Category Archives: Civility

A Brad’s Blog primer

19 Replies

Noticing that this recent post had attracted some first-time-readers, I thought I’d greet them and give them a quick orientation. And the message I wrote sort of said some stuff that it might be good to remind everybody of occasionally. So I hereby elevate that quick primer to separate-post status:

Marie, Joshua, thanks for joining us. Sorry you’re disappointed, Joshua, but bear with us. And Marie, what part of Tampa are you from? I went to high school for two years there. Robinson High. A long, long time ago.

It occurs to me to give y’all a quick primer on what we’re about here. I’m the editorial page editor of South Carolina’s largest newspaper. We (the newspaper’s editorial board) endorsed John McCain in the GOP primary, and Barack Obama in the Democratic — and had the happy satisfaction of seeing both of our candidates win.

I think the possibility of an Obama-McCain contest in the fall will be the closest thing to a no-lose situation that I’ve seen in my adult lifetime — and I first voted in 1972.

This doesn’t mean being blind to either candidate’s faults. I’m turned off by McCain’s pandering on gas taxes, and Obama has a problem with Mr. Wright — no wishing that away.

Sometime folks come here and have trouble getting their bearings, trying to decide whether this blog goes to the right or the left. Neither. I’m the founder of the UnParty, sometimes also known as the Energy Party — depending on the subject at hand. I’ve also been known to call it the Grownup Party. I’m basically fed up with both the Democrats and the Republicans, although I like some individuals in both parties.

Anyway, welcome.

I should add this: I try, I really try, to encourage a certain level of civility around here. I also try to discourage pointless, cliche-ridden partisan back-and-forth slogan-chanting of the sort you can get out on your ordinary, run-of-the-mill blogs.

But I’ve been pretty laissez-faire about it lately, and it seemed like time to crack heads. So I deleted a couple of, shall we way, less-than-constructive comments back on this post, and banned the posters. Just so y’all know. One was obviously beyond the pale (both the "N" word and the "F" word crowded into a surprisingly short, and distressingly unoriginal, composition), and the other was someone who had demonstrated time and again that he was not here in good faith.

The great thing is that I haven’t had to do that in awhile. I’m not sure whether that’s because y’all have all become so profound and high-minded, or I’ve just gotten more callous. Anyway, thanks for what most of y’all do.

One last thing — to get full value out of the blog, you’ve gotta follow the links…

In Hillary’s defense, it DOES work…

39 Replies

When it comes to my preference for Barack Obama in the contest for the Democratic nomination, I refuse to take a back seat to those worthies on the editorial board of The New York Times. However, I must protest that their urgent yearning for Hope and Change caused them to ignore rather obvious realities earlier this week:

    The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.
    Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

When you say "Voters are getting tired of it," you mean you are getting tired of it, as am I. (Sure, you can say Obama still leads nationally poll, but "national" doesn’t count until November, and even then it’s state by state.) And yes, it’s demeaning, but this is politics, ya know.

And you’ve gotta hand it to the lady: It does work. It certainly did on Tuesday, anyway.

He DID wag his finger — he actually DID!

8 Replies

Campaign_2008_bill_cl_wart

You folks who watch TV probably already knew this, but Bill Clinton actually did wag his finger at us in an attempt at morally-superior, above-the-fray admonishment. Here’s the video.

My mistake was in thinking the Times’ "finger-wagging" reference was to theClinton_2008_wart
radio interview, which means I read it too fast the first time. This was in response to the radio interview. Or in response to the response — whatever.

Yeah, you can miss stuff, not watching TV. But it’s usually not anything worth seeing… it’s mostly just tit-for-tat, tat-for-tit, nonsense feeding upon itself.

You know, if Bill keeps this up, I’m going to have to give him his own category here on the blog…

‘Hillary-style attacks’

16 Replies

We at the UnParty continue to be fascinated at the ways in which party-line thinking warps perception…

You may have noticed that Democrats talk ominously and often about the coming "Republican attacks." There is much mumbling about "Swiftboating" and "Karl Rove," and other things that to bear no rational relationship to the fact that the Democratic nominee will be facing John McCain in the fall.

As is often the case with ideological mythology, almost anything is justified in the cause of warding off these dread calamities that lie ahead. Hillary Clinton uses the belief that such atrocities are on the way as an excuse to pound Barack Obama with various bludgeons that the wicked GOPpers will certainly hit him with sooner or later. The message here is that those monsters on the right have already thrown everything they have at HER ("having now gone through 16 years of being on the receiving end of what the Republican Party dishes out"), thereby giving her immunity or something. (I think you have to believe in the mythology to follow the reasoning.)

