2:36 PM
@18
Thanks for making my point for me. Beck has done his job if you think the front page bloggers at DKos and Huffpo are equivalent to the fringe right.
Posted by: HeartlessB | March 8, 2011 2:47 PM
Why don't you show us which "wackaloons" you're referring to. Also explain how they're representative of liberal thought and policies. You'll find it hard to do, since there is no equivalence.
BTW, Ed calls out crazy folks on the left all the time. There are just fewer of them - and the ones who do exist have no real influence on the public discourse.
Posted by: Ken in Tucson | March 8, 2011 2:50 PM
Speaking of Beck...a while ago, either on this blog or another, there was that video clip of Beck crying about some disease/genetic condition/disorder/etc. that would eventually make him blind. Does anyone remember this, or am I imagining that clip?
Posted by: Eleanor | March 8, 2011 2:57 PM
@18
Orac calls out the woomeisters on HuffPo all the time.
Posted by: KeithB | March 8, 2011 3:42 PM
He shut up about that real fast after he got the word from Christine O'Donnell.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | March 8, 2011 3:43 PM
Do really mean to say that these lefty whackaloons did not have an effect on public policy?
Gary Ackerman
Robert Andrews
James Barcia
Kenneth Bentsen
Rochelle Berkley
Howard Berman
Robert Berry
Sanfor Bishop
Milorad Blagojevich
Robert Borski
Leonard Boswell
Frederick Bousher
F. Allen Boyd
Robert Clement
Robert Cramer
Joseph Crowley
James Davis
Peter Deutsch
Norm Dicks
Calvin Dooley
Thomas Edwards
Eliot Engel
Bobby Etheridge
Harold Ford
Vito Fosselia
Jonas Frost
Dick Gephardt
Barton Gordon
Ray Green
Ralph Hall
Jane Harman
Baron Hill
Joe Hoeffel
Thomas Hoden
Stey Hoyer
Steve Israel
William Jefferson
Christopher John
Paul Kanjorski
Patrick Kennedy
Ron Kind
Nick Lampson
Thomas Lantos
Nita Lowey
Ken Lucas
Willam Luther
Stephen Lynch
Carolyn Maloney
Ed Markey
Frank Mascara
James Matheson
Carolyn McCarthy
Mike McIntyre
Michael McNulty
Martin Meehan
Dennis Moore
John Murtha
Bill Pascrell
David Phelps
Earl Pomeroy
Tim Roemer
Michael Ross
Steven Rothman
Max Sandlin
Adam Schiff
Brad Sherman
Cliff Shows
Isaac Skelton
Adam Smith
John Spratt
Charles Stenholm
John Tanner
Ellen Tauscher
gary Taylor
Karen Thurman
Jim Turner
Henry Waxman
Tony Weiner
Bob Wexler
Alber Wynn
shall I go on?
You guys voted for these people, and look what they did to us.
Posted by: 10000li | March 8, 2011 4:38 PM
10000li - WTF? Are you a poe? Or are you really stupid enough to think posting a list of names with no context is evidence of something?
Posted by: Taz | March 8, 2011 4:48 PM
I'm sure that a few arguments could be made that some of those names are "left-wing whackaloons" and did indeed have a measurable public policy influence. Whether or not said lunacy is as prevalant as it is on the right-wing side of the pond is debatable, unless we are simply trying to determine whether or not them just existing is evidence enough that it's not solely an issue with the right's interpretation of political discourse.
Posted by: SW | March 8, 2011 4:51 PM
Taz,
If you are so ignorant as to not know who these people are, why are you even in this conversation?
Posted by: 10000li | March 8, 2011 4:56 PM
Sorry, 10000li, I'm looking and looking, but I can't see what any of that lot "did to us." Did any of them have anything to do with the Iraq war? Tax cuts? Creationism? Banking deregulation? Seriously, help me out here -- I've heard of maybe less than ten of those names.
Oh, and if that's supposed to be a list of "lefty wackaloons," you left out Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Susan Sontag, Michael Moore, and maybe a few others. What kind of Left-Smeller Pursuivant are you?
Geez, I have to do EVERYTHING aroud here...
