We have met the enemy and he ain’t us

Um… because it seems to be true, and the left doesn’t seem to be working too hard to show us otherwise?
We hear defenses of totalitarians like Castro and Saddam; we hear no pity for their victims. We hear explanations about rich boy black sheep bin Laden committing mass murder because of “poverty”. We hear defenses of Palestinian murders of civilians, but continued condemnations of Israel; pray tell us where the left is *not* lined up behind terrorists and totalitarians?
And don’t just keep spewing about how “stupid” everybody else is. Thing is, we don’t see too much refutation of the actual charges. JJ can with credibility, but most of the left cannot.

I followed the link and read the Powerline piece and all the updates. I then read Mattew’s response. He disagrees with their conclusion. But he never even mentions, much less attempts to refute, the underlying arguments they cite which they claim leads to the conclusion.
Not much to root for there.

Then refute it, Franky! Say for once that the left supports the existence of Israel, instead of spending the bulk of your time calling everybody else a “joker”, “weirder”, and “extreme” without once addressing any of the actual issues.

Franky, stop it: you keep accusing me of sleight of hand in accusing you of anti-semitism, when I merely noted the very real and blatant anti-semitism on DemocraticUnderground.
When you say “What the majority of left believe is that Israel should give back the occupied territories and allow a people a chance to live” that is certainly not the impression the more vocal and visible members of the party give, by, for instance, making a hero and martyr out of Rachel Corrie for bravely helping to defend a tunnel that terrorists were using to smuggle weapons to kill innocent civilians. The extremists within the Democratic party are more and more in control, and instead of dealing with that very real problem, we get people who note this dynamic denigrated as “loons”.
You may personally have your head screwed on straight about terrorists and related issues, but you’re not doing a good job of making that the mainstream line of the party.

Damn. long post just got erased.
Ok, resume. quote DU as left, I’ll quote freepers as the right. Anti-semitism has histroically been a right-wing attribute and much of present support of isarel is based on the beliefs in armageddon when unholy jews will be swept away.
Rachel Corrie is lamented because opposed one of disgusting aspects of the occupation – wholesale demolition of entire neighborhoods. no evidence she knew of arsenal, if was one (haven’t followed case).
Let’s look at comments by Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, and I think we can say they’re more representative of the right (look at their book sales) than some poster on DU.

Hey,moonbats! One of your duly elected officials, US Congressman Hinchey (D-NY) said on CNN that Karl Rove planted the phony Rathergate memos. He offered no evidence when pressed. Matt Yglesias and his ilk should clean up their own house before attacking the likes of Powerline. Hinchey was elected by people like Yglesias (New slogan – New York: Haven for Moonbats and Moonbat Heaven) and not just some blogger getting a few thousand hits a day. Also, I believe Charlie Rangel (D-Moonbatville) said it was “racist” to call Hezbollah terrorists. Jeez!

I personally really enjoy the discourse based in respect and reason found on right wing blogs such as the Anti-Idiotarian Rottwieler, it is just so much more civilized than those frothing fringe moonbats like Kevin Drum, Josh Marshall or Matt Yglesias.

I guess I would say that IF it’s true that [to take One of the Powerline examples] Carter wanted Soviet influence to help get the result Carter prefered in a US Election, I’d side with the Powerline guys. I that and other claims are shown to be false, I’d agree with Matthew.
What I don’t understand is why Matthew and the commenters here never attempt to refute the reasons offered by Powerline to support their contention.
They teach this stuff in High School Debate clubs.

Carsonfire,
Why does the southern religious right now support Israel after having notoriously embraced anti-semitism in the past (didn’t Falwell say that the anti-christ was a jewish male?). The right complains about the religious right being ignored by the rest of the culture, but when we start looking at what exactly is behind things like the “Left Behind” series, then we’re told that this is not representative.
“she had some idea she was supporting terrorists and opposing democracies” – she was there to monitor what the Israeli army is doing when it goes on its periodic rampages through the occupied territories. Of course the right showed how classy it was with all the jokes they made over her death.
Show me one mainstream leftist who supported Churchill’s work (not the principles of academic freedom, the actual work itself).
Palestinian terrorists have vowed to push Israel in to the sea, and the religious right of Israel has vowed to cleanse the occupied territories of palestinians. I don’t see you complaining over that as you try to associate every supporter of Palestinian rights with supporters of terrorists (Rachel Corrie).

