Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Why People Ridicule Liberals, 6/13/06 Edition

I was checking out Instapundit's gleeful and triumphant Rove's not in jail and Bush is in Baghdad roundups, which took me to Pajamas Media (I know, I know), which took me to this comment at DKos.

I mean now really. Look, I've got nothing but contempt for Karl Rove, and the most I can muster for Mr. Bush is, on a rare day, just shy of no respect whatsoever. But, um, look: if this is the kind of thing that transforms you into a sniveling weepy-man who needs to be comforted by your daughter...then...then...that's...BAD, see?

CheChe, you ain't doing us any favors here, bud.

Anyway, for a different kind of hoot, do go check out the chest-thumping triumphalism at Pajamas Media. It's almost as funny/sad as CheChe's crying jag...but not quite. See, apparently the fact that one guy in the Bush administration was actually innocent of something means that the Bush administration is a success! Garsh.

14 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why People Poke at WS

WS goes to PJMed, takes what they say at face value even in the face of the blogosphere's tendency especially on the right to take any comment out of context, and then is embarrassed on behalf of liberals by a commenter on DailyKos, something that literally anyone with an Internet connection can be.

CheChe is a satirist, of what I can't quite figure out. He's building some tearful, lip-quivering net avatar for himself that reflects nothing on anyone but himself.

WS, is there any event in the possibility of imagination that would move the chip on your shoulder from left to right? Or off entirely. You're a smart guy; can your conservative childhood reflexes really be this hard to overcome?

1:36 PM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Uh, ya know, LL, your "it's a joke" hypothesis would explain a lot...but even looking at the links you provide, I'm still not sure it's true...

And I didn't really have that many conservative childhood reflexes...I've always had a kind of mixture, anti-totalitarianism and anti-authoritarianism being foremost among them.

Anyway, you just keep hoping that CheChe's a joke, and I'll just keep hoping right along side of you.

1:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, WS, I was too harsh and assumed too much.

It is still true that you expect more of nobodies on liberal sites than you do of somebodies in the right-wing blogosphere. I think you have the log-mote-eye story inside out.

2:50 PM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

No prob.

But I don't think I expect more of the liberal nobodies...CheChe *if he's serious*...it a total nut.

At least he's not a vicious nut like, say, Coulter, so that's in his favor.

3:44 PM  
Blogger Jim said...

WS,

You might check out Firedoglake to get a "liberal" take on the Rove non-indictment. (At least one of the team there is a former prosecutor, and they have long been in the forefront of liberal/progressive blogging the Plame case.)

I certainly would consider the postings at Firedoglake to be far more characteristic of what "the Left" believes that those the commenter CheChe at DailyKos.

Jim

3:46 PM  
Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

Anyone else looking to encapsulate the event would do well to carry these points forward. This is how we begin to take control of the new narrative coming out of Plame Gate. Enough with mental mediocrities like world-class buttfucker Ana Marie Cox disparaging Joe Wilson to score points with Instahack. This is the new narrative. Lather, rinse, repeat.---Jane Hamsher, firedoglake

Yup. This is characteristic of the left.

4:09 PM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Holy sh*t... "take control of the...narrative" is enough by itself to make me go elsewhere... And I'm afraid I don't get that "lather, rinse, repeat" part at all...

But I'll go look.

Oh, and: I didn't say, suggest, or believe that CheChe was characteristic of the left. But, then, I don't even think that Coulter is characteristic of the right, despite how popular she is.

4:59 PM  
Blogger Jim said...

So, Mr. van Dyke skips this post about Rove's non-indictment:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/13/hey-bob-wheres-your-letter/
in which Jane Hamsher states:

For those who are tempted to believe Luskin is lying about the letter he received from Fitzgerald — don’t. ... [L]ying about this goes well past what I think his limits are.

That said, I smell a bit of loose limb action with regard to Luskin’s statement to Jeralyn today that Rove made no "deal." Perhaps not in the strict sense, but I think it’s rather apparent that in his five trips before the Grand Jury his testimony got nudged in the direction the Special Counsel was interested in exploring or we’d be witnessing an imminent frogmarch. We just don’t know, and it would be ever so helpful as Dan Froomkin notes today if Luskin produced his letter. Where is the hue and cry from journalists for the production of this particular missive?

