Not news

Do we need any further demonstration that Pat Robertson is a loon?

  • http://moveleft.com Eric Jaffa

    From David Sirota:

    Here’s an interesting question: To an objective non-American looking at the situation from an outside vantage point, is there really much of a difference between a terrorist leader going on television and issuing a fatwa against American political leaders, and Pat Robertson going on television and essentially issuing a fatwa against democratically-elected leaders in other countries?

  • whodat

    none. I posted this on another topic’s comments: http://www.politicalstrategy.org/ammo/ammorobertson_pat.htm

    He is a loon. He’s more interested in power and money then serving people, at least from where I sit as a Christian. Christ came to serve, not to go on a quest for political power.

  • Max Edison

    This is another example of why we are not a Christian nation. We have Christian “leaders” such as the Rev. Pat Robertson who are in fact heathens with no Christian bone in their body, who think they are in fact God. What a miserable religion it would be that needs Pat Robertson as a spokesman. He is not a Christian. I dare him to prove he in fact is a Christian, and not a devil masquerading as one.

  • http://unbeknownst.net KirkH

    It is news because he just created a hell of a lot of Ant-American sentiment. Most Venezuelans probably think he’s a mouthpiece for the US people and our government.

    Can someone explain to me what exactly is Christian about assassinations and the death penalty?

  • Angelos

    Just part of the American Taliban:

    Nearly every Monday for six months, as many as a dozen congressional aides — many of them aspiring politicians — have gathered over takeout dinners to mine the Bible for ancient wisdom on modern policy debates about tax rates, foreign aid, education, cloning and the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

    Through seminars taught by conservative college professors and devout members of Congress, the students learn that serving country means first and always serving Christ.

    They learn to view every vote as a religious duty, and to consider compromise a sin [...]

    The philosophy animating Cameron’s lecture — that federal law should be based on biblical precepts — troubles the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

    “This nation was founded specifically to avoid the government making religious and theological decisions,” Lynn said. “We are not to turn the Holy Scriptures of any group into public policy.”

    Kennedy counters that evangelicals have every right to put up candidates who vote what they believe to be God’s will — and let voters judge them.

    To which Lynn responds, with exasperation: “He says that because he knows in a majority Christian country, the Christian view is going to be expressed by more voters. They have no problem imposing their biblical worldview on every American.”

    Evangelical conservatives acknowledge that’s their goal.

    And they now have a systematic plan for achieving it.

  • http://www.papascott.de/ Scott

    Calling Pat Robertson a loon gives loons a bad name!

    (I come from Minnesota where the state bird is the common loon.)

  • Mumblix Grumph

    Here’s an interesting question: To an objective non-American looking at the situation from an outside vantage point, is there really much of a difference between a terrorist leader going on television and issuing a fatwa against American political leaders, and Pat Robertson going on television and essentially issuing a fatwa against democratically-elected leaders in other countries?

    Yep…Ol’ Pat screwed the pooch once again.

    Yet, I doubt that a bunch a wild-eyed Christians are going to strap TNT on themselves and start blowing up tamale stands in Venezuela.

    And, just look at all the popular support Pat is getting…
    (crickets) (tumbleweeds) (old guy in third row coughs nervously).

    It isn’t the same, but thanks for playing.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ Carson Fire

    Thank you, Mumblix Grumph, that is *exactly* the difference between an Islamist issuing a fatwa and Pat Robertson being loony. Both are just as guilty of harboring hate, but Robertson doesn’t have the following that the left imagines. An Islamist does so in the full knowledge that violence and mayhem most likely will follow in the wake of his words.

    My folks used to watch the 700 Club, but figured out long ago that Robertson was a loon and stopped watching. This was long before he became a public lightning rod and celebrated punching bag for the left. My folks have also, coincidentally, become less liberal and more conservative during that same time span, which flies in the face of the leftist belief that Robertson is some kind of conservative icon.

    Myself, I think Robertson should be brought up on charges of some kind. He is literally inciting murder, and that can’t be countenanced in a civilized society.

  • rick_d

    I’d also expect overseas coverage of the story to include the fact that Dear Pat is a former presidential candidate who managed to harvest quite a few votes.