Yes, Charlie Rangel doesn’t think islamic terrorists even exist. Guess it was Joos who flew those planes.
It makes you a bigot if you call a terrorist a terrorist–must be nice to those killers and not discriminate against them. Bloody moonbat!
{Tuesday, Feb. 22, 2005 10:22 a.m. EST
Rangel: Don’t Call it ‘Islamic Terrorism’
Top House Democrat Charlie Rangel said Tuesday that it was an act of discrimination to label groups like Hezbollah “Islamic terrorists.”
Asked about the refusal by some European governments to declare Hezbollah an Islamic terror group, Rangel told WWRL’s Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter, “To call it Islamic terror is discriminating, it’s bigoted, it is not the right thing to say.”
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/2/22/102357.shtml

Carsonfire, I’m a Jew and you’re a bastard. Calling Democrats anti-semitic is demagoguery and without meaning. Your posts are filled with generalizations and dogmatic assertions that you back up with zero evidence. I have major problems with the Israeli government and real concern for the suffering of Palestinians. And vice versa. Does this make me anti-Israel? No. And it certainly does not even begin to make me anti-semitic. Your attitude sickens me.
Then you tell us that the most outrageous liberals are emblematic of the Dem party. Again no evidence. (You can’t possibly give any evidence because you are just hypothesizing about what other people think.) But wacko Republicans who live on TV like Coulter, Dobson, and Buchanan apparently don’t speak for you. I guess that’s reasonable in a world where the entire spectrum of patriotic debate is Republican owned and operated, where Democratic thoughts and ideas are “betrayal.”

Hinderocket is a proto-fascist theocratic nutjob. He whines about a lack of civility from the left, then labels most Democrats traitors.
He thinks that evolution is a liberal fraud that oppresses true people of faith.
He’s to the right of Ann Coulter.
And the most recent comments he made were on the radio, not a post.
Shrill. Unhinged. Radical. Paranoid conspiracy theorists. Ladies and gentlemen, your Blog of the Year.

Let’s see – a right wing blog (Powerline) backs up its assertion that a former US President is “on the other side” by linking to a right wing website (Frontpage) which carries a story from another right wing website (NewsMax) which is an account of a book written by a right wing historian (Schweizer) who is a research fellow from a right wing think tank (Hoover).
Would the right bother to investigate a hypothetical argument that George Bush is a war criminal based on a post by MaxSpeak, which links to a CommonDreams repost of an article on ZNet citing the scholarship of Francis Boyle?
As it turns out, the left wing Nation doesn’t think much of Schweizer’s scholarship (http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030203&s=uhler)and from the errors and distortions they point out, neither should we.

Shalom Jeff,
In Jimmy Carter Is A Traitor, my friend John Pikes linked earlier this weak to a story from Powerline that claims to support that assertion. The last time I checked, being a Traitor is a capital offense…. (continued)
B’shalom,
Jeff

I think using a little common sense with the facts of a situation, gives a reasonable argument. I have waited a long time to see someone put down my view of Carter, and Powerline was very reasonable and kind.
Read the entire Powerline piece. Even though I thought almost everything Carter did was a mistake, while he was in office, I kept my mouth shut out of respect. Now he panders to the governments we are against. He stands on foreign soil and encourages our enemies by fighting against everything the current government is trying to do. What do you call it? Powerline was extremely mild and kind when they gave several examples to back up their opinion.
If people do not want their actions pointed out for what they are (helpful to enemies)stop them.
In the case of Carter, what makes his a high crime, is he had to do all these things deliberately. Shame on that man.
Just watched a Congressman say that Rove planted forged documents on CBS. When asked if he had any proof he answered “No, he didn’t”. Now this is a perfect example of–no facts–no common sense. Hard to even debate that.

Thanks Chaunce, for actually providing some reason to be sceptical of the basis PL cited for deriving their conclusion. Most posters seem to think calling them names is argumentation.
However you didn’t really refute the events cited, you essentially said, “consider the sources unreliable.” Pardon me if I don’t just take your word for it.
In their last two updates, PL did a much better job of questioning at least one of the events they had cited [based on an email they received claiming the idea Carter worked with the Soviets was a bum rap]. There are competing views on the event, and they include them both on their blog.
I also think its interesting the way their detractors keep exagerating their statements PL’s statements. Just to keep it real, here’s the actual statement;
“Conspiring with our chief enemy to try to influence an American Presidential election: We could have called that treason, but we didn’t. You can form your own opinion.”

“However you didn’t really refute the events cited, you essentially said, “consider the sources unreliable.” Pardon me if I don’t just take your word for it.”
No, I did not refute the events cited because I do not have the book to check the sources for myself. I did what most people who don’t have the time or resources to check out such things do – I read a critic who cites specific examples of shoddy scholarship and concluded that the historian in question has credibility issues. An extraordinary claim, such as an ex POTUS “could” be accused of treason, requires good evidence and so far we’ve only seen very questionable evidence produced by very ideological sources. Nothing that would lead a rational person to agree with the assertion that Jimmy Carter “is on the other side.”

