BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Kristof v. the neonuts

39 comments on Kristof v. the neonuts

Kristof v. the neonuts

: Nicholas Kristof calls the new extremists of the left n their divisive, demonizing tactics — stolen from the extremists of the right — in a wonderful column today:

So is President Bush a liar?

Plenty of Americans think so. Bookshops are filled with titles about Mr. Bush like “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them,” “Big Lies,” “Thieves in High Places” and “The Lies of George W. Bush.”

A consensus is emerging on the left that Mr. Bush is fundamentally dishonest, perhaps even evil

39 responses to “Kristof v. the neonuts”

  1. shark Avatar
    shark

    Mr. Bush got us into a mess by overdosing on moral clarity and self-righteousness, and embracing conspiracy theories of like-minded zealots.
    And what does this supposedly mean? Sounds like this guy can take a dose of the medicine he’s doling out…

  2. djangone Avatar
    djangone

    Ha ha, I read Kristof earlier and knew you’d post about it.
    Kristof takes Moore properly to task. He points out how Clinton is big enough not to bite back despite being called everything from a murderer to a spy on thousands of occasions over eight years.
    These agreements shouldn’t be enough, however, to compel a blithe leap into the middle to claim ‘high ground.’ The referee role will only get you trampled by the sheer volume of bile coming from the right. Or have the posters on your own board not convinced you?

  3. Jacksback Avatar
    Jacksback

    How ’bout the reason why lefty nuts shouldn’t call Bush a liar is because…he isn’t? Crazy, i know.

  4. Michael Zimmer Avatar
    Michael Zimmer

    Kristof: “insults and rage impede understanding.”
    Amen.

  5. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    The referee role will only get you trampled by the sheer volume of bile coming from the right
    are you still calling yourself a moderate dj?

  6. djangone Avatar
    djangone

    Mike,
    Position (left, middle, right), has nothing to do with rhetoric (calm, rabid, or, in my case, sarcastic). That’s been the point–mine from yesterday, Glenn’s and Oliver’s from today.

  7. freddie poo Avatar
    freddie poo

    You continue to think or wish the country would not be polarized. It is. Accept this reality. As for Joe Lieberman, those of who are from his state wonder when the time will come that he announces a switch in party affiliation.

  8. Angelos Avatar
    Angelos

    Bush doesn’t lie?
    He has lied about his time in the National Guard, and lied about his criminal history. He lied about his relationship with Ken Lay, he lied about who would benefit from his tax cuts, and he lied about stem cells. He lied about his visit to Bob Jones University, he lied about why he wouldn’t meet with Log Cabin Republicans, and he lied about reading the EPA report on global warming. He lied about blaming the Clinton administration for the second intifada, he lies constantly about how he pays no attention to polls, he lied about how he loves New York, and he lied about moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. He lied about finding WMD in Iraq, he lied about making his decision to go to war, he lied about the CIA’s dismissal of the yellowcake rumors, and he lied about the IAEA’s assessment of Iraq’s nuclear program. He lied about funding the fight against AIDS in Africa, he lied about when the recession started, and he lied about seeing the first plane hit the WTC. He lied about supporting the Patient Protection Act, and he lied about his deficit spending…
    From http://www.thepoorman.net/archives/002849.html.
    And that’s not the half of it.

  9. Tim Avatar
    Tim

    Angelos, even if Bush came close to lying as much as Clinton did, that doesn’t justify the bile and hatred directed at him. What the American people want to hear are reasoned arguments — and then they will judge at the polls. When the angry Left compares Bush to Hitler and says he lies, they end the debate. Emotionalism and propaganda will not work.
    BTW most of the evidence for the “lies” listed on that page you cite aren’t evidence at all. They are highly partisan attack screeds that categorize disagreement or doubt as evidence of lying. Bulls**t.