In the black-and-white world that gives rise to such thinking, there is no difference between Karl Rove and John McCain. Anyone who consents to be called a Republican is equally evil, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln. That McCain, who has been a victim of such excesses as the Democrats fear, might be different does not enter into the equation.

Will groups on the Right do unconscionable things against the Democratic nominee in the Fall? You betcha, just as MoveOn.org and its ilk will do to the Republican — a fact that purveyors of the Coming Debacle seem to overlook. What each side will do in the name of ideology will be reprehensible, as always — that’s why I’m an UnParty man. Sadly, I don’t expect much from Democrats and Republicans.

But sometimes, it just gets beyond ridiculous, such as when Joe Klein refers to "the Republican-style attacks that Hillary Clinton has been previewing…"

No, Joe. This is not a preview; this is real life, happening in real time. And it’s Hillary doing it. These are, quite obviously and demonstrably, "Hillary-style" attacks. Or perhaps we should say, "Stephanopoulos-style attacks." Here’s a sample, from Wednesday night’s debate:

And if I’m not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn’t done more. And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died. So it is — you know, I think it is, again, an issue that people will be asking about. And I have no doubt — I know Senator Obama’s a good man and I respect him greatly but I think that this is an issue that certainly the Republicans will be raising.

And it goes to this larger set of concerns about, you know, how we are going to run against John McCain. You know, I wish the Republicans would apologize for the disaster of the Bush-Cheney years and not run anybody, just say that it’s time for the Democrats to go back into the White House. (Laughter, applause.)

Unfortunately, they don’t seem to be willing to do that. So we know that they’re going to be out there, full force. And you know, I’ve been in this arena for a long time. I have a lot of baggage, and everybody has rummaged through it for years. (Laughter.) And so therefore, I have, you know, an opportunity to come to this campaign with a very strong conviction and feeling that I will be able to withstand whatever the Republican sends our way.

Not the SHE would say such things about Obama, he being such a good man, but you just can’t trust those damned Republicans. Folks, how simple do you have to be to miss the fact that SHE JUST SAID THESE THINGS?

What’s really pathetic is that they’ve got Obama buying into this line, and I would expect him to know better. Klein quotes Obama as saying, "That [debate] was the rollout of the Republican campaign against me in November…"

No, it was the real thing, happening in April, and it was Democrats doing it. Can’t you see that? Folks, this is why I trash parties all the time — they turn our brains to oatmeal.

You want to see a "Republican-style attack?" OK, here’s a real-life one that came in today:

Wednesday’s Democratic debate provided insight into Barack Obama’s positions on key foreign policy issues. As president he says he would immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq- even if he were strongly advised against this by our nation’s top military commanders. He would also hold direct talks with the Iranian regime- a regime that does not recognize Israel and is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Iran’s president has even called for Israel to be "wiped off the map." 

During the debate, Barack Obama once again refused to condemn former President Jimmy Carter- who publicly supports Obama- for holding talks with the Hamas terrorist group, a group supported financially, politically and military by Iran.

Barack Obama’s foreign policy plans have even won him praise from Hamas leaders. Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Hamas Prime Minister said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election. He has a vision to change America."

We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas, surrenders in Iraq and will hold unconditional talks with Iranian President Ahmadinejad.

John McCain’s foreign policy provides a stark contrast to the policies of Barack Obama. As president, John McCain will provide the leadership we need to win the war against Islamic extremists. We need your help today to reach out to Americans across the country to spread the message of John McCain’s plan for your national security. Please follow this link to make a financial contribution to our campaign today.

Yep, it’s another one of those McCain fund-raising e-mails I’ve been complaining about lately. It’s pretty critical, all right, but you’ll note that it’s built around policy differences. Nothing about bitter xenophobia in Middle America, or Bill Ayres, or Jeremiah Wright. And you know, McCain had to go out of his way to find something in that debate to comment on other than those things, since most of the debate centered on them.

That doesn’t mean McCain won’t point to the fact that he doesn’t see average Americans as bitter; in fact I think he already has. But now, he declines an obvious chance to join Hillary in piling on.

I just thought maybe somebody should point that out.

A black, Jewish Texan walks into a police station…

4 Replies

… and ends up cleaning up the whole town.