    Sheesh, somebody please switch off the cameras off and send him to a padded room that locks from the outside.

  • http://www.scaredmonkeys.com Tom

    From a conservative, nope. We do not want him, can we give him to the liberals, take Gore as an even up trade.

  • http://bennett.com/blog Richard Bennett

    I wouldn’t be sad if somebody did assassinate Hugo Chavez, or his buddy Castro either, for that matter.

    And given that the peaceniks’ main complaint about Iraq is the cost, maybe he’s got a point.

  • Marthirial

    Just a correction, a Fatwa is not a sentence or order to kill or destroy anything and it will never be expressed by a “terrorist”. A Fatwa is an statement in which an action, a person or an organization is seen as not representing the ideals or laws of Islam.

    Mr. Roberson can be anything BUT a loon, he is just the embodiement of an idea and concept the whole goverment and the ignorant masses who put it in power are quite comfortable with.

    Would you say that never, ever the Bush administration has had this kind of conversations in private? Every day! even when he’s on vacations.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ Carson Fire

    A Fatwa is an statement in which an action, a person or an organization is seen as not representing the ideals or laws of Islam.… who must be destroyed or killed. Or are you saying that the target of a fatwa simply gets added to the “naughty naughty” list? Is that why Salman Rushdie has been hiding all this time, because he’s just a little embarrassed at all the fuss? Afraid the radicals will all point at him and giggle? “Oh, look who’s got a fat-wa, look who’s got a fat-wa! Tee hee hee!”

  • Eileen

    “Just a correction, a Fatwa is not a sentence or order to kill or destroy anything and it will never be expressed by a “terrorist”. A Fatwa is an statement in which an action, a person or an organization is seen as not representing the ideals or laws of Islam.” Yah, sure, “Marthirial”.

    Taqiyya trash talk abounds around here. Fatwa means JUDGEMENT. They are *ABSOLUTELY* issued by terrorists and notoriously command mass killings and destruction. Here is one such example:

    “World Islamic Front Statement

    23 February 1998

    Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin
    Ayman al-Zawahiri, amir of the Jihad Group in Egypt
    Abu-Yasir Rifa’i Ahmad Taha, Egyptian Islamic Group
    Shaykh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
    Fazlur Rahman, amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh

    …On that basis, and in compliance with Allah’s order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

    The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, “and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,” and “fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.”

    …We — with Allah’s help — call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan’s U.S. troops and the devil’s supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.” http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

  • John

    The idea that Pat Robertson had much if any clout besides his own hard-core followers pretty much went out the window after the 1988 Republican primaries (which also gave Al Franken some of his best writing material for the debate sketches on Saturday Night Live, with Dan Akroyd as Bob Dole saying, “If you can heal my right arm, Pat, I’ll vote for you.”). But Robertson’s only claim to power now is the contract he worked out with Fox, and which then was transferred over to ABC, mandating his 700 Club be given a continued position on what once was Pat’s Family Channel cable network, before he sold out to Murdoch, who later palmed the station off on Mr. Eisner.

    So while Robertson’s statement was simply in a similar vein to his claim to have prayed a hurricane away from Southeastern Virginia, much of the media (CNN especially) seems to be stuck in a 17-year-old time warp as far as how much media coverage they gave this story today, since Robertson is about as relavent to the 2005 politcal scene as 1952 Republican Party candidate Harold Stassen was to the world around him in 1969.

  • whodat

    John nails it.

    CF- “Myself, I think Robertson should be brought up on charges of some kind. ”

    Whoa. Let’s not go there. I don’t remember what was said verbatim, but I can’t imagine charges being brought because of his thoughts.

    Angelos- “He says that because he knows in a majority Christian country, the Christian view is going to be expressed by more voters. They have no problem imposing their biblical worldview on every American.”

    Evangelical conservatives acknowledge that’s their goal.

    And they now have a systematic plan for achieving it.”

    Oh the drama. You’ve been washed man. You act like it’s some huge, dangerous group–the right. Only because of the incompetence of the left. Pick a half-decent candidate with at least 30-40 bpm and you would win.

    Every voter is imposing their will for what they think is right.