  10. Hunter McDaniel Avatar
    Hunter McDaniel

    Angelos, the items in your list of “lies” fall into several categories:
    a)accusations that are themselves lies (e.g., the National Guard canard).
    b)policy disagreements between left and right (e.g., who benefits from tax cuts)
    c)simple posturing which is inherent in politics (e.g., I pay no attention to polls).
    d)absolute unknowables (how do you know he doesn’t love NY?)
    It gets us nowhere to describe all these as “lies”. You are a prime example of the problem Jeff has been talking about. Just like the Vince Foster conspiracy-mongers were.

  11. pdq332 Avatar
    pdq332

    He has lied about his time in the National Guard
    Prove it. The commanding general says he was there.
    and lied about his criminal history
    Again, prove it. It seems to me more like he is understandably reluctant to talk about it at all. That’s not lying.
    He lied about his relationship with Ken Lay,
    This is a perfect example of how the left connects the dots between completely unrelated events to show a twisted conclusion. Take http://www.schlatter.org/Dad/Bush%20lies/ken_lay.htm for example. Bush never denies knowing Ken Lay and in fact describes him as a supporter. Yet because Ken Lay claims to have known Bush before Bush claims to have known Ken Lay, so what? A political donor claiming to be close to the establishment … gee whiz, that almost never happens. Come off it, Angelos and the left.
    And by the way, when did you first meet your mother? If her story is different than yours, I’m going to call YOU a liar.
    he lied about who would benefit from his tax cuts
    That’s a matter for debate.
    It’s not really fair to criticize people who disagree with your side of a debate as “liars.” If two lawyers argue different sides of a case, is one of them a “liar”? If two doctors debate a medical condition, is one of them a “liar”?
    and he lied about stem cells.
    He formed a commission headed by Leon Kass and their findings informed his decisions, and this varied from his original campaign promises. Again, it is unfair to criticize people with a decision making process as “liars”. It seems to me that by being receptive to a dialogue, he is a much more enlightened leader than some guy like you who would charge into a decision based solely on what he thought about it the week before his campaign started.
    I could go on, but your ridiculous name calling is not argument, but rather a strategy to forstall argument by throwing a tantrum. Grow up!

  12. djangone Avatar
    djangone

    Hunter:

    You are a prime example of the problem Jeff has been talking about. Just like the Vince Foster conspiracy-mongers were.

    Calling Clinton a murderer is the same as any of this? How?

  13. Mike NYC Avatar
    Mike NYC

    Of course Bush is a liar. And yes, Clinton was too. These are important issues, Jeff, and should be treated as such. We can be against al Qaeda and still recognize and point out the flaws in the current administration. And we can — and I believe should – use harsh words to do so because their policies involve life and death.
    I usually like Kristof, but I disagree with him on this one. And your fight for moderation as you type away in your comfortable suburban home is silly.

  14. djangone Avatar
    djangone

    Sorry, I have to have a little fun with you Hunter.
    Let’s say Hunter McCanard was convicted of perjury (that is, for being a liar) while at the same time PDQ O’Spurious was convicted for being a murderer.
    Now let’s say liar H. McWingnut got ten years, while murderer P. O’Spurious also got ten. Clearly, the murderer deserves more time. But he didn’t get it because, according to H. McDaniel’s authority as delivered in a blog post, the two are worthy of comparison.
    It’d end up being precisely the kind of legal shenanigans that brings out the lovely beet-red in Bill O’Reilly’s otherwise naugahyde complexion. You’d find yourself dragged before the Bloviation Inquisition and forced to squeeze out little sweat bullets as the master of all cable lit into you like a, well, like a son of a Twin Towers survivor. You might even make Bill compare you to Mao, Che or Goebbels, as he’s wont to do about once a week.
    Okay, you might not deserve that. But you used the word ‘canard,’ and I just can’t let that go. If you’d used ‘meme’ though, I couldn’t be held responsible for my actions. Also, to be fair, sorry if I push you further into your camp by mistaking rhetoric for your ideology. I have to worry about ‘creating the next dragon-slayer’ and all.