A reader sent me a link to this article that reminds us of the accomplishments of Reuben Greenberg, who had such a distinguished career as police chief in Charleston. As we mull over just how big a mess the Columbia police department is in these days, and view the latest Highway Patrol video, we might long for such a top cop:

Reuben Greenberg was undoubtedly the ultimate "man bites dog" story, for what could be more unlikely than a black, observant Jew from Texas transforming a city in the heart of the Confederacy from a crime-ridden center of corruption to a uniquely well-managed place that cracked down on crime at the same time it virtually eliminated police brutality — and even rudeness? Greenberg told his cops that their job was not to punish (that was up to the courts), but to make arrests, and in order to do that they had to be on good terms with the citizens. Thus, he said early on in his memorable tenure, he would defend a policeman for using "excessive force" to make an arrest, but he would fire anyone who used abusive language with a citizen.

Runyan concession letter

3 Replies

Catching up with e-mail, I ran into this from Wednesday:

CAMERON A. RUNYAN

                                                    02 April 2008
Dear Mr. Rickenmann,
    Congratulations on your re-election to the Columbia City Council. Like me, I am sure that you are very grateful to your many supporters. Although I needed to limit my run for this important office to only a few months and ran a campaign built on small donations and many volunteer hours, I am pleased with the result. Our joint appearances raised many important issues, addressed a number of significant concerns, and challenged voters to consider what priorities they want to see addressed as we look to the future of our great city.
    At times our conversations were spirited – as they should have been. We disagreed on many matters. And that is as it should be. We owed our constituents our directness, our honesty and our zeal as we challenged each other and offered differing visions for the city. We each presented a unique set of experiences and skills to be applied to Office of City Council Person.
    While my support grew steadily throughout the campaign from 11 percent in its first days to 42 percent last night, it is clear that a majority of voters considered you worthy of a second term. I hope it is one marked by an overriding concern for the needs of our citizens.
    I stand ready to be of assistance as you and your fellow council members grapple with how to ensure that every tax dollar is spent carefully with citizens able to access information related to this easily and in a timely manner. I stand ready to be of assistance as you all weigh in on the future development of Five Points especially in regards to the clean up of the recently identified contamination at the Kenny’s site and as you gather all the pertinent information regarding the best use of the property. I stand ready to be of assistance as the Council addresses safety in our city through innovative gang intervention programs, an expansion of the number of police officers on the streets, better pay and benefits for our officers to encourage retention, and the study of the establishment of a police reserve/auxiliary like those in our county and in so many other cities in this state.
    I believe in local political action as the first step in any national movement toward reform. I will stay actively involved and committed to my city and its people. Call on me if I can be of help. I look forward to continued engagement with you and your fellow Council Members in the years ahead.
Respectfully,
Cameron Runyan
PO Box 1933 • Columbia, SC 29202

Graham slaps down Sanford again — politely

15 Replies

You’ll recall Lindsey Graham’s rebuke to his old friend Mark Sanford last week over the governor’s continuing efforts to divide the Republican Party.

As you can see on the video, he was polite and used mild language, but the rebuke was fairly firm nonetheless. Obviously, the Senator had decided it was time for someone to act like a party leader rather than an insurgent.

Well, he’s done it again, this time over the South Carolina reaction to Real ID. This release came in late Monday:

March 31, 2008

Graham on REAL ID and South Carolina
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) made this statement on South Carolina and REAL ID. 
    Graham said:
    “I am pleased South Carolina has been granted an extension by Secretary Chertoff regarding REAL ID compliance.  The decision was more than justified. 
    “The Governor has done an excellent job in explaining his concerns to federal officials, many of which I share.  Our state already meets 16 of the 18 compliance benchmarks – about 90 percent — called for in REAL ID.  Governor Sanford’s efforts to reform our state drivers’ license program has made the system more secure and efficient.
     “REAL ID grew out of recommendations made by the 9-11 Commission over the need for more secure forms of identification.  It was viewed as an effective means of cracking down on the use of fraudulent documents like those used by the 9/11 hijackers.  In addition, REAL ID would make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to obtain employment by tightening acceptable forms of identification.
    “I will do my part to help ensure the federal government addresses the unfunded mandate burden imposed on the states by REAL ID.  Governors and state legislatures across the country are rightfully concerned about these requirements.   
    “However, in this age of international terrorism we must secure the homeland.  We need better identification to protect air travel, access to federal buildings, institutions, and other high value terrorist targets.
    “I believe we can accommodate the legitimate national security needs of our nation with the concerns raised by Governor Sanford and the state legislature.” 

                    #####

As he said, there’s no excuse for unfunded mandates. At the same time, we need a better identification system for citizens, both for national security and immigration control reasons.

He points out that for all the hollering, South Carolina is already most of the way to compliance.

And as he concludes, we can address these important matters without all the ideological posturing and brinksmanship. We just have to act like grownups.

That trooper was hardly alone

8 Replies

Don’t think there was anything particularly rare about the language that trooper used in the notorious video.