“Then you tell us that the most outrageous liberals are emblematic of the Dem party. Again no evidence.”
Well, all right then, evidence of the self-evident: Howard Dean just ascended to a prime leadership role within the party, and has made it clear that he’s going to remain very vocal. The last Democratic presidential candidate’s career highlight was not his service in Vietnam, but his over-the-top testimony against his “band of brothers” after returning. The earlier primary battle was a battle to see who could be the more convincing anti-war candidate, as the only moderate in the bunch seemed to be DOA. The candidate for 2008 is likely to be a Democrat who once made the paranoid assertion that there was a “vast right wing conspiracy”. While Michael Moore is always countered with “Coulter, Dobson, and Buchanan”, Michael Moore was seated at the side of an ex-president at the last Democratic national convention: there has been no comparable elevation for “Coulter, Dobson, and Buchanan” on the right. The closest you could come to that would probably be an earlier congress honoring Rush Limbaugh after an historic sweep of Republicans into office during Clinton’s tenure. And there are the elected leaders, themselves: Carter, Ted Kennedy, etc (didn’t I already mention them?) — on the Republican side, old guard politicians tend to be more moderate and concilliatory (Bob Dole was/is a marshmallow painted as a meanie), because they’re used to being in the minority, while you have to dredge up some of the younger members in order to cite firebrands.
Now, this has been a colossal waste of my time, because experience has shown us that the much of the left is not concerned with evidence anymore, anyway, even after demanding evidence for something that everyone can see with their own eyes.
It’s also occurred to me that I should make clear why I’ve been using the term “fringey”, since there was an attempt to insult me with a mere descriptive: I’ve been using it in order to be more lucid when describing members of the Democratic party who are dominating it these days. So often, when talking about the excesses of today’s Democratic party, we get slapped with the charge of too broadly generalizing. Just so: reasonable Democrats like Jeff Jarvis and Joe Lieberman are not on the fringe, and so the MoveOn.org mass *should* be differentiated from them. “Fringey” is the best I’ve been able to do, so I’m willing to listen to better alternatives.

carsonfire gives his evidence of the lunatic wing of the left in ascendancy as Dean taking over the DNC. Exactly what makes him the fringe? his assertion that the capture of Saddam
Hussein doesn’t make us as a nation safer? Is that not an incontrovertible fact? of course the chorus of parrots on the right deemed it more evidence of how out of touch he was, but this was yet more evidence of the right’s ability to set the agenda than the truth of their claims.
Kerry’s over the top testimony? how quickly words like My lai vanish from the memories of the converted.
I despise the clintons and pray Hillary doesn’t run, but I think it’s now common knowledge of those who wish to know that there was indeed a conspiracy by the right to bring down Clinton.
of course we could go on, but the point has been made that this is another effort by the right to set the parameters of political debate and exclude from debate as the fringe anyone to the left of Joe Lieberman.

On DemocraticUnderground, you see Lieberman attacked quite openly for his religion, not just for being religious

Yup, DemUnderground is a good sample of the 49 percent of people who voted for Kerry. And those dumb misguided Jews who reliably vote Democrat. They are being tricked just like the blacks who live on their “liberal plantation.”

Memo to jackass: Democratic Underground is a fringe place, just like the Freepers are fringe righties.

Also, the Dems are in huuuuuge trouble — that’s why they have won the popular vote in three of the last four national elections, and just lost this last one by two and a half points. Hubris, my friend, look it up, it’s what you and the right-wing noise machine are suffering from.

This blog demolishes Schweizer’s account:
(http://hereswhatsleft.typepad.com/home/2005/02/do_you_know_wha.html)
PL probably should have made sure their featured evidence was airtight before using it as their featured evidence.

“His charge is scholarly sloppiness, but the evidence he offers show mearly that there is ideological disagreement.”
From the review:
“Schweizer acknowledges that Soviet leader Yuri Andropov “believed that a first strike was being planned,” but cites Gen. Nikolai Detinov (without an endnote) denying that the military brass “took the threat of an American attack seriously.” Schweizer then adds, “Neither did the aged Defense Minister [Dmitri] Ustinov.” To prove that point, Schweizer adds an endnote that refers the reader to page 130 of Andrei Kokoshin’s book, Soviet Strategic Thought, 1917-1991 (MIT, 1998). Yet, when the reader turns to page 130, he finds no mention of Ustinov.
Schweizer also claims that “Likewise, Foreign Minister Gromyko dismissed such paranoia, explaining that the Americans would never strike first, but only ‘in response to aggression.’” As proof of Gromyko’s quote, Schweizer refers to pages 522-23 of Anatoly Dobrynin’s memoir, In Confidence. But there we find neither Gromyko nor his quote. What we do find, however, is Dobrynin’s assertion that Ustinov believed “that the Reagan administration was actively preparing for war.””
Endnotes citing evidence that does not exist when checked and the omission of relevant facts that contradict the author’s thesis is scholarly sloppiness (if not downright academic fraud) – not mere “ideological disagreement.”