Let’s Fight Like Right Wingers Do
by RonChusidIf you can’t refute the specific charges, you attack the person. That’s how Daily Kos responds to the recent column by David Brooks (discussed here).
I haven’t gone through all their examples, but they very well might be right with their criticism of past things written by David Brooks. I certainly would not have a very hard time coming up with a long list of objectionable items by him. This is also irrelevant, and an example of arguing like a right winger. If you object to a specific column the only meaningful response is to refute the actual column.
If this is all they can come up with for a response, it should be taken as evidence that Brooks is generally correct in his characterization of Kos. Ever since Kos started to respond to TNR’s criticism by confusing criticism of him with a defection to the right, Kos has appeared quite weak.
Filed under: In The News | Get Permalink or trackback |
Kos has a counterpart in the GOP.. Dick Cheney is all about winning. The ends justify the means.
Some of us will continue to voice our concerns with Kos and disagree that he represents much more than a vocal faction.
Unfortunately, however humiliated he may or should be, I will be amazed if he cuts down the rhetoric or loses his ‘postion’ with the media.
When they need someone to stir things up for the GOP, there are lots of possibilities, Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, Brooks or Broder. The left has fewer of these characters.
Kos is safe. Michael Moore and Jon Stewart are not.
Who cares whether they really have any insight or a significant following?
Okay — here’s my view on all of this at this point.
This whole controversy has been initially caused by a right wing blogosphere attack on Jerome and then subsequently Kos.
I see this as a retaliatory move against the liberal blogosphere for the attack on the WaPo blogger a while back.
The conservative blogosphere would like us to all go away. Food for thought, they won’t stop with Jerome and Kos… think of this as the Swift Boating of the liberal blogosphere.
Among the inane things that the right winger bloggers have thrown into the mix and TNR delighted in it too, was that Jerome was once into astrology. SO WHAT. We all had different lives before blogging about politics, it seems.
Some of us have found a love for the ability to be journalists, some have a niche for political consultings. Some are better at this than others – some get more press than others.
I for one don’t want to see the liberal blogosphere torn down by the right wingers hell bent on taking away more power from the left.
TNR has perpetuated this by helping the right wing blogosphere. They are NOT helping the liberal, progressive cause and rarely do help the cause in my opinion.
David Brooks is a right wing hack. Both are succeeding in driving a wedge through the liberal blogosphere for the right wing and both are succeeding in driving the message they want driven.
There’s so much at stake that is so much more important in my opinion. What about Iraq? What about healthcare? What about voter’s rights? What about about the scandal of the day from the Bush administration?
Pamela,
David Brooks publishes his opinion. Even if we disagree with his opinion, doing so does not make him a hack. At times he has broken with the conservative line. While most of the quotes I have from his columns are objecting to what he writes, he has had a handful I’ve agreed with, including ones criticizing conservatives.
In contrast, someliberal bloggers are tryng to turn this into an us versus them situation–calling for loyalty to the team over consideration of the actual ideas. Unfortunately many are doing exactly what we criticize in right wing writers as they try to obscure the actual arguments made. Ideas need to be evaluated on their own merit–not based upon who has expressed them.
David Brooks has addressed this himself in a column I quoted previously:
“Politics is a team sport. Nobody can get anything done alone. But in today’s Washington, loyalty to the team displaces loyalty to the truth. Loyalty to the team explains why President Bush doesn’t fire people who serve him poorly, and why, as a result, his policies are often not well executed.
“Loyalty to the team is why I often leave meals with politicians thinking “reasonable in private,” but then I see them ranting like cartoon characters on TV. Loyalty to the team is why someone like Chuck Hagel is despised in Republican ranks even though, whether you agree or not, he is courageously speaking his mind.”
If Brooks is making the same argument against Kos we’ve made, that hardly makes him a hack. The same arguments cannot be valid when we make them, but wrong if David Brooks makes them.
See also my comments on this here:
Similarly TNR is a publication of opinion, and they are posting their opinion. Disagreeing with Kos does not mean they are out to help the right wing blogosphere.