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 8, 2011 5:01 PM
Come to think of it, the only "lefty whackaloon" who really "did" anything to us was Ralph Nader, who some have credibly accused of giving us George W. Bush. So are you gonna blame everything Bush did on Nader and say the Iraq war was a "leftist" policy?
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 8, 2011 5:04 PM
SW,
Whackaloon is as whackaloon does. Those 81 votes made it possible, so if you are trying to gainsay their effect on public policy, you're going to have to do a bit better at your apologetics.
You guys on the left claim you are against the war, and yet you keep voting these people into office.
If you D's and R's hadn't gerrymandered the nation so that no one else would be able to participate in the electoral process, then there'd be places for the whacakloons from the far left and far right to go and they wouldn't end up in your parties. But you guys want to pretend that Americans can't handle more than two parties, so this is what you get.
Posted by: 10000li | March 8, 2011 5:06 PM
So what did Dennis Moore do -- steal my neighbor's lupens and give them to the poor in a misguided act of commie altruism?
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 8, 2011 5:09 PM
There are very few people on that list that I know without looking them up; it's a sample size of 1, but it goes to show that these are not exactly movers and shakers on the left. It's a false equivalency. Obama is not the extremist McCain has become. Pelosi is not the extremist that Boehner is. Weiner is not the extremist that Bachmann is.
Posted by: Dennis N | March 8, 2011 5:09 PM
Jeebus ameobus!
I thought Bee would know these people, 'cause he's a lefty's lefty.
Isn't there anyone who knows what these people did to innocent Americans and Iraqis?
Posted by: 10000li | March 8, 2011 5:10 PM
Bee,
I skipped the obvious ones like Moore and Chomski. But at least Chomski knows to be mad at these folks, so, the stopped clock effect is in play once again.
Posted by: 10000li | March 8, 2011 5:14 PM
I don't see how I was even remotely being an apologist by trying to determine how you define a "whackaloon" and whether or not prevalence should play a key role. On that list of yours, there's not one name that I would consider as widespread as Glenn Beck in political discourse today.
"If you D's and R's hadn't gerrymandered the nation so that no one else would be able to participate in the electoral process, then there'd be places for the whacakloons from the far left and far right to go and they wouldn't end up in your parties. But you guys want to pretend that Americans can't handle more than two parties, so this is what you get."
Again with the "you guys". Ed has dedicated numerous posts on this blog to calling out people on the left. Have you not read his series on Obama in which he criticizes his foreign policy, posts that, incidentally, the majority of users on here agree with?
Posted by: SW | March 8, 2011 5:19 PM
Whoever these people are, right or wrong, they're not "lefty whackaloons," and they're certainly not relevant in shaping actual policy or framing public debate. Whatever 10000li is trying to say, it doesn't have enough content even to be judged right or wrong.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 8, 2011 5:20 PM
Also, I see what you're getting at here: a pet concern about the two-party system. I can assure you that there's not unanimous agreement on here about whether or not Dispatches as a community agrees with such a system, so you're operating on the assumption that we have all consciously been enablers.
Posted by: SW | March 8, 2011 5:21 PM
I have to spell it out for you, I guess:
These Democrats voted for US troops to invade Iraq. If these 81 people had not lost their cojones, there would have been no war.
How is that not an effect on public policy?
They are whackaloons because they didn't even have the courage of their own convictions but voted out of fear and believed the lies the right had cooked up to get America into the war.
Now the apologetics will continue in earnest....
Posted by: 10000li | March 8, 2011 5:38 PM
10000li,
They voted stupidly on that subject.
Feel better now?
Posted by: BGT | March 8, 2011 5:44 PM
10000li, only a handful of those names sound familiar to me, and I couldn't for the life of me say why. Really; you're making the claim here. Why not give us an example? Quote one of them; link to a wackaloon argument, then we'll have something to discuss. Are they HuffPo columnists or something? I don't read that. All I know of it are the woomeisters that science bloggers occasionally trounce. I've read DailyKos now and again, perhaps that's where I saw a few of those names. I don't remember any loony posts, but perhaps I missed them.
