Right Wingers are Kind of Funny Sometimes
Sometimes, when right-wingers try to predict how progressives would react to hypotheticals, they are so oddly mistaken that it makes me wonder if they have any understanding at all of non-reptilian thought-processes.
The latest example comes from one of the more reasonable right-wingers, my blog-friend Rhymes with Right. "Could You Imagine The Outrage…", he headlines before carrying on with, "If a GOP president-elect selected one of Sirhan Sirhan’s lawyers for an important role on his White House? I think we all know that there would have been a serious shit-storm over such a choice."
This reaction was inspired because Obama has chosen Gregory Craig as White House counsel, and Mr. Craig has done some excellent legal work in some controversial cases. Read the post if you want to enjoy the outrage of someone who apparently does not understand the fact that good lawyers take on tough cases and unpopular clients.
His imagined reaction is quite funny, really. It would never occur to me to be upset if Harriet Meiers had successfully represented Sirhan Sirhan - in fact, if the Bush administration had done a better job of choosing people for competence rather than for rigid doctrinal purity, our country would be in a far better place than it is today. Competence is a good thing in our world, and so is the ability to work in a world of some complexity.
But a portion of the right-wing will never get that. They assume that we are just as shallow and knee-jerk as they are, which only bolsters their black and white world view. It's sad, really.
(Note - lest I be accused of painting with too broad a brush, I realize that not all Republicans are so simplistic in their understanding. This is representative of only one of the patches in the quilt that is the Republican party.)
Labels: republicans, right wing
posted by Dan at 11/20/2008 07:15:00 AM
23 Comments:
The sad fact, Dan, is that Rhymes with Right is exactly right here. There would be a shit-storm.
You're a lawyer, Dan, as am I. I understand the role of the lawyer in representing a client, even a controversial one. You understand it. Most do not, on either side of the political divide.
Good lawyers indeed take hard cases, but let's not imagine that there would be no fallout from those hard cases, were an 'evil' Republican have taken them. The usual moonbats would have a cow, and the usual compliant media would promote the "scandalous history."
But IOKIYAD. Or an Obamaton.
Ya gotta love the poor right wingers. They are absolutely apoplectic that not only are the democrats firmly in control of both houses of congress, not only will there be a democrat in the White House, but he's black! And his middle name is Hussein! And a huge majority of American citizens are ecstatic about it!
They are so beside themselves with sputtering disbelief that they are grasping at the flimsiest of straws to keep from drowning in their own bile.
Like the fact that the new AG (also a black man), who is a lawyer, actually worked for a time AS a lawyer, doing despicable lawyerly things like actually defending a client in court! The bastard!
All good Republicans know that the only honorable career path for a lawyer is as a Prosecuter, punishing evil-doers!
That whole business of defendants being entitled to representation by a lawyer is an abomination right up there with Rove v. Wade.
Unsolicited advice to the right wingers...pace yourself, boys and girls. It's going to be a long 8 years for you. Don't shoot your wad before he even takes the oath.
"Failed Automaker"70, you are wrong and Dan is right on this one. Clinton nominated Zoe Baird for AG, and the reason she got shot down wasn't because she represented a nuclear arms manufacturer or an insurance company (corporate evil in its worst form), but because she hired undocumented workers.
Really, truly, the liberals are much smarter than the right-wingers are on this point.
The liberals even support the ACLU when they back rightwingers in trouble. That's just the way we roll.
By the way, you really ought to come up with your own term, instead of lamely converting IOKIYAR.
XO
I don't know what planet you live on, but please go back to it.
Kingsfield:
P-lease. "That's just the way we roll." Yea. Big eye-roll. Climb off the moral superiority horse, and smell the shit.
Taking on controversial clients and causes is not bad lawyering, nor makes one a bad person. Indeed, lawyers can, should, and do exactly that. And no one, XO, more than prosecutors understands the need for competent defense counsel.
You've indeed missed my point (probably by intent; you're likely not that stupid). The point is not that the new AG's prior work disqualifies him from being AG. It's that if a Republican nominated someone with similar controversial prior work, there would be a shit-storm from the left. And the media would lap it up.
And he's right.
Well, GMC, don't fret about it--repubs' rigid doctrinal purity tests would never allow an appointment to anyone who had been involved with such a pariah, so you will be spared the reaction. And Dan, you may be right that not every repub would react this way; but by the time the current purge is over, you will probably not.
The following is from a New Republic story on the right wing terrors over the non-existent move to revive the Fairness Doctrine--no one seems able to find a dem of any prominence or influence who's interested in it--but I think it fits nicely into the "dems would be worse if tables were turned" whining:
"Democrats may scratch their heads over why this has lately become a right-wing obsession, but the paranoia is not without precedent. The prospect of being in the opposition often brings out the worst in conservatives -- paranoia and self-pity. Plus, when the conservative coalition seems threatened, there's no better way to unify the party than scaring up liberal bogeymen."
les, you should look a little further than New Republic.
Dem Senator: Fairness Doctrine Is A "Higher Calling"
57 or is it now 58 dem Senators, and i guess Bingaman is not "a dem of any prominence or influence who's interested in it".
