Chris Matthews: bin Laden sounds like Michael Moore
Well, the fewmets have hit the windmill over that.
I...uh... See, I think this is one of the reasons why I'm not a good lefty. I'm not outraged easily enough. I didn't hear Matthews's assertion, but I have to admit that when I heard the translations of the bin Laden tape I thought, roughly: ugh. Now the right is going to start harping on us sounding like bin Laden. The reason I thought that was that I, well, thought what he was saying sounded a bit like what some of us have been saying. E.g. Michael Moore.
Now, I'm sort of a liberal and I thought that. So I'm not exactly sure why I'm supposed to be pissed off at Matthews for saying what I and many others were thinking. It doesn't mean that Moore et. al. are wrong and it doesn't mean that bin Laden is right, and it doesn't even mean that the two agree in any very substantial way, it just means that they happen to agree about a few things. Bush sucks. I think that and bin Laden thinks that. But we think that for very different reasons. We have virtually nothing in common.
(I shouldn't have to make this clear, but just for the record: I think bin Laden sucks very, very, very much more than Bush sucks. Though I do sometimes think that Bush may, in the end, actually do more real harm to the world than bin Laden does.)
But hatred of Matthews is already common on lefty blogs. Encouragingly for Matthews, it also seems to be common on righty blogs. The righties fume about his lefty bias, the lefties fume about his righty bias; fair indication that he's doing something right. I kinda like Matthews actually, FWIW. I mean, he's not a genius, but for a talking head I think he's pretty good. He seems to call 'em as he sees 'em, he doesn't seem to automatically toe the line, and, if anything, he seems to me to be kind of a Democrat. (He was, I think, on Tip O'Neil's staff). Hardball isn't the place you go for quiet, in-depth discussions of the issues, but that's not what it's supposed to be.
Anyway, coming out of someone else's mouth, this comment might have bothered me. If Cheney or Limbaugh or Colter had said it, I probably would have been pissed--because if one of those folks said it, they would undoubtedly be saying to in order to suggest something sinister about opponents of Bush's handling of the war. I suspect that Matthews wasn't suggesting anything similar, so it doesn't bother me. I could be wrong about Matthews's intentions, of course, but I doubt it.
Oh, and one more thing: if I end up turning conservative some day, it may very well be a result of reading liberal blogs.
Well, the fewmets have hit the windmill over that.
I...uh... See, I think this is one of the reasons why I'm not a good lefty. I'm not outraged easily enough. I didn't hear Matthews's assertion, but I have to admit that when I heard the translations of the bin Laden tape I thought, roughly: ugh. Now the right is going to start harping on us sounding like bin Laden. The reason I thought that was that I, well, thought what he was saying sounded a bit like what some of us have been saying. E.g. Michael Moore.
Now, I'm sort of a liberal and I thought that. So I'm not exactly sure why I'm supposed to be pissed off at Matthews for saying what I and many others were thinking. It doesn't mean that Moore et. al. are wrong and it doesn't mean that bin Laden is right, and it doesn't even mean that the two agree in any very substantial way, it just means that they happen to agree about a few things. Bush sucks. I think that and bin Laden thinks that. But we think that for very different reasons. We have virtually nothing in common.
(I shouldn't have to make this clear, but just for the record: I think bin Laden sucks very, very, very much more than Bush sucks. Though I do sometimes think that Bush may, in the end, actually do more real harm to the world than bin Laden does.)
But hatred of Matthews is already common on lefty blogs. Encouragingly for Matthews, it also seems to be common on righty blogs. The righties fume about his lefty bias, the lefties fume about his righty bias; fair indication that he's doing something right. I kinda like Matthews actually, FWIW. I mean, he's not a genius, but for a talking head I think he's pretty good. He seems to call 'em as he sees 'em, he doesn't seem to automatically toe the line, and, if anything, he seems to me to be kind of a Democrat. (He was, I think, on Tip O'Neil's staff). Hardball isn't the place you go for quiet, in-depth discussions of the issues, but that's not what it's supposed to be.
Anyway, coming out of someone else's mouth, this comment might have bothered me. If Cheney or Limbaugh or Colter had said it, I probably would have been pissed--because if one of those folks said it, they would undoubtedly be saying to in order to suggest something sinister about opponents of Bush's handling of the war. I suspect that Matthews wasn't suggesting anything similar, so it doesn't bother me. I could be wrong about Matthews's intentions, of course, but I doubt it.