Please - give a link. We can discuss his or her social influence compared to Rush or Glen later. Speaking for myself, I identify my tribal affiliation less by my beliefs (conclusions) than I do by my methods (epistemology). I am not a liberal - I am more like those guys you see in sci-fi conventions, but without the Spock ears. It's just that any member of the reality-based culture who is not a sociopath will find himself at odds with American Republicans on a frequent basis. On nearly every issue, in fact. Why is that?
Posted by: kermit | March 8, 2011 5:52 PM
While a stupid and wrong decision, voting for the Iraq war was not outside the mainstream at the time. It does not qualify one as being a whackaloon.
Posted by: Dennis N | March 8, 2011 5:55 PM
BGT,
You've proven my point.
If Bush and Rove and Cheney deserve blame and moral outrage for the invasion of Iraq (which they do), then these 81 Democrats deserve it too. If all that these 81 Democrats merit for allowing the invasion to take place is a little brush off, then you no grounds for your hatred of Bush and co.
Posted by: 10000li | March 8, 2011 5:55 PM
So you're calling them 'whackaloons' because of that one vote on the Iraq war?
Certainly they were wrong to vote in favor, a truth that is far more evident after the fact. Prior to his infamous show-and-tell at the UN, I tended to believe what Colin Powell said.
But we are talking here about the putative equivalence of left-wing and right-wing outliers. I don't think there is any such equivalence. Republicans consistently vote in accord with an outlier ideology; Democrats do not.
Posted by: Chris Winter | March 8, 2011 6:01 PM
Dennis N,
Wait. If being in the mainstream means someone is not a whackaloon, then Beck is not a whackaloon, because, as you guys like to point out whenever his popularity comes up, Beck doesn't set the righty POV, he just reflects it.
I've been working under the definition of whackaloon as doing something wrong and stupid. And these people did something wrong, stupid and morally outrageous. There were plenty of normal, everyday people at the time who thought the war was a bad idea. The other 127 Democrats and 6 Republicans (including the nutter, Ron Paul) figured it out, why couldn't they?
These 81 Democrats were moral cowards. If they had not voted in favor of the war, it would have been 215 for and 214 against. That would not have carried the vote and there would have been no invasion.
Tell me again they didn't affect public policy.
Posted by: 10000li | March 8, 2011 6:07 PM
Chris Winter,
If they vote consistently with a policy, it isn't an outlier, it's their main policy, hence, not whackaloon.
"That one vote" as you like to dismiss it, made the difference. If they had not voted in favor of the war at that time, the hawks would have had to go back to Congress again and try to rally more votes. More time would have elapsed and more people would have recognized the lies for what they were.
Most Americans were NOT in favor of the war at the time. These 81 Democrats did not vote in the mainstream of what their constituents wanted, but, being D's, that is being voters without balls, their constutients keep voting them back into office.
Posted by: 10000li | March 8, 2011 6:15 PM
10000li - If you are so ignorant as to not know who these people are, why are you even in this conversation?
Wow, you really feel the need to pump yourself up, don't you? Sorry, your comment is still stupid. People with actual things to say actually say them.
Posted by: Taz | March 8, 2011 8:33 PM
Taz,
Talk about pumping yourself up. Sure, I'll be the kettle to your pot. I think I've dealt with you before and you remind me of those YEC's who never really stick to a topic, then pretend their jumping around is a form of argmuentation.
I have since explained that these 81 Democrats caused America to enter an unjustified war with Iraq. If you are as even-handed with your blame as you purport to be, not a single one of these Democrats should ever have been reelected. You should know who all of these people are and be working every day to remove them from office.
They should have stood firm against the war. They did not. They are as much to blame as Bush and the Republicans. If the Republicans are whackaloons, then these Democrats are also.
Is that clear enough for you?
Posted by: 10000li | March 8, 2011 9:12 PM
I have since explained that these 81 Democrats caused America to enter an unjustified war with Iraq.
Yes, you did, after implying I was ignorant for not immediately recognizing the list of names. Of course, you could have just said "the Democrats that voted for the Iraq war", but that would have been like communicating an idea rather than employing a gimmick.
They should have stood firm against the war.
I agree. They were gutless. I said so at the time. Though being gutless and being a whacko aren't the same thing.