I didn’t bother to get into the Astrology thing, prefering to concentrate on what is being written now as opposed to the past, but itis no surprise the right wing bloggers did. There are few ideas floating around as crackpot as astrology. If this was a conservative blogger there is no doubt that liberal bloggers would be bringing it up. Liberal writers often derided the Reagans for their interest in astrology.
“There’s so much at stake that is so much more important in my opinion. What about Iraq? What about healthcare? What about voter’s rights? What about about the scandal of the day from the Bush administration?”
The great thing about blogs is that, unlike a newspaper, there is no significant limit on space. Writing on events on Kos and the blogoshere does not take away from space devoted to discussing these other issues.
I agree with Pamela. Kos has the #1 blog by number of hits — bigger than any RW blog. They don’t like that. They don’t like the Left to win at anything. They incessantly attacked Michael Moore after he made a wildly popular doc film, and now they’re attacking Kos, who has a wildly popular blog. Is he a flawed individual? Yes. Does he often state views I disagree with? Yes. Is Kos the equivalent to Dick Cheney and Tom Delay? No way!!!!! Does he remotely make comments that are similar to Ann Coulter? Absolutely not. Coutler’s disgusting remarks are always premeditated and designed to sell books. Whereas Kos’s one truly deplorable remark — Screw them — was in the moment of a heated debate, for which he states the opinion of many military people who resent mercanaries.
I think it’s important that the rest of the liberal blogosphere play this straight. Has Kos been acting like a buffoon lately? Yes. Does Kos’s current drama of going after TNR in a temper tantrum come even CLOSE to what the Bush WH did to Joe Wilson? Not on your life. We need to keep this in perspective, guys.
Forget this navel-gazing nonsense.
I felt really proud to be a Democrat when I heard Senator Kennedy last week, viscerally ripping into the Senate for failing to pass an increase in the minimum wage. The minimum wage isn’t stuck, it’s falling. It’s been falling for ten years because of inflation.
Read about the times and career of LaGuardia. Get back to the concerns of the working stiff (please).
Ron
Yes, David Brooks publishes his opinion – he is also widely known to be a part of the Republican Noise Machine. My point, don’t help the Noise Machine – even out of dislike for members of the left.
“Politics is a team sport” – Kos may not always see things the way you or I or others do, but he has done a lot for the team, inclduing raising buckets of money for Dem candidates.
Are you aware that the assaults on Jerome and Kos, started on the right wing blogs? It’s my understanding that you are.
The juvenile level of the some of the posts on TNR are not opinion, but attacks. And, yes, they are HELPING the right wing by perpetuating this. Kos has made enemies, right and left.
But, I stick by my assertion, the right wing is attempting to tear down the liberal blogosphere. They were choose a new target when they are done with Kos and Jerome.
I want no part of the effort to tear down the work that is being done on the liberal blogosphere.
As for the astrology thing — “There are few ideas floating around as crackpot as astrology.” — To non-believers it is crackpot — to believers it is not crackpot.
Remember, kindly, that some readers and members of this blog may believe in this “crackpot” astrology, that is widely popular – so popular that many newspaper carry daily astrology predictions. Astrology is as old as most of the known religions.
“Liberal writers often derided the Reagans for their interest in astrology.”
Most of the liberals I know are into astrology – it’s even more popular now than it was in the Reagan years. perhaps the same “liberal” writers that are now attacking Jerome on this are the ones that attacks the Reagans. Regardless, Jerome has a right to his beliefs and if his past involved being involved in astrology, so what. You may not have brought it up, but I did to point out the lame things the right and TNR are pulling out.
This battle against Kos is not really news, it’s an attempt to change the conversation — something the right wing does frequently and well. Giving this blog space plays into their hands in my opinion.
Beachmom, John
Well said, both of you.
Beachmom,
Kos might be the biggest blog, but that doesn’t mean his influcence is positive for us. Kos helps in some ways, but holds us back in many others. The attitude at Kos provides a rather negative view of liberals to many readers.