  • rick_d

    Andrew Sullivan says on his blog that the administration consulted Robertson as part of their Supreme Court nomination selection process. Is that true? (Not that Id guess Roberts was among his suggestions.) If so, he may not be as marginalized as some would have us believe.

  • http://ruthcalvo Ruth

    Jeff, you make a mistake by categorizing this meditation as ‘religion’. This is politics, pure and simple, simple being the more active adjective.

    And thank you, Scott, for your respect for loons. Hearing a loon call over a lake with the mist rising in the morning sun is too beautiful an experience to associate with this sad spectacle of the misguided.

    Richard Bennett, you would add in the economic aspects … yep, it would be cheaper. Robertson knew he’d loop in some others with the savings factor. But no, his legions of of weakminded fans are not going to go blow up taco stands, here or abroad. They’d have to access the internet and figure out how to make bombs, for one thing …

  • Billy

    Gee, whadya suppose would happen if Robertson went on TV and suggested that someone “take out” Shrubya? I’ll tell you what would happen — the Secret Service would descent upon him like a biblical plague and most likely would lead him away in handcuffs.

    But it’s somehow OK to suggest such a thing if he is speaking of a foreign head of state? That’s the position of the administration.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ Carson Fire

    I wouldn’t say that Robertson is completely insignificant, I think what I was trying to say is that he doesn’t command rock star status or unquestioned moral authority.

    He is certainly asked to talk on punditry shows (for some reason) and does have an audience. But it’s not an audience that’s going to strap bombs on their chests on his say-so, no more than they would on the say-so of Katie Couric after they change the channel.

    Having said that, I can’t imagine why the administration would consult Robertson on SCOTUS nominations. What does Robertson know on this subject? My guess is that the reference was simply a snarky observation over the new nominee’s faith.

    Whodat: I’m not saying Robertson should be executed, for goodness sakes. But I believe we’ve always had to balance free speech against incitement to violence and murder. Some strong censure from somewhere, some remonstration, at least, seems to be called for.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ Carson Fire

    Billy, you’re right that there would be a response from the Secret Service, but it wouldn’t be as violent and dramatic as you depict. And that is exactly why I’m saying that Robertson should be charged with something, because inciting violence is wrong.

    However –

    But it’s somehow OK to suggest such a thing if he is speaking of a foreign head of state? That’s the position of the administration.

    You are in complete error. Nobody that I know of yet is suggesting that what Robertson said is OK (although we’ll probably hear from other hardliners eventually), and the administration has already condemned the comment. It is not the position of the administration, and if it was the position of the administration that Chavez should be assassinated, it probably would have happened already.

  • Angelos

    whodat, I have new evidence every single day the the right is dangerous to our country. I have a treasure trove of quotes from religous wacknuts, the real washed, who want to use their self-defined “morality” to run my life. These morons actually think Bush is a moral man, THAT’S how crazy these people are. Hell, all you have to do is give little Ricky “Frothy Mix” Santorum a microphone and he’ll tell you exactly what you should and should not be doing in the privacy of your own home.

    All religious people – the real kind, and the pretend kind – are dangerous to civil liberties.

  • http://MaryCalvo marym

    Angelos, “all religious people” includes a majority of deeply moral, not anti-humanity, believers in one faith or another. Religion isn’t based on hating anyone or anything, it’s based on loving one another. You’re listening to a lot of wackos, for sure, and you’re letting them take on too much importance.

    When Pat Robertson announced that God told him to run for president, then lost, he proved his own disconnect from reality. Unless God was using Pat Robertson to send a message as to how foolish people are who think God wants followers to use politics to lead.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ Carson Fire

    Angelos, kooks is kooks, whether they are on the right or the left, religious or secular. For everything kooky you’ve got in your super special file from a right wing kook, we can point to almost any random post at DemocraticUnderground or The Daily Kos (all of us wingnuts are eagerly awaiting Kos’s takedown of the DLC!). And even normal people have their occasional lapses of kookery; one kook statement does not a kook make, but guys like Robertson and Kos have long patterns of kookery.