Posted by: Taz | March 8, 2011 9:41 PM
They are whackaloons because they didn't even have the courage of their own convictions but voted out of fear and believed the lies the right had cooked up to get America into the war.
Spinelessness is not "wackaloonery." Neither is giving the other side what they want. You're completely misusing the word, and for no good reason. If you want to condemn the Democrats' actions, at least use the right words; otherwise you end up sounding like an incoherent moron. You did learn college-level English, didn't you?
If Bush and Rove and Cheney deserve blame and moral outrage for the invasion of Iraq (which they do), then these 81 Democrats deserve it too.
Read the Constitution, dumbass -- primary responsibility for military and foreign-policy decisions rests with the Executive branch. Voting for the Iraq war was spineless and wrong, but the actual execution of the war was entirely the fault of the Commander in Chief and his appointees. Congress doesn't get to vote on strategic, tactical or personnel decisions.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 8, 2011 9:42 PM
...and besides, if Congress had voted NOT to authorize the war, do you really think that would have stopped Bush & Co. from attacking? It's not like they proved themselves all that scrupulous about obeying laws, or dutifully told Congress the truth about WMDs and the like.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 8, 2011 9:45 PM
Uhhhh hang on.
1000li is trying to claim that voting for the Iraq War makes someone a lefty wackaloon?
I mean, sure. I will concede that voting for the Iraq War makes someone a wackaloon! Gladly! But it was CLEARLY a right-wing position, so the argument is that those 81 Democratic Senators are right-wingers.
... I don't think this is the argument 1000li is trying to make. but I don't know what is.
Posted by: Michael Ralston | March 8, 2011 10:16 PM
RB: But the Congress authorizes the use of force, and spending the money. If Congress didn't give any money for the mis-adventure, it would have ended before the planes left the base.
So, who are the lefty whackaloons in your definitions of the word?
Posted by: 10000li | March 8, 2011 11:22 PM
OT: President Obama hangs out with Atheist:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/07/show-and-tell-president-obama-and-prime-minister-gillard
Posted by: 10000li | March 9, 2011 12:07 AM
OT: So what? Atheist or not, she's a fucking head of state, so why shouldn't Obama hang out with her?
Back to the subject: power of the purse does not give Congress the ability to regulate the quality of the CinC's decision-making. (And besides, do you really expect Congress to vote to defund a war AFTER our troops are committed to it on the ground?) Also, if voting for a Republican war makes one a "lefty wackaloon," does that mean the entire Republican Party are all "lefty wackaloons?" Or does it just mean you're a clueless blowhard who doesn't know how to use words?
Further on topic: why are you giving the Democrats so much blame when they were the minority party at the time? Did they force their Republican colleagues to support the war?
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 9, 2011 12:38 AM
10Kli:
You're a lot like commenter Miko; he really doesn't know a fuck of a lot about what he might like, just what he doesn't like. Your rants are not informative or entertaining. You really need to go troll someplace else and leave thinking people alone, you fucking clown.
Posted by: democommie | March 9, 2011 1:02 AM
Before you get all perturbed there -10KIQPoints, remember this:
Your pal George Dumbya Bush--when he was President-- not only hung out with Muslims, but also held hands with them and even kissed them!
By the way, since Dispatches also has numerous commenters who are atheists, why the fuck would anyone with sense here get upset about our President (grates ya, doesn't it, you racist fuck stain) hanging out with an atheist?
It's a GOOD thing to us, you loser.
Posted by: Aquaria | March 9, 2011 2:16 AM
Ed, every time you mention "Beck" in a headline I at first think you're referring to the pop singer. Us in the rest of the world are pretty much mercifully unaware of Glenn Beck.
Posted by: Martin R | March 9, 2011 2:40 AM
Lol, I think you're a little crackers Li. When you started espousing supposedly far-left figures I thought some of us Brits might make the list. What, no love for Gorgeous George Galloway? But no, it was just some list you control-c control-v'd from somewhere. Good job.
Posted by: Coryat | March 9, 2011 4:20 AM
Of all the conspiracy theories out there the single most credible, the one that has the most evidence behind it, the one that yields useful and reproducible results is still ... wait for it ... The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy posited by the Clintons.