  15. O'McSomething Avatar
    O’McSomething

    I’d give Kristol and Jeff a little credence if they were equally condemming of the extreme hate of the right. I hear very little condemnation of the Freepi, lucianne.com, Coulter, Rush, LGF, Anti-Id Rotweiller, Steyn, Krauthammer et al. It seems that when the venom is coming from the right it is to be expected. Why are they surprised that lots of people are sick of taking it and starting to talk back. Some feel a need to match tone for tone. I might be willing to listen if they were calling for Rush to be drummed off the air or Ann Coulter to be banned from opening her trap on talk shows. After all, the biggest complain the so-called right has about the so-called left is that they are weak. Now they seem to be ticked-off that the weaklings are talking like tough guys. Sorry if you are offended, but trash-talking begets trash-talking, so you should have made the point a lot earlier than this.

  16. Hunter McDaniel Avatar
    Hunter McDaniel

    I didn’t say that an accusation of lying is the same as an accusation of murder. What I was trying to say is that the accusations that many on the left are making about Bush (that he started a war to enrich his cronies) are just as serious as a charge of murder, arguably more so, and that the accusations are just as fevered and baseless as the Clinton-killed-Vince-Foster speculations were.

  17. Angelos Avatar
    Angelos

    1) National guard – the evidence is there. The media doesn’t care enough to call bullshit, and Bush partisans don’t want to “see” it. http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm
    2) Tax cuts – did anyone making $30000, with two kids, benefit from any tax cuts? Now, I’m not a soak-the-rich person, that’s why I didn’t vote for Gore. But only high-income people benefitted. “an unspecified number of low- and middle-income families received no tax cut at all because they’d been excluded from an expansion of the child-care tax credit”, etc.
    3) Stem cells – the supposed 60+ strains he claimed were sufficient to continue research, thus his ban on new ones wasn’t problematic, were less than 10.
    4) Just prior to the election, he repeatedly denied his DWI arrest, until confronted with the records.
    WMD, yellowcake, the MARCH 2001 recession, and more.
    Nothing but 4 years of bullshit from this guy. Keep lapping it up.

  18. O' Avatar
    O’

    Oops! Thought Kristof–typed Kristol—not much difference this week……

  19. djangone Avatar
    djangone

    Ooh, Hunter, you sure you’re saying what I think you’re saying? Murder claims aren’t the same as lie claims, because claiming murder isn’t as bad as claiming crony politics? And anyway, you’ve somehow now morphed it to crony politics rather than lies. Sure, we’re all over crony politics also, now that you broach it, thanks–just be sure you come up the same logical mole-hole you went down. I’ll start canarding you, and that hurts.
    I was arguing a priori. You’re involving some stakes. That’s a trickier road by far, and yes, I’ll go down it with you if you realllly want to. Because if you involve the stakes of lives and the hundreds of billions of dollars, our claims are both more serious and more injurious. And, as it turns out, not just something Scaife cooked up while taking a crap. We have reams of evidence for both crony politics and the lies.

  20. Alice Avatar
    Alice

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Coulter fired from the National Review?

  21. Pete Terranova Avatar
    Pete Terranova

    The uncivility has spilled over to what was once a pleasant little site: raybradbury.com. (The discussion boards where much of what follows occurs can be found at http://www.raybradbury.com/ubbcgi/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro.)
    As a semi-regular poster on that site, fans of Bradbury post their thoughts and questions about his work and, generally, have a fine ol’ time doing so. Enter the dark forces of Michael Moore supporters who have found the site after the news stories hit about Bradbury’s discontenct with Moore’s highjacking his book title. I’d say that a good 90 to 95% of the posts by these wonderful liberal/progressives take an unseemly delight in calling Brabdury a senile old man, or some derivative thereof, and then insulting anyone who comes to his defense. Don’t agree with their statements? You’re not rebutting their comments, you’re practicing censorship, man!
    Those wiser than I predict these invaders will pass us by in due time but sometimes I’m not so sure.
    All are invited to discuss all things Bradbury, including the Michael Moore fiasco, but, please, can’t we keep it civil and respectful?