Warren Bolton says he’s gotten "some pretty interesting feedback on my trooper column" in today’s paper. He shared this "gem" with me a little while ago:

Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 2:47 PM
To: Bolton, Warren
Subject: Re: Trooper’s actions

Bolton;
The only thing that trooper did wrong was in not shooting the bastard down. At least that would have put one less nigger crimmal [sic] out of business.
Val Green

Warren gets this sort of thing all too often. So perhaps you can see why he worries that, as he said in his column today, "we’re not there yet" in the year 2008.

Who can resist a rebuttal of such deft sensibility?

8 Replies

Rebuttal_001

Do you, like Katon Dawson, believe last week’s editorial regarding our governor and the veep rumors was lacking in delicacy and tact?

Well, you’ll be gratified to know that I’ve had my comeuppance.

Just a few minutes ago, I opened a manila envelope addressed to me that contained what looked like a flattened sheet of bloody pulp. This, of course, is always the sign of a carefully considered observation regarding the offerings on our daily pages.

This one was unusual in that the expansive thoughts of the writer demanded use of the entire page, even though the item being addressed occupied only a small portion of it. To make sure I didn’t miss what the writer was referring to, two bold red Xes were placed tastefully on either side of the editorial’s headline, and that part of the page (and only that part of the page) was left free of red ink.

All was not as it appeared, however. Although it would seem to the untutored eye to be the work of a single hand and a singular mind, the reader is boldly assured that it expresses the views of

"AVERY LARGE GROUP OF Gov. MARK SANFORD SUPPORTERS."

Just so you know. The message is, beyond that, unattributed, which unfortunately bars me from sending a "thank you" note.

Anyway, the writer(s) maintain(s) that Mr. Sanford would make a wonderful running mate for the GOP nominee, and that rather than running down such an idea, we should instead spend our ink criticizing "some of the bad hoodlum-type individuals," because after all, "there are many of them."

There’s also some stuff about the Real ID that I can’t fully make out (on account of it being written over a lot of type and all), but which seems based in an incomplete understanding of our position on the issue, as expressed in an editorial the day before the Sanford/veep piece.

But our message in the Sanford piece seems to have gotten across quite clearly. I can at least take satisfaction from that.

McCain’s apology for his jerk supporter

27 Replies


Several things strike me as interesting about the incident yesterday in which John McCain ended up apologizing for and condemning a supporter who spoke before him at a campaign rally — some loudmouthed right-wing radio guy who kept using Barack Obama’s middle name and excoriating him and Democrats in general:

  • First, the headlines — in The Washington Post, it was "McCain Supporter Ridicules Obama. In The Wall Street Journal, it was "McCain Apologizes for a Supporter’s Attack on Obama." Not important; the difference in emphasis just struck me as interesting.
  • Second, this is going to keep happening. As "conservatives" (a word that jerks like this one don’t deserve) get over their snit and climb on board with the McCain campaign between now and November, they’re going to bring this kind of garbage with them. Ditto with the more angry, partisan Democrats who will start supporting Obama once it is clear that Hillary Clinton (such Democrats’ preferred candidate) is truly out of it.
  • Both McCain and Obama owe much of their appeal to a desire on the part of voters to put this kind of thing behind us as a country. As they try to consolidate their bases, bringing in the fulminators, independents will be watching both of them closely to see how they handle it. It will be quite a highwire act — two highwire acts, actually.
  • This one was handled fairly well, on both sides. McCain said what he said, and Obama’s spokesman said, "We appreciate Senator McCain’s remarks. It is a sign that if there is a McCain-Obama general election, it can be intensely competitive but the candidates will attempt to keep it respectful and focused on issues."

That’s what I’m hoping for, at least.

Harpootlian says he’s ‘handcuffed’ in opposing Clintons’ ‘Eddie Haskell’ campaign

2 Replies

Colbert_083

"We’re handcuffed," moans Dick Harpootlian about his role in "truth-squadding" Bill Clinton’s whoppers about Obama.

"I’m ready to rip ’em a new one," he says, but the Obama campaign is holding him back. But entirely, though, this being Dick.

"I’ve dubbed the Clinton campaign the ‘Eddie Haskell Campaign,’ for claiming to want to run a clean campaign, then trashing Obama in the next breath. It’s like they’re saying, "Nice dress, Mrs. Cleaver," and as soon as she leaves the room, "Hey, Beav, your Mom looks like s__t." He says the strategy clearly is to turn voters off enough to suppress turnout.

So how, exactly, is Dick being restrained? "No one’s talked about 8 years in the White House," he says. OK, Dick, so what about their 8 years in the White House?