XO - The race card is getting real old. I didn't hear comparable comments when Condoleeza Rice got the top job in Bush's cabinet...but of course Republican appointed black politicians and leaders like Condoleeza and Michael Steele and Colin Powell don't count, do they.
Nice try, anon. 1 out of 57 or 58 Senators. Publicly not interested: the President elect, Senate majority leader, House Speaker, head of the DNC, on and on. But you just keep that Scary Black Man fear thing going--the longer you stick with nonsense, the longer we don't have to worry about another repub administration. I suggest you listen to Limbaugh a lot. Oh, did you know "they" are coming to take your guns away? Run and hide!!!
Les -
Read my comment again.
You "progressives" must indeed be as stupid as I feared. You missed the point. Again.
But then, the point doesn't fit your world view, so you'll just ignore it. How convenient.
BTW - that was me. Hit the wrong button. Please forgive me, Oh progressive Titans of Goodness and Light!!
GM, I did read your post. My reply intended to convey that not only was your attempt to mind read the response of a group you clearly don't comprehend predictably lame, inaccurate and laughable, but that your hypothetical was so ridiculous as to make the whole exercise even more than usually pointless. Sorry I was too cryptic for you.
"My reply intended to convey that not only was your attempt to mind read the response of a group you clearly don't comprehend predictably lame, inaccurate and laughable, but that your hypothetical was so ridiculous as to make the whole exercise even more than usually pointless."
WTF??? The comment above is exactly why children should not be permitted to blog. They try to use "big words" but end up with mindless dribble.
Les -
I "comprehend" this group exactly. You're not hard to read at all; in fact, progressives are mind-numbingly simple.
Case in point is here; you still missed the point. And your "explanation" was perfectly summed up by Anon at 5:35.
Actually, Dan, I do understand that lawyers take challenging cases. After all, I do teach for a college level legal studies program, not just high school. And having had many friends who are lawyers, including one who was a member of the Dahmer defense team.
I thought you might be one, but your personally insulting and demeaning rhetoric indicates I was sadly mistaken. So much for your regular claim to take the high road in your blogging.
My point, Dan, is that some professional activities, even if ethical, are indicative of an approach to the law and one's country that should send up red flags.
It appears this unworthy appointee seeks out cases in which he defends those who attack our government, our military personnel, our national security, and human rights. Now he sits in the White House as the chief legal advisor to the president. Incredible!
I've stated in the past that I hope Barack Obama has a long life. But if, God forbid, Obama's life is cut short by an assassin's bullet, i would equally object to the appointment of his defense attorney to any position in a Republican administration.
Rhymes - I would have no such objection, if the person were competent and otherwise appropriate for the position. The fact that you would make such a claim is exactly why my post is so accurate.
GM, not even you are "mind numbingly simple." You claim to predict what "progressives" would do, in the face of several of them telling you you're wrong; you can't back up your hypothetical with a single example; you're just repeating the talking points, with neither experience nor evidence behind it. Now, like anon at 10:43, you can probably go find a single example--probably a commenter, maybe even a blog post--and wave it around to "prove" what all the "progressives" would do. That would only compound the stupidity, but hey. At the risk of stretching your vocabulary again, the plural of anecdote is not data.
les,
You can't see much when your head is up your ass. Can you?
You said; "The following is from a New Republic story on the right wing terrors over the non-existent move to revive the Fairness Doctrine--no one seems able to find a dem of any prominence or influence who's interested in it".
I proved that statement to be false!
You responded with; "Nice try, anon. 1 out of 57 or 58 Senators."
Is a Senator NOT "a dem of any prominence or influence"?
Now for the icing on the cake.
Sen. Diane Feinstein said “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”
Sen. Dick Durbin said “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
Sen. Charles Shumer also supports reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.
If a dem of any prominence or influence makes a statement, and les doesn't take the time to recognize such; does it mean they did not make the comment, or is les ignorant when it comes to the facts?
When did they make those statements?
Dates please, and sources.
Don't be offended, but you know, you right-wing-nut-bag-fundie- rapture-righters can't be trusted with the facts.
I mean really -
You beleive the Flintstones is based in fact and history. Your types need to be treated with a fair amount of caution and skepticism.
scuse me, "The Flintstones ARE based on real facts and history..."
mainstream,
Here's a couple of links for you.
Schumer on Fox: Fairness Doctrine ‘fair and balanced’
"Fairness Doctrine" -- Feinstein Outlawing Talk Radio
Just google the Senator's name AND Fairness Doctrine. I'm sure you'll find plenty of sources.
Here is a question that will prove the point that Dan is wrong.
What was the confirmation vote for Janet Reno, and what was it for John Ashcroft? And who was more qualified (regardless of ideaology)?
Craig - sorry, but your point doesn't relate to the claim Rhymes with Right made. Partisanship certainly factored into Ashcroft's vote, but not an iota about who he had formerly represented. In Ashcroft's case, it was a combination of partisanship and the fact that his Senate colleagues disliked his regal and haughty approach toward other people. But nobody ever claimed he competently represented Sirhan Sirhan, or anyone else interesting.
Post a Comment
<< Home