  22. Jim B Avatar
    Jim B

    After reading the comments here, the best defense I hear from those on the left is “they did it first!” Is there an elementary school graduate in the crowd?
    There *is* such a thing as taking the high road. Even if what you say is true, then that still doesn’t excuse responding in kind. If you’re not willing to take the high road, then you are no better than those you criticize. In fact, you are worse because you are both childish *and* a hypocrite for criticizing what you yourself have become.
    I agree with the commenter above that the vast majority of what Bush’s detractors call “lies” are in fact policy disagreements, outright distortions, or unproveable assertions. By corollary, doesn’t that make every flip-flop and issue straddle that Kerry makes a “lie” as well? If not, why the double standard?
    To further that point: If, in fact, the “right-wing” does this sort of thing while Leftists are completely blameless victims of a vicious attack machine bereft of legitimate ideas for the country’s future, then isn’t it a significant decline in the Left now that their best arguments now consist of a petulant game of “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire”?
    For those on the Left, it sounds like it’s time to quit worrying about those on the other side of the aisle and get your own house in order…If that’s the best you’ve got to offer in this debate then you should get ready to settle in for the long-term as a minority party.
    Debate the issues…win on the merits…Bush is Hitler isn’t an argument, it’s just ignorance…

  23. HH Avatar
    HH

    “And we can — and I believe should – use harsh words to do so because their policies involve life and death.”
    But when those harsh words leave us blinded by hatred of political opponents so that we don’t recognize the threat of real enemies, that’s far more dangerous and a true matter of life and death. See Mayor O’Malley.

  24. HH Avatar
    HH

    “I might be willing to listen if they were calling for Rush to be drummed off the air”
    They are. Armed Forces radio is just the beginning.

  25. chuck Avatar
    chuck

    This stuff hasn’t been borrowed from the right, it has been standard issue on the left for a good hundred years. What has changed is the mainstreaming of the leftists.

  26. djangone Avatar
    djangone

    Oh my, Jim. ‘Liar, liar pants on fire’ isn’t the game here just because you call it that. And if it is, more of us kiddies are playing that than tiddly winks. The latest NBC poll has more people smelling smoke than not:

    Bush deliberately misled the people to make his case for war in Iraq:
    &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp47%
    Bush gave the country the most accurate information he had:
    &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp44%

    So if it’s your advice to the people on the left and middle to keep to the moral high ground so the way is clear for thousands more ‘traitor’ calls and turds carefully wrapped in flags by the right, sorry, that’s just not the game anymore. You have no idea how pissed off people are about this, and frankly I can’t imagine you or anyone not being pissed. What’s the limit before you get kinda a little maybe somewhat miffed, $500 billion spent, Islamic regime in the vacuum we’ve created, still no WMD, still no Al Qaeda links, no allies in the world, our moral capital dissipated in the cells of Abu Ghraib, and Afghanistan blowing away all records for opium poppy harvests so their warlords can buy all kinds of weapons while we watch? We should reach there by February 2005 at this rate. Actually, the opium poppy crop thing is already happening.
    At some point, you have to call an incompetent an incompetent, a lie a lie, and $200 billion a lot of dough for two shells filled with poorly mixed sarin.
    I’m not completely going to sell anyone on F9/11, but the final scene is germane:

    There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee…that says, fool me once, shame on…shame on you. Fool me…you can’t get fooled again.

    Available in all its video glory here.

  27. blah Avatar
    blah

    Don’t stand by when cohorts call us traitors in the op-ed columns of major newspapers and then accuse us of incivility, or of lowering the tone, when we take offence. It’s that simple.
    Republicans control all the wheels of power. And yet it makes many of them even more neurotic about the Democrats.
    Actually, holier-than-thous from people like Jeff Jarvis, who isn’t averse to wallowing in the pigsty when it suits him, are even more offensive than cries of ‘traitor’ from the Coulters and Limbaughs.

  28. djangone Avatar
    djangone

    Gosh, hate to ‘dominate’ as my pal onecent puts it, but, something perfect for this discussion just popped up in the Moony Times.