Dick says he can’t say. Apparently, if he does, Mom and Dad will give him the business.

On a personal note, let me add that today is Dick’s birthday, and he’s 59. I guess that’s why he’s expected to act all grown up and stuff now. This has him saying unDicklike things such as, "I really, really, really was shocked at the tactics they’ve employed in recent weeks."

Next thing ya know, he’ll be referring to Lumpy as "Clarence."

Colbert_079

She Stoops to Conquer

7 Replies

Clintonista Robert Reich is a little disappointed in his old friend Hillary, as he writes on his blog in a post headlined, "Why is HRC Stooping So Low?"

… Yesterday, HRC suggested O lacks courage. "There’s a big difference
between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we’re
willing to fight for," she told reporters in Iowa, saying Iowa voters
will have a choice "between someone who talks the talk, and somebody
who’s walked the walk." Then asked whether she intended to raise
questions about O’s character, she said: "It’s beginning to look a lot
like that."

I just don’t get it. If there’s anyone in the race
whose history shows unique courage and character, it’s Barack Obama.
HRC’s campaign, by contrast, is singularly lacking in conviction about
anything. Her pollster, Mark Penn, has advised her to take no bold
positions and continuously seek the political center, which is exactly
what she’s been doing.

All is fair in love, war, and politics.
But this series of slurs doesn’t serve HRC well. It will turn off
voters in Iowa, as in the rest of the country. If she’s worried her
polls are dropping, this is not the way to build them back up.

To the extent that he’s got a point, it’s related to the point I was making back here. Obama continues to be, by comparison to his chief rival, the guy who’s following the high road. And it seems to be paying off for him, finally.

McCain on Murtha

5 Replies


This video clip, poor as the quality is thanks to the dim lighting at Hudson’s Smokehouse in Lexington last night, reminds me of a discussion we had regarding the "b-word" clip a couple of weeks back.

Some, who are not inclined to think as highly of John McCain as I do, tended to think of the way he spoke of fellow Sen. Hillary Clinton — with sober, collegial respect — AFTER he regained his composure as the phony part of that earlier clip. I saw it as consistent with the way Sen. McCain talks about everybody. Respecting others, regardless of political differences, is an essential part of the man’s character.

Here we see another partisan gathering — a larger one this time — and another case in which an apparent supporter tees up an opportunity for the candidate to trash a political opponent. In this case, it was someone asking about John Murtha’s past comments with regard to the conduct of American troops in Iraq.

Without the flustering factor of the profane language in that earlier incident, McCain answers in a way typical of him: He soberly expresses his respect for Congressman Murtha (in the same tone in which he expressed his respect for Sen. Clinton, the same tone in which he generally speaks of other people), then expresses his strong disagreement with the congressman and other Democrats on policy.

This speaks to the essence of what I am always seeking in political discourse — the kind of civility in which ideas can be discuss, and even debated fiercely, without the distraction of ad hominem bashing.

You don’t normally see this sort of clip, and with good reason — it’s not an explosion or a pratfall, and it doesn’t break new ground. McCain says things he says all the time. But my point, is that day in and day out, this is the way he speaks of people with whom he disagrees.