Yet another example of the problem with Kos’s prominence is seen in today’s Boston Globe:
They discuss Kerry’s plans for 2008, and include Kos’s opinion on that. Hardly what we need.
Pamela,
Kos made inane comments responding to a liberal magazine. While right wing bloggers are obviously enjoying this, this has nothing to do with a right wing plot to take down the liberal blogoshere.
“The juvenile level of the some of the posts on TNR are not opinion, but attacks. And, yes, they are HELPING the right wing by perpetuating this. Kos has made enemies, right and left.”
You really need to read the things you comment on. The only time you specifically commented on what TNR wrote you totally mischaracterized what they wrote. Regardless of who you disagree with, it is at Kos that we see typically juvinile writing, while the posts at TNR, even if sometimes incorrect have certainly not been juvinile.
“Most of the liberals I know are into astrology”
That’s scary, but I bet they are a tiny number. Many people look at horoscopes in the newspaper, but most realize newspaper horoscopes are bunk with no predictive value (beyond often being so general that anyone can find some truth in them). I wasn’t going to bother with attacks on Armstrong for things from the past, but it is a valid point for those who care to get into it.
Ron
TNR picked up on things the right wing bloggers were saying about Kos and Jerome. They admitted to that.
I read the things I comment on – I also read what is being said on this around the blogosphere. DO NOT ASSUME I DO NOT READ THINGS. Just because I don’t see things the way you do does not mean I “mischaracterized what they (TNR) wrote.”
Maybe, it’s you who “mischaracterized what they (TNR) wrote.” I don’t care what Kos and Jerome do outside of the fact that they have done a lot for the liberal blogosphere, they raised money for Democrats, they have a good deal of influence at this point (good or bad). They can sort this out for themselves.
Last but not least Ron, I am into astrology. You want to get into it? If you do, then you will be attacking me. Let’s not go there.
Ron
“Yet another example of the problem with Kos’s prominence is seen in today’s Boston Globe:”
What Kos said is something that JK and his staff are well aware of. JK needs to regain the trust of some and he’s working on that – and it’s not just in the netroots.
Ron Chusid Says:
June 26th, 2006 at 10:48 am
Ok Doctor, what do you have to say about people that have been on ghost hunts? Am I therefore less than you? Do I have something wrong with me, that I not only went, but have captured real pics, that till this day I have not shared?
People do exist that believe in astrology, and for you to dismiss that, is like bush with global warming. You have continued to make people look like they are lesser for their opinions, and unless they are on the same page with you, the insults keep coming on diff. post.
I have my own ideas, just like Pamela and the rest here, and to treat us like you do, is rude and not in our best interest. You may not realize it, but you have been acting like you know best. We have opinions, and we are allowed to state them. Regardless of if you believe them. So enough of the almighty routine.
How can you expect to get people to listen to you and agree with you, if you depart from civil tones within your own group?
Donnie,
Ghost hunts are a totally different matter–as long as we are dealing with the New Orleans area.
(That’s pre-Katrina when New Orleans was in its Anne Rice style glory).
Was that supposed to be funny!!
Pamela,
“TNR picked up on things the right wing bloggers were saying about Kos and Jerome. They admitted to that.”
Not true. You need to check the primary sources, not go by what others are saying. The dispute between Kos and TNR goes way back. The latest installment began with TNR quoting The Opinionator from The New York Times (not a right wing blog) and quoting from something Kos sent on the Townhouse list (also not a right wing blog, even if quoting from there is a bit tacky).
“Just because I don’t see things the way you do does not mean I “mischaracterized what they (TNR) wrote.”
Maybe, it’s you who “mischaracterized what they (TNR) wrote.” ”
Except that I have given specific examples of where you have mischaracterized them. This includes the example above. The most significant was the discussion of blog ads where your comments on what they said was totally different from what they said. Where exactly did I mischaracterize what they said? I’ve quoted precisely what was said, and gave links back so it could be verified and the context reviewed.
It is you who dragged astrology into this. I was perfectly willing to ignore that entire aspect of the situation.