    Bill Clinton is such a repulsive subject I never thought I would ever write about him again after he was replaced by a man of decency and integrity in the White House. Yet the sight of all those women lining up to buy his book, to get that book autographed by a serial abuser of women, like prostitutes idolizing their abusive pimp, is sadly illustrative of a bizarre truth.

    About Bill and Hillary:

    They have had a pact for decades: He gets to fool around with women, and she gets to fool around with women (plus the occasional man like Vince Foster).
    Yes, she’s bisexual

  29. Joe Baby Avatar
    Joe Baby

    Current Democratic arguments are so acidic that they burn right through and destroy the logic. Deploring GOP tactics, and then emulating them, is a bizarre way to ask for the reins of leadership. One thing it does do, however, is remove the question of voting based upon moral leadership. If it’s win at any cost, we can drop this charade about one side being better–or more humane–than the other.
    Which brings us to reliance on issues…where we should have been all along.

  30. felixrayman Avatar
    felixrayman

    Gee, I wonder why you conveniently left out these paragraphs:

    In fact, of course, Mr. Bush did stretch the truth. The run-up to Iraq was all about exaggerations, but not flat-out lies. Indeed, there’s some evidence that Mr. Bush carefully avoids the most blatant lies

  31. wally Avatar
    wally

    I thought the ability to lie was a prerequisite for being President.

  32. HA Avatar
    HA

    Jeff,
    What a lousy column. Kristof starts off OK by admitting that the Democrats have gone insane. But then he concludes by blaming it all on a reaction to Rush Limbaugh and George Bush. Pathetic.
    Kristof doesn’t contribute to reconciliation. He adds fuel to the fire. There won’t be reconciliation in this country until the Democrats accept responsibility for their own dementia and recognize that Islamic terrorists are a greater danger to America and civilization that George Bush and Israel.

  33. Walter Wallis Avatar
    Walter Wallis

    Was the WTC really hit by aircraft, or was it just a mildew attack caused by global warming?
    Is the appropriate response to terror a war or “Book ’em, Dano.”

  34. James Stephenson Avatar
    James Stephenson

    Angelos do you know anything about the guard? Anything at all?
    You do know that for a years service you only have to show up for 24 days right? 24 days out of 365. You can make up days, you can even do days before is need be.
    You do know he was flying twice a month in the early period of his training. Two weekends a month, you realize he only had to do one weekend a month right?
    Or do you think that 24 days are not enough, but that is generally what is required. And of course sometimes you have to do a week or two, my brother, Navy reserve just did a week in Florida. Tough work. And in the future if he decides to run for President, do you think those people will remember him? No. But he was there, and of course the only evidence? Retirement credit and pay stub. Wow that is all Bush has, does this surprise anyone with military experience, uh no.
    So please take the NG thing off the table, it has been proven that those who disparage do not even know how it works.

  35. Andy Avatar
    Andy

    The argument that the American people/voters want reasoned argument has yet to be proved.
    Until those who present a reasoned argument are rewarded the bomb throwers will continue. It is easier to gin up hate than present well constructed, well considered positions.
    Edwards ran an upbeat, reasoned position campaign. He could not even win his home state.
    Now to talk of him as a VP is to grasp at some cover before the public realizes that the stealth candidate Kerry is an empty suit. He lacks a position on anything. All that he proposes are re-run ideas that make the listener wonder WHY he did nothing these past 20 years in the Senate. He suffers from competition with his own record. He could have-should have-would have presented legislation for his ideas at any time, IF they were truly important to him.
    He has no real goal or vision. He has not said WHY he wants to be Presidnt. Is it to perch like a large bird at the top of the tree? Does he actually have something he want to do with the Presidency?
    Reagan may not have been bright. But he had a few very simple tasks he wished to accomplish. He wanted to be the President to DO something. Clinton wanted to BE simple because that was the top of the tree.
    Bush, the father wanted to BE but not to DO.
    Bush, the son wanted to DO a few small things.
    My vote goes to those who wish to be President to DO something. We have enough “pretty birds” in Washington who flock to the trees every morning to see who can be one branch above another.
    Wasted years under a BE President usually come back to haunt us. Living on “internet time” makes the four years between elections seem an eternity.