    For instance, David Duke’s on your side on the Iraq war. Is he more or less a kook now than he was in the past? Would it be fair for me to characterize you as being aligned with white supremacists, simply because his views intersect with yours on a few points? As kooky as you are, you’re your own kook. It would indeed be unfair to try to tie you to Duke, although this is a standard tactic by today’s left; the left has always tried to “prove” that conservatives, citizens with a particular economic view, are racist because there can always be found racists who share that economic view — forget that there are certainly racists who are pro-union and pro-taxes.

  • Maureen

    The guy is a total loon. This is the same guy who, a few years ago, claimed he had diverted a hurricane. The MSM insist on carrying this nut because they love to portray him as a “leader” of conservatives or evangelicals. He is neither. He’s a nut, plain & simple.

    Interesting thing tho. Explain to me the difference between what he said about Chavez & the average poster on Daily Kos or DU Underground who routinely call for Bush’s assissination? Or the Guardian columnist who last year begged for Bush to be killed? Or the company, until Drudge exposed it, that was selling “Assassinate Bush” t-shirts?

    Or, try this one on–Slap a beard & a headwrap on him, stick him in a cave, change Chavez to Bush, & have him throw in the obligatory Palestinians reference, & we’d be seeing a lot of posters here supporting him & wringing their hands over “why the world hates us.” And the Beeb & Al Jazeera would be giving loving airspace to him. Hell, Ward Churchill would have a picture of him framed in his office!

  • whodat

    “All religious people – the real kind, and the pretend kind – are dangerous to civil liberties.”

    It seems the only “religious” people you know are from watching your tv, movies and political growling. People who make uninformed, blanket statements are a danger to civil liberties. Once again you’re flying right over the top.

  • Angelos

    I know lots of religious people! (snicker)

    My wife believes in God, for example, and likes to go to church occasionally.

    She isn’t a fuckwad politician from Pennsylvania, however, telling me that the pesky “liberal” Supreme Court has given me too many freedoms, like birth control, consentual sodomy, etc. Like little Ricky has never had tulips on his organ. Or wait, is it only the gays that shouldn’t be allowed to play a little skin flute?

    She isn’t the dumbtastic president of the country, who wants schools to teach the “debate” between evolution and the latest name for creationism, ID. Excuse me, but there is no “debate” when one side is completely unfounded total bullshit.

    She also didn’t use her TV show to advocate the assassination of a foreign leader. She also didn’t start backpedaling the next day as Republicans far and wide ran from him like he had the plague.

    Yes, my “all religious people” was, um, a bit general. But organized religion is out on another round of power-grabbing, and even the innocent little housewife who votes for Bush because “he’s a christian” is complicit. All those regular people you and marym refer to, who voted for Bush’s imaginary morality, are complicit. So while they may not advocating turning back the rights clock to the 17th century, their votes say they do.

    So fuck ‘em.

  • anonymous

    Seems Pat is now backpeddelling into quicksand.

    “I said our special forces could take him out. Take him out could be a number of things including kidnapping,”

    “If he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050824/pl_nm/venezuela_robertson_dc

  • http://www.elflife.com/ Carson Fire

    I heard that audio this afternoon. Has to be one of the weakest, most pathetic attempted spins I’ve ever heard.

    If he had any influence or credibility with anybody before, he’s shot it to heck now.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ Carson Fire

    Explain to me the difference between what he said about Chavez & the average poster on Daily Kos or DU Underground who routinely call for Bush’s assissination?

    I think the difference, Maureen, is that too many on the left condone criminal actions if they see it benefitting their ideology, whereas non-kooks don’t. We non-kooks will decry people on the right or the left inciting violence, whereas the DUers and Kossacks seem to believe it is the natural order of things if they can’t win at the ballot box.

    And so while we non-kooks don’t differentiate between kooks (Robertson, Duke, Kos, etc) the left sees isolated extremist rightwing kookery as both a tool to bash the wider, more mainstream opposition and permission to keep their own rhetoric hot and unhinged.

    Oddly, they never see their own extreme rhetoric and exhultations to violence as being anything but righteous.