Donnie
Ghosts only exist in New Orleans, or people who believe in them are only in New Orleans — everyone with a scientific background confirms that.
Ron
The Opinionator picked up on a right wing blog assault on Jerome. I have better things to do with my time than argue this point that the majority of the liberal blogosphere is well aware of.
My comments on liberal blogs were based on being a member of that network. I stated my opinion that TNR, in bringing up LBA, and insinuating that Kos had control, could hurt the network. I further stated that blogs like the Dem Daily rely on the revenue from LBA and that just as TNR has paid advertisers, so too do blogs.
I brought up the astrology aspect because the right wing blogs (Red State is one who has pushed this) first brought this up and then TNR jumped on it. My point was that it’s not relevent and yet, TNR has now used to attack Jerome.
Pamela,
It’s more a matter of strategy to try to write this off as a right wing attack. Certainly the right wingers are taking advantage, but this originated with the SEC investigation, not a right wing conspiracy. It was discussed by both right wing blogs and the New York Times. TNR didn’t mention it until it was included in the New York Times.
You described TNR’s comments on the blog network as an attack on the idea of blog advertising, which it was not.
It was conservative bloggers, not TNR which dragged astrology into this. If Red State and others disagree with something Jerome Armstrong did or said, they obviously should criticize the specifics rather than using the astrology issue. It’s also safe to assume that the conservative blogs have “convicted” Armstrong in their minds purely due to ideological differences without regards to the facts. While I can comment on some of Kos’s poor responses to this, we need to see what happens between Armstrong and the SEC to comment on that aspect. In that regard I sympathize with Kos for wanting this to stay quiet. These matters take time to resolve. Unfortunately he went about it poorly in calling for people to drop their subscriptions to TNR and claim they’ve defected to the right.
Donnie,
After great jazz, cajun cooking, and topless girls vomiting on the streets during Mardi Gras, ghost hunts is one of the things New Orleans is known for. Regardless of the scientific viewpoint, such great traditions should be preserved, and hopefully some day restored to their former glory.
Pamela,
Besides in their original post, TNR continues to refer to this as a story from the NY Times, not the right wing blogs.
For example:
“On June 18, two days after The New York Times’s blogger Chris Suellentrop broke the news about Armstrong’s run-in with the SEC. . .”
From the TNR’s perspective they are reporting what they read in the NY Times, not the right wing blogs.
Ron
I repeat this started on the right wing blogs. The NY Times – the Opinionator, picked up on it from the right wing blogs. Tehn TNR got into the mix. I’m sorry you missed that. I didn’t miss it – neither have other liberal bloggers.
Pamela,
The Opinionator makes no reference to right wing blogs and does not use them as a source in the post cited by TNR.
The Opinonator post has many sources, such as the SEC, Salon, Talking Points Memo. These are hardly right wing blogs.
Do you have any evidence what so ever that this both started in the right wing blogs and that TNR knowlingly was repeating information from the right wing blogs? Unsubstantiated claims from other bloggers, or claiming that others are “well aware” of this does not constitute evidence. TNR quoted the New York Times. At this time it is fair game, even if the right wing bloggers were talking about the same thing.
The claims that this is all just at attack of the conservative bloggers on the liberal bloggers is merely a way to avoid criticism by blaming it all on the conservative bloggers.
Ron
I see no merit in discussing this further. Once again opinions that differ with yours are discounted here and though others besides myself note that the discussion may not be helpful to the liberal blogosphere and this blog, here we go again.
The Kos/TNR is tantamount to cat fight in my opinion. There are far more important issues than this in the political realm.
Pamela,
“Once again opinions that differ with yours are discounted here”
No, it is not a matter of discounting an opinion. You’ve made many inaccurate statements about TNR. If you are going to make such statements you should be prepared to back them up with facts. If you disagree with TNR, that is fine, but you should not attack TNR for saying things they didn’t actually say.