If anything the mud slinging, story manufacturing, propaganda machine's most lasting legacy, once we replay the end of the of The Gilded Age and have a second New Deal, as is inevitable, will be to have proved the Clintons right.
Posted by: Art | March 9, 2011 9:13 AM
10000BC - And we elected her (just) even though she was an unmarried (living in 'sin') female atheist, interesting that the 'land of the free' couldn’t do anything similar. - Dingo
----
"... no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
- Article VI. US Constitution.
Posted by: DingoJack | March 9, 2011 9:30 AM
I find it weird that evidence for being a left wing loony is exactly the same as the evidence for being right wing (and presumably ALSO loony).
10,000 lies seems to be about the level...
Posted by: Wow | March 9, 2011 9:31 AM
There's your problem. That's not the definition of a whackaloon.
Beck is not in the mainstream of American thought, he's in the mainstream of Tea Party thought. Despite what they like to claim, the Tea Party is not a reflection of American thought.
Posted by: Dennis N | March 9, 2011 10:51 AM
There's your problem. That's not the definition of a whackaloon.
Beck is not in the mainstream of American thought, he's in the mainstream of Tea Party thought. Despite what they like to claim, the Tea Party is not a reflection of American thought.
Posted by: Dennis N | March 9, 2011 10:53 AM
Sorry, ScienceBlogs is having trouble loading for me today, didn't mean to double post
Posted by: Dennis N | March 9, 2011 11:10 AM
Yes I know that Urban Dictionary is not an authoritative source, but it does provide a sense of what is commonly meant by various slang.
All of the definitions have to do with being foolish and/or beyond crazy/incoherent/irrational. Add left/right and you get an ideological fool. It is certainly beyond bad votes in congress. Right Wackaloons are taking ideology to the most extreme illogical position possible. There are far fewer left wackaloons taking leftist ideology to the extreme and influencing public policy.
This conversation is entirely outside the weaknesses of our two party system. A lot will have to change to permit a viable 3rd party to take a sizable number of seats and exert a noticeable influence upon policy.
Posted by: Kelly | March 9, 2011 12:50 PM
10000li has some valid points. However, the fact remains that there are no real options in most US elections other than Republican and Democrat. We can bemoan that fact, but the fact remains. Given a choice between re-electing a Democrat who voted stupidly for the Iraq War and a Republic who would also have voted stupidly for the Iraq War if in office at the time and will in the future vote in ways contrary to my own views of the public interest, I will vote for the Democrat.
All of this is beside the point though, since voting for the Iraq War does not make Henry Waxman nor any of the others on 10000li's list the equal of Beck, Limbaugh, Andrew McCarthy, Michael Ledeen, etc. I don't think they have any counterparts on the left, certainly none with equal air time.
Posted by: Southeast Michigan | March 9, 2011 2:46 PM
You have a different definition of whackaloon from the rest of us. Would you care to define what you actually mean so we can actually discuss it?
If by whackaloon, you literally mean "someone who voted for the war in Iraq" then you are redefining words to your own purpose and there is nothing to discuss.
Posted by: Kim | March 9, 2011 6:05 PM
Important to remember: Words mean things.
Posted by: Kim | March 9, 2011 6:09 PM
Along the lines of a broken clock...
Posted by: dogmeat | March 9, 2011 7:19 PM
The untold question is: how many conservative voters/Fox News watchers know that but would not tolerate to see their elites admitting it in public?
In the past few years, I've become more and more convinced that the core audience of BS pseudo-news outlets (whether its Fox, Spencer & co's network of blogs, european far-right parties' propaganda outlets, etc...) is widely aware that they are consuming deceitful misinformation, and is merely pretending to believe it: better to say "Those evil socialist-muslim-foreign-born-whatever will turn my country into a communist caliphate" and be seen as a fool rather than "If the government screws the minorities and under-class just a little bit more it will give me the ressources to attain/maintain that oh so desirable upper-class lifestyle" and be seen as a unrepenting bastard.
Posted by: Laurent Weppe | March 10, 2011 1:40 AM