  • http://ruthcalvo Ruth

    carsonf:
    “I think the difference, Maureen, is that too many on the left condone criminal actions if they see it benefitting their ideology, whereas non-kooks don’t.” immediately followed by “And so while we non-kooks don’t differentiate between kooks” – needless to point out, you contradicted yourself. You identify left as kooks, essentially. If you make that your definition of the left, it works, but eliminates reality from your argument: but if you recognize that “all religous people” being a threat to general liberties – is as sweeping a condemnation as “Left” as “kooks” if you make it a direct identification, then you realize you’re over the top

    And Angelos has recognized: “yes, my “all religious people” was, um, a bit general.” So he’s stepped back over that top. Leaving you out there in the “left” field. Cute.

  • owl 1

    Maureen said it all. Well almost all. There are Revs and there are Revs. I saw one of those political Revs run as fast as his marching legs would carry him to the closest TV to jump on Roberts. No he wasn’t marching, fighting the IRS or trying to put the squeeze on some American Corp for money. He was not even counseling and holding national prayer meetings for his fellow man that had a little “slip”, while his pregnant mistress (yep, of course he was married) was probably wondering what all the fuss was about? I will leave you wondering who this is….. (Psssst hint: He supports Castro who has a good friend named Chavez).

    The difference it seems between these two Revs involves one’s mouth and the other one’s actions. If you think a mouth that says God told him to run for president sets this nation’s policies………well……….your side deserves that other Rev I watched on TV. HE seemed to believe it.

    Kooks. Not one thing to do with religion. Find another horse.

  • owl 1

    not Roberts……..Robertson

  • http://www.richoid.com/blog.html Rich Webster

    Right wing religious leaders have behaved the same throughout history, regardless of the specific religion. The same forces of social interaction drive them to rise through the ranks and then become full of themselves… then start issuing fatwas.

    The renaissance was shut down by the likes of Savonarola, because it was just too good. Too much creativity, imagination and achievement. Scary!

    After the Emancipation Proclamation, conservatives shut down further development of racial freedom, and fought tooth and nail through the ’70s to turn back time. At each step, arch conservatives proclaimed God was on their side against blacks, women, interracial marriage, gays… you name it.

    The 90′s were fodder for the right wing to attack “irrational exuberance”, sex in the Whitehouse, Hollywood, the Internet, you name it. They swept the congress and White House because of fear of a world moving too fast. Now they’re shutting down science, attacking it from every angle.

    At each stage, they overstepped their position and became zealots, and were silenced (or at least marginalized) for a time. Nixon ordered break-ins, Reagan ordered sales of weapons to Iran with the proceeds directed to the Contras, Bush has gone all out to lie, cheat and steal. And conservatives think that’s OK and continue to support him… because strong leadership is all they care about. That’s not how a democracy thrives.

    At each turn when conservatives rise in power, terrorism increases. The militia movement, the Oklahoma bombing, 9/11, all looked to conservative leaders for inspiration. Extremism in the pursuit of religion is the end of democracy.

    Chavez is really beside the point. Crazy world leaders from the left threaten the right, and from the right threaten the left. Those with narrow, weak understanding of economics, the dynamics of power, and tending towards paranoia have come and gone throughout history. But right wing bigots who turn to scripture for inspiration have done more damage than any other subgroup of humanity.

    Choose moderation. Don’t drive those leaders up the ladder. Don’t support bumper sticker politics. Learn about the impact of real policy decisions on real people. Ideology kills.

  • kat

    {But right wing bigots who turn to scripture for inspiration have done more damage than any other subgroup of humanity.} Actually that is bullshit. If you were to tote up the casualty count achieved by those few officially non religious regimes the world has seen, the non scripturalists have the scripturalists beat by a mile. Non scripture butchers like Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Enver Hoxha,Stalin,Kim Il Sung, etc. killed and slaughtered their own people at an unheard-of rate.  When it comes to piling up a body count, these non scripuralists take second place to none. Leftists seem reluctant to talk about the several hundred millions plus who died at the hands of these not inspired by scripture murderers. Has there been an an officially non scripturalist regime which did not slaughter its people?

  • http://ruthcalvo Ruth

    RW
    Interesting reflection. Sadly, religion having the virtue of being a comfort to so many, presents a temptation to the power hungry to use it to cover their own motivation. good thing not to blame those who are truly spiritual for the sadly cynical motivations of a few. And we need to pity not hate those who rally ’round the cynically motivated.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ Carson Fire

    Ruth: you claim I contradict myself in reference to kooks on the right and the left, yet fall right in line with RW’s implication that all extremist religious leaders throughout history were conservative rightwing Republicans who probably all eagerly awaited the Second Coming of Bush.