Once confronted with the fact that your statements are in error, you resort to comments such as that “opinions that differ with yours are discounted here.” It is you who try to prevent other opinons from being discussed when you make statements like this, or that “the discussion may not be helpful to the liberal blogosphere and this blog,”
Ron
I’ll use a quote from Peter Daou’s piece today on his new job with Hillary, to make my point about the attacks on Kos:
The blogoshpere is undermining its own influence when they say certain topics cannot be discussed, and criticism is seen as an attack from the right wing bloggers.
Interesting that, after seeming to ignore the blogs, that Hillary is suddenly getting involved in this manner.
Ron
I do think there is some merit in Peter’s point that some seek to undermine the blogosphere. In that regard my personal preference is stay out of the fray.
A lot of good work is done on the blogosphere and on this blog particularly.
Also from the same post you quote from Peter Daou:
“the blog world is a hard-hitting and free-wheeling discussion among Americans of all political stripes”
We need to keep it free-wheeling. It will also remain hard hitting. If Kos says something I agree with I’ll defend him as I have on some posts, but when he says something I object to I’ll also point it out.
Hi guys,I wish we on the right did not have to fight as hard as we have too.Republican/conservative lawmakers tend to be lazy,so that’s why we have to carry the water.That’s why the swifties stepped in because the Bush team did not want to fight.Guys I wish we had your lawmakers like Kennedy ,they have the passion that ours don’t.
Darth,
The title of this thread isn’t a compliment. The gist is that right wingers tend to use dishonest tactics, and I dislike seeing liberals do the same.
Ron,I do not care for anything dishonest tactics by anyone.The main thing I want to see is tough,but true offense ,and a solid defense.In this culture you either define,or get defined.That’s why we beg our folks to get out there.
Darth,
I don’t want to curb your sadness but the Repub party is a well-oiled, well financed and disciplined machine.
In spite of all the incredible stupidity by Bush, they still support him and because of redistricting will retain most seats in November.
We Dems generally have the same vision but see different roads to get there. We come off as chaotic because no one person knows the whole truth.
Repubs generally goose-step in back of whatever leader gets annoited.
bob,no goose-steppers here.We on the right are not loved by the GOP.It’s like a shotgun marrage.It’s not what we want,but the baby needs a daddy.
Darth
I’ve told you before – your daddy is abusive and he abandoned his children. Grow up – he’s no role model for anyone.
“.That’s why the swifties stepped in because the Bush team did not want to fight.”
WTF? Wow you are so far in la la land it is unbelievable Darth.
All Bush, Rove at al know how to do is fight and attack. Which to them means fight as dirty as you can and lie and smear as much as you can. They funded the slime boat liars for bush. Same TX money guys involved who they tapped for their smear of McCain in SC primary and some of the same media guys.
They always do their dirtiest stuff using others they’ve directed so it can’t be traced back to them directly, even though it is often clearly obivous.
That way Bush can always play innocent and fool the idiots who don’t understand that he is complete scum. Always has been in every way and always will be.
Wow, you are even farther gone than I thought. Wow…
Donnie,
Ghost hunts? Is there a NOLA web site up with stuff posted about it?
Personally I don’t believe in a God, ghosts or astrology. Though of course, I definitely can’t say for sure none of them are real. So if someone else believe in any of them, they could be correct. If I had to choose, I feel the last two are more likely to be real than the first one though.
At least astrology is based on actual things/forces such as planets, stars etc
“ghosts” may or may not exist but could also exist but not be dead people. Could be some form of energy, force or being who’s existence we are as yet unaware of. Could even be aliens.
BTW, my sister’s house in North Jersey is supposed to be haunted. She’d told me it was/is referred to as the “haunted house” by people in their town. I found out that was true when I met a woman from her town(actually town next to theirs I think) and told her my sister’s family lived there. I told her some people apparently called her place the “haunted house”. As soon as I said that she knew which house they lived it
It’s an old house, built in early 1800’s I think. Though some portion of it may be from 1700’s. I also think I remember my sister telling me once that a couple weird things have occurred or been seen in their house since they’ve lived there.