Could our politics actually get uglier? I’m afraid so

30 Replies

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
LAST WEEK, a woman in Hilton Head asked John McCain a question that referred to Hillary Clinton by a five-letter word for a female dog.
    Sen. McCain reacted about the way many guys would: He tried to keep his composure, failed momentarily, then finally mastered himself enough to say, very soberly and sincerely, that he had the highest respect for his Senate colleague. And after a priggish CNN announcer’s failure to portray Sen. McCain as being to blame in the incident, and the McCain campaign’s lame attempt to parlay that into sympathy and campaign contributions, the whole thing sort of faded, making way for the next round of spin-cycle nonsense.
    But the incident still worries me, for reasons that have nothing to do with who called whom what, or how anybody responded.
    I worry that it never occurred to anyone to wonder to whom the obnoxious question referred. I worry that within 24 hours of the clip appearing on YouTube, there was a Web site up selling T-shirts emblazoned with that question. I worry that there are those who will buy such T-shirts, and that such people increasingly define the tone of political discourse.
    The same day that the “b-word” incident came to my attention, an op-ed piece appeared in The Wall Street Journal headlined “The Insanity of Bush Hatred.” Those who call themselves “liberals” will now snort in derision and say, “That’s The Wall Street Journal for you!” But it was actually a pleasingly dispassionate treatment of the subject by a professor named Peter Berkowitz who looks about at some of his colleagues and worries about “the damage hatred inflicts on the intellect.” I worry more about the damage it inflicts on our republic.
    Mr. Berkowitz, after noting that “Hating the president is almost as old as the republic itself… Reagan hatred, Nixon hatred, LBJ hatred,” and so forth, frets that “Bush hatred is different,” because of the way many intellectuals have not only embraced that impulse, but endorsed it as a virtue, and proclaimed “that their hatred is not only a rational response to the president and his administration but a mark of good moral hygiene.”
    I see it as something else — the next, more virulent stage of the political disease once known as “Clinton hatred,” which itself was qualitatively uglier than previous forms of political resentment, within my lifetime at least. I trace the onset of symptoms to the first days after the 1992 elections, when “Don’t blame me; I voted for Bush” started appearing on late-model cars.
    And things just got worse from there. Many Republicans never accepted that Bill Clinton was the president of their country, and for eight years treated him as though he were the illegitimate leader of some enemy nation. I thought things couldn’t get worse, and looked forward to the end of the Clinton era as a time when partisans could regain their sanity.
    Lord help me, I was so wrong. From Day One — nay, before Day One of the Bush presidency — there was a virulence aimed at the man like nothing I could have imagined. And no, it’s not about the Iraq War. I can recall asking colleagues, before Sept. 11, 2001, to help me get my mind around why so many Democrats hated the man so. This was actually qualitatively worse than what I’d seen aimed at Clinton, and that floored me.
    I wish I could believe that the Bush-haters are right, that there is something — or many things — about the man that make such passionate dislike rational. I would like to think that because the alternative possibility — that this is a degenerative national syndrome that feeds on itself, and gets worse with each shift of power — is just too awful.
    Except for a precious few days in the fall of 2001, this savage polarization of the electorate has crippled our national will in a time of great crisis, a time when we need to be taking difficult actions — from waging war to retooling our economy away from oil — that are unachievable without strong consensus.
    At this point some Democratic readers are getting steamed, thinking I’m blaming them. But I don’t care whether it’s their fault, or Mr. Bush’s. There’s plenty of blame to go around, much of it of the well-deserved variety.
    I’m more concerned about the effect. I’m worried that the most polarizing individual in the Democratic Party is, day by day, looking more certain to be that party’s nominee. And that is not to blame Mrs. Clinton — it’s just a fact that if she is the nominee, we’re on a downhill rush toward a general election of such bitterness that it may make us nostalgic for 2000. And I’m not sure there is anything that either she or the GOP nominee will be able to do or say to stop it. What do you do about a Zeitgeist in which a woman is unashamed to ask a candidate, publicly, the question that was asked of Sen. McCain last week?
    As I look upon the threats to our nation’s future — our dependence on tyrants’ oil, the rise of Islamofascism, the relentless rivalries of a booming China and an aggressive Russia descending again into authoritarianism — there is one menace that looms more urgently than others: the possibility that the partisan bitterness militating against rational discussion of policy in this country could get worse.

Is the ‘b-word’ EVER defensible?

16 Replies

As I share this, I’m working on a Sunday column about incivility in politics, and I use this incident involving John McCain as an anecdotal lede, and I’m now at the point of whittling down that part so that the column gets to the point a bit more quickly. Anyway, before throwing out this digression completely, I thought I’d share it to provoke a separate discussion on the blog:

    Authorities differ about whether anyone should ever use
the female-dog word. I certainly never do, unless I’m using it as a substitute
for the verb “to gripe,” and then only in impolite company. I do, however,
understand the word (when used by others) to refer, in extreme circumstances,
to a woman who is acting like a man whom I might, under similar circumstances,
refer to by a seven-letter word for the lower end of the human digestive
system. I’ve always sort of thought that (female-dog word) was the feminine
form of (word for the thing that dim-witted people can’t distinguish from a
hole in the ground). But certain linguists of the female persuasion insist that
it is never an acceptable word, and I am sensitive to that, without
being as big a prig as the guy on CNN, because I really don’t want those women
on my case.

Basically, I decided that my heavy-handed attempt to have a little fun at the expense of political correctness wasn’t worth the space it was taking up. So I put it here, where space is unlimited.

To conclude: It’s a bad word, no question. And I don’t use it, even when I’m being foul-mouthed, because so many women have told me it’s not like other words. I think they’re wrong, of course. I still think that it’s on a par with the words we use to describe men when they are being big jerks. But women I know seem to get hurt and upset when the word is used, even when not aimed at them, and even though I’ll never, ever understand why women identify like that with all other women, because I have never felt that way about other men (guys who are jerks are just jerks; end of story), I defer to the thing I don’t understand.

How about you?