    Our current unique US political landscape does not apply to international religious leaders of various sects throughout the centuries. A leftist’s bias that all totalitarianists, religious nuts, hardliners, and thugs are/were right wing despite the evidence of history does not change reality. Shouting “Taliban” at people you have political disagreements with while actively defending the actual Taliban while it murders innocents and enslaves women marks you as a kook.

    By contrast, I said — and you quoted me on this yourself — “too many on the left”. “Too many” is a qualifier that means, well, “too many”. Not all. A portion. More than there should be, but not a totality. If elsewhere I made it sound as if I was referring to the entire spectrum left of center, then it was an error in phrasing.

    Jeff Jarvis (despite protestations by Oliver Willis) is on the left politically, but is not a kook, and I respect him and enjoy his blog. Many, many elected Democrats are not kooks, and I have voted for a fair share of them. I did not consider myself a kook when I was a Democrat, and I still hold many views that are in themselves left of center. Yet there is no denying that there are kooks on the left, just as there are kooks on the right.

    What part of that exactly do you disagree with?

    Beyond that, the one distinction I make is that the kooks who are perceived as “right wing” generally have no power or influence these days, while there is a movement of kooks afoot on the left that is forcing mainstream Democrats to embarrass themselves (and lose more and more elections). The left (and even some non-kooks on the left are guilty of this) want to define Republicans and conservatives who are closer to the mainstream middle of the country than they are as radical and extremist. I would, of course, expect you to disagree with that.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ Carson Fire

    And now for a religious “leader” even kookier than Robertson!

    Minister of hate to “hunt down” Swedish king

    The fanatical American Baptist minister, Fred Phelps, is on his way to Sweden.

    “We’ll hunt down your king,” he said ominously to Expressen. “It doesn’t make any difference where he tries to hide.”

    “You’re doomed to spend eternity in hell,” he continued. “All you Swedes and your Swedish king and his family.”

    The royal household regards the proposed visit as a serious risk and has increased security around the king and the royal family.

  • Dan Finn

    I believe the real loon is Chavez but I cannot support what Robertson said. These are strange times, preachers with hit lists.

  • Angelos

    Wrong Carson, the right wing kooks have a lot of power, and lot of influence. A lot of stupid people listen to Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Malkin, Hannity, and believe what they say.

    Santorum, etc.? They have no influence?

    Wasn’t Robertson a frequent guest on Fox?

    The right wing is BASED on kookiness. The more shit they throw, more will eventually stick in the minds of clueless Americans. It’s been that way forever…

  • whodat

    Angelos-

    You have your mind made up on everything. Like this:
    “She isn’t the dumbtastic president of the country, who wants schools to teach the “debate” between evolution and the latest name for creationism, ID. Excuse me, but there is no “debate” when one side is completely unfounded total bullshit.”

    OK. Start disproving theistic evidences and proofs instead of telling me about your wife.

    Also about Bush voters. As if there aren’t millions of people who voted for Kerry simply because he is for abortion.

    “A lot of stupid people listen to Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Malkin, Hannity, and believe what they say.” Same for Al Franken, and all the celebrities like Garofalo and the sort, etc.

    Your reply to my post starts with several paragraphs of pontificating–which further proved my point about your blanket statement–and then at the end backed into acknowledging “it was a bit general”, and then pontificated some more. You just seem to want to correct people and growl.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ Carson Fire

    Angelos, appearing on TV is not equivalent to having a power base. If that were true, Gilbert Gottfried and Stuttering John Melendez would be royalty based on their frequent appearances on Jay Leno’s show.

    Pundits you cite, such as Malkin, are far better known amongst leftist hotheads than most ordinary news readers.

    However, the success of Limbaugh on radio nationally proves fairly definitively (despite expected protestations) that he is far more mainstream than you’d like to think, and not a kook at all.

    Arguing into the wind.