So, ya just never know…
Dave,
Do a google search on New Orleans Ghost Huntes and tons of links come up.
Dave from Princeton
I lived in a haunted house in MA years ago. One of my roommates got some photos of the “apparition” one day.
There were a lot of haunted houses around my area back there including one very famous house where the entire family was killed by indians in the late 1600’s.
Ghost hunting is something that is not reserved for New Orleans. It’s quite popular in New England as well.
Another friend in MA lives in a haunted house as well. I have plenty of real ghost stories that I could share including the ones about the ghost in the building I live in.
Kos has trashed certain dems like Kerry for no other reason that they aren’t Dean so if somebody hits him a few times well then he gets a taste of what Kerry and other felt.
Kos is given too much influence in the msm when it comes to liberal blogs and I don’t trust him to speak the truth for them or anyone else.
Davis Brooks like all the other right wingers is enough to make one loose their lunch on most days. We have to remember just because one picks a fight with the one who bought them to the dance doesn’t mean in at the end of the night they won’t go home with someone else because the right wingers will still go home with rove.
Peter Daou going to work for dark side, I’m mean hill. I guess the folks booing her the other week got Bill thinking about the fact she may be loosing support after all.
Just a coincidence that she hired a blogger that was with Kerry’s team in 04? Not likely, but don’t be surprised if Peter doesn’t quit before 08.
Of course legends of “haunted houses” exist all over but New Orleans has been one of the areas which most took advantage of this for tourism. Anne Rice further added to the area’s mystique.
Pen,
“Kos has trashed certain dems like Kerry for no other reason that they aren’t Dean so if somebody hits him a few times well then he gets a taste of what Kerry and other felt.”
The important thing is not whether Kos gets hit but why he gets hit.
David Brooks hit him largely for the way in which Kos will bash some for being too moderate, and then turn around and support a moderate when it suits him. That’s been one of our major criticisms, including his support for Dean over the more liberal Kerry. Sure, Brooks will ultimately stick with the dark side (while also attacking them when they really go overboard), but in this case he’s right.
Back on topic.. I said in comment #2: “The conservative blogosphere would like us to all go away. Food for thought, they won’t stop with Jerome and Kos… think of this as the Swift Boating of the liberal blogosphere.” I should have included the media in that as well, the media and the conservative blogosphere.
Billmon writes on “The Swiftboating of Kos” here: http://billmon.org/archives/002482.html
Ron
Salem, MA has too actually.
Sure the conservatives were also targeting Kos, but that doesn’t mean TNR was part of a conservative conspiracy.
The dispute between TNR and Kos has been going on for years. I could be wrong as it is awfully hard to go back thru feuds like this and find who started it, but I think it was initially Kos taking pot shots at TNR. After all, initially Kos was nothing and TNR was the bigger target as an established magazine. Interestingly, their positions have largely changed and Kos very likely is more influential than TNR at this point.
Pen
Kos has been given too much influence for a very long. There’s a lot of good blogs out there and focus remains on the few. That said, this will all continue to roil until it boils over I guess. My concern is the effect on the liberal blogosphere as a whole.
I also think there’s more background to the Hill connection personally. Call it a hunch based on experience.
Ron said:
“David Brooks hit him largely for the way in which Kos will bash some for being too moderate, and then turn around and support a moderate when it suits him. That’s been one of our major criticisms, including his support for Dean over the more liberal Kerry. Sure, Brooks will ultimately stick with the dark side (while also attacking them when they really go overboard), but in this case he’s right.”
Is that what was in Brook’s article? Because I don’t get nyselect, and your quote made a completely different point. The part you quoted argued that Kos had become like a mafia don, and that doing so he had become just like the Democratic establishment. Thus implying that the Democratic establishment is also like the mafia.
The is the *Democratic* Daily, why would you applaud this?
Also why would you defend David Brooks who has written numerous vile articles about John Kerry and many other prominent
Democrats?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408250009
When not making up facts, he uses innocent facts and his fertile imagination to paint unflattering portraits of his victims.