 

How do we give this guy a virtual slap up ‘side the head?

2 Replies

Normally, I just delete comment-spam and notify Typepad — there’s a button to click on that does both at the same time, not that it does any good in the long run, because the stuff keeps coming.

But this one is so timely, so relevant, so enterprising, so egregious, so offensive that I just have to take note of it.

Someone reacted to this post with a comment steering us to this site — to save you from clicking on it, I’ll just tell you that the site features T-shirts in various styles, all bearing the offensive question spoken by the woman (the obnoxious woman, the woman that I struggle to find a word to describe) in the video.

This is a specimen of the disease eating away at our body politic. This slimeball might actually make some money off of this. Meanwhile, people who care about this country worry that if Mrs. Clinton (or anyone else with the name "Clinton" or "Bush") is elected, we might actually see an escalation of the virulent partisanship of the past 15 years, if that is possible — all because of the kind of people who would ask this question, or have such T-shirts printed up, or, worse, buy the damned things.

Looking at that Web site makes me want to reach through my laptop and give somebody a good slap up ‘side the head. I wanna go all ad hominem on ’em. But I don’t know how.

McCain on question about beating the ‘rhymes with rich’

10 Replies


Just got this from B.J. over at the McCain campaign:

Hey Mr. Warthen –
I think you might be interested in this. Here’s the deal: On Monday in Hilton Head at a Meet & Greet, some lady asked McCain, “How do we beat the bitch?” He responded. (See Video 1) Last night, CNN’s Rick Sanchez stooped to new levels of sensationalism in reporting the incident. (See Video 2). This morning, we released a statement from Buzz Jacobs, SC Campaign Manager. (See Below) Today at noon, McCain is holding a national blogger call and this is sure to be the hot topic. I thought you might want to get on that call, so if you’re interested, please let me know ASAP and I will send you the call info.

Thanks,
BJ

I told him, yeah, I might want to listen in on that. Anything y’all want to share prior to that? Personally, my immediate reaction is that I have but one complaint about the way Sen. McCain handled it: he spoke of the nomination of the "Democrat Party," not the Democratic Party. And I think the guy on CNN talking about it makes an ass of himself.

Also, here’s the release to which B.J. referred:

STATEMENT FROM SC CAMPAIGN MANAGER ON CNN REPORT
For Immediate Release
Contact: SC Press Office
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
COLUMBIA, SC — U.S. Senator John McCain’s South Carolina campaign manager Buzz Jacobs issued the following statement in response to a report aired last evening by CNN’s Rick Sanchez:

"It is disappointing that Mr. Sanchez would choose to engage in sensationalism in the hopes of generating a story. It not only reflects poorly on him, but on CNN. If Mr. Sanchez had even the faintest perspective on the race for the White House, he would know that Senator McCain has expressed his utmost respect for Senator Clinton numerous times on the campaign trail as he did at Monday’s event in Hilton Head."

                        ###

Catholics Fed Up with Partisanship

1 Reply

At least, that (what my headline says) would probably have been the name of this group if I had been the one to start it. Or perhaps, "Catholics Cracking Heads for Civility."

But Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good is kinder and gentler than I am, so they take a more easygoing approach in their approach to promoting our common goals — more civility, more respect for reason in debates, and less mindless partisanship.

I just received a release from the group announcing that "A diverse group of prominent lay Catholics — including 11 former U.S. ambassadors and former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic National Committees — have called for a more civil tone to replace the divisive rhetoric and partisan attacks that define our national political debates." The release provided a link to the document signed by those leaders, "A Catholic Call to Observe Civility in Political Debate." So I went and read it.

You gotta love such statements as this:

  • As Catholics we must learn to disagree respectfully and without judgment to avoid rudeness in expressing our opinions to those whom we suspect will disagree with us, or in reacting to others’ expressions of opinion.
  • As Catholics we need to keep in mind the common humanity that we share with those with whom we disagree. We must avoid seeing them as "the enemy" in a life-or-death, winner-take-all political contest.
  • As Catholics we should never lose faith in the power of reason – a unique gift from God to mankind – and we should always keep ourselves open to a reasoned argument. In this spirit we should defend our views and positions with conviction and patience, but without being obnoxious or bullying.