*crickets*

Hamsher is on topic, lucid, careful in her assessment of a key player, and points out the missing evidence.

But, it doesn't mention Ana Marie Cox's infatuation with anal sex, nor does it discuss “the narrative.” Is this post relevant to the matter at hand: the "liberal" response to the news of Rove's non-indictment?

9:46 PM  
Blogger Jim said...

Mr. van Dyke also skips this post about Rove's non-indictment:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/13/some-things-to-contemplate/

I have to say that immunity in exchange for cooperation is certainly something that has crossed my mind after the unusual multiple testimonial appearances before the grand jury that Rove made. And I have to wonder what that does mean, if so. And when we’ll find out.

This is much harder on the outside looking in, even though it’s much less work in terms of juggling evidence and the grand jury secrecy issues versus the public’s right to know questions that I head to deal with when I was prosecuting cases.

Bottom line for me: it’s not over until Fitzgerald says it is over.

Here an experienced prosecutor -- a liberal -- is commenting on the tactics used by a special counsel handling a very high profile case.

I would have thought that this is of interest to those who wish to consider the liberal reaction to Rove's non-indictment. But, since it lacks a reference to anal sex it must not be part of the narrative.

9:53 PM  
Blogger Jim said...

OK, let us try again.

Mr. van Dyke skips this post about the Rove non-indictment at
Firedoglake by former prosecutor Christy Hardin Smith:

And I’ve also said this, and it is worth a reminder: Patrick Fitzgerald and his team are career professionals. You do not charge someone with a criminal indictment merely because they are scum. You have to have the evidence to back up any charges — not just that may indicate that something may have happened, but you must have evidence that criminal conduct occurred and that you can prove it. You charge the evidence you have, you try the case you can make, and you don’t go down a road that will ultimately be a waste of the public’s money and time once you have ascertained that the case is simply not there. It doesn’t mean that you don’t think the SOB that you can’t charge isn’t a weasel or guilty as hell, it just means that you can’t prove it. (And, fwiw, those times are the worst of your career, because you truly hate to let someone go when you know in your gut they’ve done something wrong.)

Sigh. No anal sex, so it, too, is not in the narrative.

10:03 PM  
Blogger Jim said...

Let us try one last time.

Mr van Dyke, did find this post by Jane Hamsher, which pre-dates the announcement of Rove's non-indictment. It is a follow-on to
this earlier post concerning Ana Marie Cox (who first made her name as a blogger discussing politics and anal sex, then went on to become a columnist with Time magazine).

While Hamsher's post has nothing to do with the Rove non-indictment, it does show what Jane Hamsher writes when she is pissed off.

The post is also, thanks to Mr. van Dyke, part of the narrative (on this blog) of the liberal response to the Rove non-indictment.

10:24 PM  
Blogger Jim said...

WS,

I follow your blog. I find that you often give me perspectives that I would overlook. I appreciate this. You also are open to hearing other lines of reasoning. I deeply appreciate that.

You may know of Sturgeon's Law ("90% of everything is crap.")

There are times when it seems to me that you are quick to decry the 90% of crap in the liberal world and slow to praise the 10% that is of value.

There are times when it seems to me that you are slow to decry the 90% of crap in the conservative world and quick to praise the 10% that is of value.

(BTW, to make my position clear, there is no question that, under the law, Rove is innocent. There are grounds for us, as individuals, to doubt his innocence. Those of us who believe him to be guilty of crimes cannot, however, attempt use our collective power through our judicial system to punish him -- just as we cannot advocate having our government ban Ann Coulter's book, heinous as it may be.)

Finally, it is easy to roll one's eyes at a discussion that invokes the word "narrative." Yet, the narrative of the comments to your post only drew from the crap. I hope I did not offend with my effort to change that narrative by drawing attention to posts by liberals that have some relevance to the matter at hand. Please read the posts I extracted from (I did not, on the whole, do them justice).

My very best wishes,
Jim

10:54 PM  
Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

I admit Ms. Hamsher of firedoglake lost me at the buttfucking. Ann Coulter's latest offense was at least relevant to her case, and to me far less brutally rendered. (Not that she wasn't brutal.)