Terry
You can read it here.
Terry,
This question is ideas, not about whether we support Brooks or oppose Brooks. Brooks has written many things I disagree with. On some ocassions he has written things I agree with, including criticism of Republicans.
I am agreeing with Brooks on two specific points on Kos which are the same as I’ve criticized Kos for in the past. I also critcized his column for another point which doesn’t hold up (the comparison to DeLay).
American Prosect has a decent post on all of this which refutes the claims that this started with either the right wingers or with Hillary.
From their timeline, the newspedia reports started with the NY Times. It was then picked up by the right wing media (and subsequently the blogs).
TNR picked it up from the NY Times also. There’s no connection in the story between the right wing media/blogs or TNR.
Going back further, it appears that the original complaints from the SEC were not based upon partisan concerns.
From Brooks’s column, here’s the gist of where he was criticizing Kos for his selective support of some moderates while opposing others:
“The Kingpin often directs his wrath at the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. But the centrist Democrat Mark Warner has also hired Armstrong as a consultant, and the Kingpin has graciously exempted Warner from the seventh circle of Kos hell. Warner is frequently celebrated on Daily Kos as something akin to the second coming of F.D.R.”
The point of this post, as opposed to the initial where I quoted Kos, has been Kos’s inability to respond to the valid criticism. If Brooks was wrong we would see an actual refutation of the points of the column from Kos. Attacking Brooks for past things he wrote is no more a valid refutation of this column than bringing up Armstrong’s belief in astrology refutes anything he says about Warner or current politics. The question is not whether we like or dislike Brooks. It is whether he is right on points made in this column.
You’re right, the fact that David Brooks is
part of the GOP slime machine does not in
any way refute his article.
In my original comment, I was just giving
you some friendly advice that quoting a
creep like Brooks does not enhance your
argument.
For example, say someone was writing
a pro-vegetarian blog, doing his best to
convince people that vegetarinism is the
way to go. One day he finds out that Hitler
was a vegetarian. Now what should this blogger do? Should he enthusiastically announce that even someone as evil as Hitler was a vegetarian, and even include some of Hitler’s writings on the subject of why eating meat is cruel? Or should he either ignore it, or just note it briefly without the extensive quotes?
Similarly, lets say you were touting a
politician on this blog. Would it be a good
idea to write: “So and so believes in free
speech, just like David Duke!” I would think
that politician would ask you to withdraw
your “support”!!
Now of course David Brooks is neither Hitler
nor David Duke, but I do think that in the
blogosphere he is regarded as little better
than a gentlemanly Ann Coulter.
“The Kingpin often directs his wrath at the
centrist Democratic Leadership Council. But
the centrist Democrat Mark Warner has also
hired Armstrong as a consultant, and the Kingpin has graciously exempted Warner from the seventh circle of Kos hell. Warner is frequently celebrated on Daily Kos as something akin to the second coming of F.D.R.”
No on is refuting these “charges” because they are all true. In fact, if you read his book he freely admits to all these horrible “accusations”.
Terry
Personally my complaint would be that like one newspaper having an inordinate amount of control on influencing voters – so too should not one blog or blogger. Sure folks can get their news elsewhere, but we all know the popularity factor influences people to watch certain news shows, read certain newspapers and blogs.
Too much influence in any spectrum is not a good a thing.
Terry,
Your examples aren’t all relevant to this situation. For example, in your analogy to David Duke, David Duke’s name is brought out for no apparent reason.
In David Brooks’ case, he had a column in the NY Times. This was a post specifically reviewing a NY Times column–something I regularly do. In this case it was especially relevant as it pertained to a hot topic in the blogoshere which I already posted on.
Similarly there is no reason to consider Hitler in a blog on vegetarianism, but there is every reason to consider David Brooks in a review of NY Times columnists, or in a review of media coverage of the blogoshere.
The accusations against Kos are pertinent. As he has a considerable influence on which politicians are deemed acceptable in much of the blogoshere, the inconsistent manner in which he supports one candidate and opposes another is significant. It is a topic we’ve discussed here many times before. Therefore it was significant when David Brooks brought up the same criticism of Kos which we have.