  36. Chris Larry Avatar
    Chris Larry

    You all worry about being “nice” and “polite” and “fair” and I will worry about regaining the soul of nation from evangelistic and corporate control.

  37. growler Avatar
    growler

    I noticed that Barnes&Noble thing a while ago.
    Nice experiment: Get out of the NYC area and go to a Barnes & Noble in the boonies. The tables are not stacked to the left like the ones here are. They are either more balance or full of right-leaning books.

  38. Heath Avatar
    Heath

    I’m trying to draw comparisons here, so when I get things wrong, I’m sure you’ll all let me know. Chime in anytime…
    Apparently the new vehemence of the ‘left/liberal’ portion of this nation is really only polarizing the game of politics and therefore, somehow, making it hard to have good, logical political debate. This new vehemence is apparently something akin to that used by the right/conservatives for some time now.
    My problem with this is that, while people like Moore, Ivins, Stern and Frankin, to name a few, my be making harsh accusations, but this doesn’t not follow along the lines of attack I’ve heard spewed by the more vitriolic neo-cons. The biggest problem I’ve had with the commentators of the right has been their willingness to make broad generalizations about large groups of people or to proscribe harsh judgements of how to treat the people who fall into their disfavor. Sure, there is fervor in the left now. But it is at least narrowly focused on a small group of people whom have left a lot of people feeling betrayed. That doesn’t seem to be widespread paranoia to me.

  39. Heath Avatar
    Heath

    Two hundred years ago, Frederick Douglass was asked to deliver a speech in honor of the national holiday. What gave instead was an indictment. To borrow a few quotes,
    At a time like this, schorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I the ability, and could reach the nation’s ear, I would, today, pour out fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproac, witheing sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nations must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propreity of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be expossed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced.
    “Nations do not now stan in the same relation to each other they did ages ago. No nation can shut itself up from the surrounding world and trot round the same old path of its fathers without interference. The time was when such could be done. Long established customs of hurtful character could formerly fence themselves in, and do their evil work with social impunity. Knowledge was then confined and enjoyed by a priveledged few, and the multitude walked on in mental darkness. But a change has now come over the affairs of mankind. Walled cities and empires have become unfashionable. The arm of commerce has borne away the gates of the strong city. Intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe. It makes its pathway over and under the sea, as well as on the earth. Wind, steam and lightning are its chartered agents. Oceans no longer divide, but link nations together…Space is comparatively annihilated. – Thoughts expressed on one side of the Atlantic are distinctly heard on the other.”
    Of course, Douglass was blasting the institution of slavery. Comparatively, no one can argue the grave, far more heinous nature of this crime in comparison with the wrong-doings perceived of the current administration. However, his indictment was that those who believe in the greatness of this nation cannot rely simply on ordered, logical debates to create change. The age of cool Platonic discourses/dialogues creating change passed on well before Justinian almost a two millenia ago. Every political debate of significance has involved polemics and rhetoric for centuries now.
    Therefore, to deny people who perceive serious problems with their political structure the right to vehemence is to deny them the fullness of their complaint. If we who are truly upset with current administration see it as taking actions which we deem to have dire future consequences, please forgive us for indulging in ‘the tactics of our enemies,’ as though this polarization of ourselves lowers our indigation to something dismissable.
    The world’s popoulus (if not their representative governments) expressed it’s unwllingness to engage in the war on Iraq. So did many citizen’s of our nation. Perhaps Douglass’ proclamation of the proximity of nation’s was overly optimistic, but none of us can anymore deny that people of the world will bring their grievances (just or unjust) right to our doorstep. To ignore the voice of the world may well be the misstep that brings us more undeserved death. And that is why people who feel as I do will not quietly, meekly offer our disagreement.