Oh, and one more thing: if I end up turning conservative some day, it may very well be a result of reading liberal blogs.
posted by Winston Smith at
12:31 PM
12 Comments:
Um, sorry Winston, but Matthews is a moron who irrationally treats Bush like an icon. Don't believe me? You seem to trust Digby's judgment. See for yourself:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_digbysblog_archive.html#113770185015946706
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_digbysblog_archive.html#113772990196606438
The righties fume about his lefty bias, the lefties fume about his righty bias; fair indication that he's doing something right.
This is a prescription for a media that is immune to facts and would simply split the difference between falsehood and truth, wherever they may fall, rather than exert itself beyond blathering on in ignorance.
Two men argue. One says that 2 + 2 = 4, the other says that 2 + 2 = 6. A wise moderate will intervene and point out that, naturally, the rational conclusion is that 2 + 2 = 5.
(1) No reason to apologize for disagreeing with me, Anonymous. That's what I'm here for. Thanks for the Digby posts--I'll try to check 'em out (though time's precious these days).
(2) LL and MC: not exactly. Thinking that the right and left both exaggerate the bias of non-right/left line-toers, and that consequently the fact that they both hate someone is a good sign in no way entails that one thinks that the media should simply split the dif b/w any two given positions. You're right that that would be bad, but seem to be wrong to think it follows from my presupposition. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If I end up turning psycho-killer some day, it may very well be a result of reading this blog.
“I'm of the opinion that you can determine you are on the right political course when you can annoy an equal number of people of each political persuasion, and that you will know you tread the Blessed Path of Ultimate Political Truth when absolutely everybody hates your guts.”
The Poor Man (Andrew Northrup), 1SEP02
And for what it's worth: reading the discussion forum at Atrios' place has convinced me that liberals are in no way morally superior to conservatives.
One part of this post that does amuse me is this subtext: Winston posts on a regular basis that the Republicans are incompetent, corrupt and, lately, aiming towards the destruction of constitutional government...but one more crazy leftist blog post, and he's signing up for VRWC. There seems to be a different set of standards at play here.
There is nothing wierd about about Winston's shift of attitude. It's always doubly infuriating for someone who claims to agree with you to say something stupid. It's pretty difficult not to, one, run different arguments for the same conclusion together, and, two, to conclude from the fact that there is a shitty argument for a point out there that the point is wrong too. The bad ally risks both discrediting you and whatever it is you want to prove, a good reason to be upset. Those on the right need there to be genuine, crazed America-hating liberals out there, and Winston is right to be pissed to see them satisfying that need.
And also, Winston didn't say that that stupid lefty blogs gave him a *good* reason to flip, just that if he did something that nutty then his irritation with the blogs might be a good place to look for explanation. As a prediction of future possible irrationality what he says expresses no double standard.
BTW: For a past example an administration's equating the opposition with the enemy, I suggest getting hold of the DVD collection "Cartoon Crazies Go To War". Amoungst many great "Pvt. Snafu" cartoons is a campaign short done by Chuck Jones' crew for the AFL in support of Roosevelt. The evil, generic Republican (who looks like Elmer Fudd in a suit) tries to talk the working man out of support for the administration. Near the end, while saying the line "I tell you this is Roosevelt's war!", he actually transforms into Hitler.
So, irrational blog posts are going to somehow deform Winston's mind to the point that he becomes a member of the party that he has recently accused with subverting the constitution?
Sure, I'll buy that that isn't a double standard. It's just a fucking crazy one.*
*But I guess the idea is that he would have been driven CRAZY! by all the leftist internet rambling which, of course, he is physically required to read.
Ted at Crooked Timber has a post on this that may interest you.
Hmm. So WS is now an arbiter of who lefty blogs can rightfully rail against.
Cool.
I get that it's a how more than a who. Or whom, as the case may be, in this case, the objective case.
Aristotle wrote Poetics addressing just this problem: if we are to judge the sanity of a speaker and his point, his form must somewhat meet his function.
Sane persons tend to make their points somewhat sanely. We tend to trust the sane over the insane, although that may be just a cultural prejudice.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home