David Brooks is hardly “little better than a gentlemanly Ann Coulter.” While we may generally disagree with him, his arguments are on an entirely different level than Coulter’s.
Of course I’m not the only one who has been critical of Kos and Armstrong over their choices of who to support. Salon had an article on it almost a month ago–prior to the recent scandals.
“Similarly there is no reason to consider
Hitler in a blog on vegetarianism”.
Hitler was a vegetarian (you can google it).
But even if not, I was just using that as
an analogy.
“David Brooks is hardly “little better than
a gentlemanly Ann Coulter.” While we may
generally disagree with him, his arguments
are on an entirely different level than
Coulter’s.”
Well, other than you I don’t know of anyone
else in the liberal blogosphere who has any
respect for David Brooks, but perhaps you do.
Now that I’ve read his full article on Kos
(thank you Pamela), it looks like a typical
Brooks article, lots of implying but no
actual substance.
Your criticism of Kos was that he didn’t
refute the serious charges brought by Brooks.
You also said these were the charges:
“The Kingpin often directs his wrath at the
centrist Democratic Leadership Council. But
the centrist Democrat Mark Warner has also
hired Armstrong as a consultant, and the Kingpin has graciously exempted Warner from the seventh circle of Kos hell. Warner is frequently celebrated on Daily Kos as something akin to the second coming of F.D.R.”
Since these charges are all true, what would
be the point of Kos refuting them?
You’ve since said that the real problem with
Kos is that he chooses which candidate to support in an inconsistent manner. There is nothing wrong with critiquing his choices, but I did think that quoting a smear piece by Brooks was very much beyond the pale.
Unfortunately the title of your post was way
too apt.
Whether or not Hitler was a vegetarian, there’s no reason to bring it up when discussing vegetarians (as opposed to discussing Hitler). As my topic was the Brooks’ column itself it was by definition necessary to evaluate Brooks’ position. From the somewhat inaccurate reports on the column in the blogoshere, I thought my review would be negative. Once I actually read what he had to say it was necessary to revise this impression.
“Since these charges are all true, what would be the point of Kos refuting them?”
If the charges are true, then what is the point in protesting when David Brooks makes them?
If people at Kos have an objection to his column they should respond to the actual points he makes, rather than making a bogus argument that Brooks is wrong in this column because he was wrong on many things in the past. That’s exactly the same type of argument the right wing blogs are making against Armstrong.
While you accept the charges against Kos, many don’t. His “confession” is hardly as clear cut as you claim. Kos has long attacked one candidate as being not liberal enough, while supporting another who is actually more conservative (such as with backing Dean and bashing Kerry, in addition to the more recent examples).
It is a pity you, and a chunk of the liberal blogoshere, cannot see the difference between an Ann Coulter and a David Brooks. Saying others in the liberal blogoshere share your view is a weak argument–again the type more commonly seen by the right wingers. I’m sure you, and some other liberal bloggers, are shocked at the prospect of David Brooks sometimes being correct. However, that portion of the left blogosphere is not the audience I have in mind when I write. I find the group think and us vs. them mentality so common at sites like Kos to be the antithesis of true liberal thought.
In dismissing consideration of ideas from a columnist because he is on “the other side” you clearly do not understand the title of my post. Like it or not, Brooks is a columnist for the New York Times. This, along with the quality of his work (which is far superior to that of an Ann Coulter) makes discussion of what he has to say of significance, both when I agree and when (which is far more common) I disagree with him. Writing him off as not worth considering because he is a conservative is exactly the mind set we protest when seen on the right.
I always have, and will continue to, consider the views of people on all parts of the political spectrum in both reading and writing blogs. If you want to read bloggers who only read and talk about the correct people, and only think the correct way, there are plenty of other blogs where this is done.
The ultimate irony is that you are proving Brooks point in his typical criticism of liberals. The mistake he makes is to often write as if all liberals are the same.