  • http://ruthcalvo Ruth

    carsonf……
    You’re right, I somehow picked up the wrong phrase. It was “And so while we non-kooks don’t differentiate between kooks (Robertson, Duke, Kos, etc) the left sees isolated extremist rightwing kookery as both a tool to bash the wider, more mainstream opposition and permission to keep their own rhetoric hot and unhinged.” thereby lumping all your perceived opposition all into the same baskett,

  • http://www.elflife.com/ Carson Fire

    But there, Ruth, I’m not lumping all of the left together as kooks; I’m commenting on the tendency of a vaster number on the left to lump the right together in order to prove that everyone on the right is a kook. That practice is widespread among liberals and Democrats of all stripes.

    RW and Angelos provide good examples of this: all religious people are right wing kooks because Pat Robertson and a few other convenient examples are kooks and appear to be right wing. By contrast, I would never claim that Jeff Jarvis is a kook simply because Oliver Willis or Noam Chomsky are. I would never claim that Jeff Jarvis… or even Ruth, or Angelos, or even the most extreme leftists we can find here… of being in favor of Stalinistic practices simply because Stalin was “left wing”.

    That habit of constantly invoking guilt by association by the left is a generalization of convenience, and does not apply to entire left. Not everyone on the left is guilty of this, and it’s not unheard of on the right. But it’s a tactic that too many mainstream Democrats are as guilty of as extreme fringers, and it’s done far too often. It’s a bad habit that should be broken, and I don’t think I’m too far out of line in making that generalization.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ Carson Fire

    BTW, I’ve been reminded that I need to spell out that Fred Phelps, the religious nutcase who has threatened the King of Sweden, is a Democrat, and has only turned against his party (Bill Clinton in particular) due to the issue of homosexuality. [Wikipedia: Affiliatios with Al Gore and Democratic Party]

    A more pragmatic President Gore probably wouldn’t have stumbled early on the gay issue the way Clinton did, and would have remembered not to tick off the bigots in his party. IIRC, even candidate Dean alluded to this in-party bigotry, albeit hamhandedly, with his “God, guns, and gays” remark.

    Leftist response to the current news story (Phelps vs King Gustave) assumes that Phelps is a right wing Republican (false) and has been similar to Angelos’ screeds about how this “proves” something about right wing conservative wingnut etc etc etc. However, there are people of faith on the right *and* the left politically, and political alliance is no assurance that someone is playing with a full deck.

    And the issue of homosexuality is not as brightly delineated as leftist activists want it to be: despite the activism on the left, there are still plenty of rank and file (real people) Democrats who are prejudiced against gays, just as there are gay Republicans. Putting your hands over your ears, scrunching closed your eyelids and shouting that all homophobes and deranged religious leaders are wingnuts has little to no effect on actual reality.

    If you claim to be part of a reality-based community, you have to occasionally open your eyes and stop telling yourself big stories.

  • http://ruthcalvo Ruth

    Pat Robertson has probably done the right a very big favor by demonstrating that he is not representative of a vast majority of rightwing religious affiliates.

  • kat

    Too bad the Left can’t learn a lesson from that and not allow that lunatic Sheehan to be representive of them- CODEPINK, MoveOn.org, David Duke, Stormfront Nazis and Al Sharpton. What a bunch of dingbats!! Yet many loons on the left embrace this moron.

  • owl 1

    Kat, I nominate the CODEPINK spokesman, instead of Sheehan. She was leading the demostration at Walter Reed that had signs like “Maimed for a Lie” etc. They got caught. Then everytime anyone called her on what they were actually doing, 7 times her response was “My brother was in Iraq”. Sheehan is trashing her own son’s beliefs and decisions but this CODEPINK was trashing these injured soldiers/families in their face.

    There are kooks and then there are kooks. Some manage to hide behind a brother or son while they proudly proclaim……….”We support the troops!” Wonder how many at Walter Reed “felt the love”?

  • jessell spruell

    this whole group could be seen in the light of kooks, if we use the same rules that are applied here. after all we can lump you altogether, and for the one who can not seem to type proper english, so we could better grasp??? his idea’s , instead of making up new words to fit his typing tantrums, we could also look at this as he is way out there, therefore a “KOOK”

  • jessell spruell

    FYI…. typing errors ….intentional … trying to make point. that you should watch how you lump people into catagories just because of a few… sort of Nazism….eH????