But first, I did read former prosecutor Christy Hardin Smith's unfounded insinuations and innuendo about why Rove might have got off the hook.

Rove will break omerta, testify, and send Libby to jail. Yeah, right.

So, I was offended both esthetically and intellectually. What else you got?

Like Ward Churchill, I defend Ann Coulter mostly out of principle. But I will not drink Kool-Aid for her.

I understand your disappointment about Rove. I was there, too, in my own way---I tee-heed as I read issue after issue of the American Spectator as they rounded the "evidence" against Bill Clinton.

One day it occurred to me that it was all sound and fury, a bunch of disconnected facts, signifying nothing.

The Spectator, after enjoying a blush and the greatest commercial success of its 20-odd year history, shortly thereafter went bankrupt.

I saw it as a form of justice. Shelley. Ozymandias.

Sand.

And I do recognize and really appreciate being called Mr. Van Dyke above. In reciprocation of y'all's courtesy, I invite those here gathered to call me Tom, if you so choose. But there is a certain obligation accrued with accepting familiarity---only if you don't call me a buttfucker. Such things should remain a personal matter, apart from one's philosophy or politics.

(Jim, I look for a reason to vote Democrat these days, even based on Sturgeon's Law. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction.)

11:39 PM  
Blogger Jim said...

Tom (now that the introduction has been made) posted:
But first, I did read former prosecutor Christy Hardin Smith's unfounded insinuations and innuendo about why Rove might have got off the hook.

Smith's words were:
“I have to say that immunity in exchange for cooperation is certainly something that has crossed my mind after the unusual multiple testimonial appearances before the grand jury that Rove made. And I have to wonder what that does mean, if so. And when we’ll find out.”

She is an experienced prosecutor. She claims that "multiple testimonial appearances before the grand jury" is unusual. I have no reason to doubt her characterization -- perhaps Tom does?

Later, C H Smith (as opposed to our host, W Smith) states:
"Jeralyn has been saying all along that she thinks that Rove cut some sort of cooperation deal. I really want to see whatever wording was in (Luskin’s words) the letter from Fitzgerald before I get too far down this road on the what’s going on speculation."

It strikes me that CH Smith is more direct than "innuendo and insinuation." She expressly acknowledges that this is speculation, and that she is not convinced that the speculation is correct.

Are her comments unfounded? The evidence at hand is Luskin's statement "[Fitzgerald] does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove." It appears to me that the evidence supports the notion that Rove cut a deal of about as well as it supports the notion the Fitzgerald has concluded that Rove had nothing to do with blowing Plame's cover, or covering up who blew Plame's cover, or attempting to obstruct Justice.

What I don't know is what such letters typically read when a prosecutor is satisfied that a person is lily-clean. Any help on this would be appreciated.

So, I was offended both esthetically and intellectually. What else you got?

The "what else" is my original claim that Smith and Hamsher are more representative of the liberal bloggers than CheChe. (I note that Atrios and Billmon both linked to FDL on the matter, not to CheChe.)

Are Hamsher, Smith, et al. partisan? Absolutely. Do they have professional knowledge and experience that bears directly on the Plame case? Yes. Do I blindly accept the positions put forth at FDL? I think not. Are Smith, Hamsher, et al. so enamored with the notion of the Plame case bringing down the Bush WH that they are deluding themselves? Quite possibly.

Do the postings at Firedoglake (on the whole) bring rational analysis and discussion to the discussion? I believe so.

(BTW, Like Tom, I don't see Karl Rove breaking omerta. I can, however, see Rove believing that he can game the prosecutor, and dodge person risk by offering a "cooperation" so limited as to be of little value to Fitzgerald. If Rove is doing this, he is taking a risk.)

(It is also possible that Rove is absolutely clean, but given his past behavior I see no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.)

Time is, sadly, pressing for me. So, Tom, let me agree whole-heartedly with you that "[One's sex life] should remain a personal matter, apart from one's philosophy or politics." I'll strive to leave yours -- and mine -- out of the discussion!

As to Democrats to vote for, it depends upon where you are, since we don't have any national races at hand. Perhaps I’ll have some insight down the line to share.

My best to all,
Jim

9:14 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home