I’m a little less certain over the signatories’ tiptoeing around the issue of whether the church should act to correct Catholics who clearly do not support the Church’s social teachings, whether it’s Democrats embracing abortion or Republicans dissing various forms of public assistance. Ultimately, I have to applaud the nuanced, soundly Catholic approach that the document takes, including the following elements:

  • It chides "Catholic politicians who advertise their Catholicism as part of their political appeal, but ignore the Church’s moral teachings in their political life…"
  • It adds that "we should not enlist the Church’s moral endorsement for our political preferences," and "we should not exhort the Church to condemn our political opponents by
    publicly denying them Holy Communion based on public dissent from
    Church teachings."
  • At the same time, it says, as "lay Catholics we should not pass judgment, and should avoid public
    statements that undermine the authority of the Church’s leaders.
    American Catholics know who their Church leaders are: their Bishops,
    Archbishops, and Cardinals." While an "individual’s fitness to receive communion is his or her personal responsibility… it is a bishop’s responsibility to set for his diocese the guidelines for administering communion."
  • In other words, it’s up to bishops whether they want to deny communion. A very Catholic answer, and I agree with it.

But… the group that’s promoting this laudable call for civility is also one that promotes Catholic Social Teaching, and I wish priests and bishops would speak from the pulpit more about our moral obligations in those regards, and do so without worrying who’s getting their feelings hurt.

It’s one thing to engage in the idiocy of the perpetual struggle for supremacy between the two, equally morally objectionable political parties. Catholics should never engage in the dumbing-down of issues or ad hominem rhetoric that the parties and their auxiliary interest groups promote. All of that is extremely destructive. (And we Catholics should challenge ourselves whenever, in others’ eyes, we are seen as guilty of this.)

But if the Church truly believes in the dignity of all human life, in our obligation to be stewards of the Earth, our duty to the poor, and so forth, then it ought to be no respecter of persons as it speaks out in a bold way that makes these positions crystal-clear. (That would of course include challenging me on my support of military action, which puts me in the position of justifying whether our presence in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else is in keeping with the Just War doctrine, or can be made to be in keeping with it.)

I realize I’m not being terribly clear myself here. OK, go back and read what I wrote about the moral instruction regarding political issues that I heard in a synagogue a couple of weeks back. No individual was trashed or called names; no political party was condemned. But it was made clear that as Jews, you are expected to believe in certain things, and act accordingly in the public sphere.

That ought to go double for Catholics. Jewishness is to some extent tied up with ethnic identity, whatever one chooses to believe. Catholicism is purely a matter of what you believe, and there should be no shyness about pointing out where Catholic teaching begins and ends, and when policy proposals are in keeping with it and when they are not.

If this petition leads to less of the vicious nonsense that I decry constantly on this blog, then praise be to God for the miracle. But I hope it will also encourage bold declarations of what is right and wrong in terms of policy, and whether a given proposal is in keeping with such standards or not.

Clark Hoyt on MoveOn.org ad

9 Replies

For bud, and for anyone else who still has
trouble understanding what was wrong with the "General Betray Us" ad,
or why a fair-minded person would call it "beyond the pale," I call
attention to this ombudsman piece in The New York Times by Clark Hoyt. An excerpt:

The Public Editor
  Betraying Its Own Best Interests
By CLARK HOYT
FOR nearly two weeks, The New York Times has been defending a political advertisement that critics say was an unfair shot at the American commander in Iraq.
    But I think the ad violated The Times’s own written standards, and the paper now says that the advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to….
    Did MoveOn.org get favored treatment from The Times? And was the ad outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse?
    The answer to the first question is that MoveOn.org paid what is
known in the newspaper industry as a standby rate of $64,575 that it
should not have received under Times policies. The group should have paid $142,083. The Times
had maintained for a week that the standby rate was appropriate, but a
company spokeswoman told me late Thursday afternoon that an advertising
sales representative made a mistake.
    The answer to the second question is that the ad appears to fly in
the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, “We
do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal
nature.”….

I have known Clark Hoyt — to say "hello" to; not much more — for over
20 years, and something I have always believed is that he is a
scrupulously fair person. If you held a gun to my head and forced me to guess his political leanings, I’d say (based on next to nothing) they were somewhat left of center, and probably anti-war.
I’m probably besmirching a fine journalist saying even that, and I
would not want to insult him. But I say it to praise him, because I have been struck by the principled stands he’s taken contrary to the advantage of such a
world view.

For instance, Clark Hoyt shared a Pulitzer Prize
for destroying the Democratic Party ticket in 1972. OK, that’s a little
blunt, but basically Clark and Bob Boyd were honored for reporting on
Thomas Eagleton’s shock treatments.

So those of you who believe in the "vast right-wing conspiracy" might
say, on the basis of these two incidents, that Mr. Hoyt is — contrary
to my poorly-founded impression — a charter member of the conspiracy.
But if that’s the case, how do you explain that Clark is the guy
responsible for all that anti-war reporting at the then-Knight Ridder
(now McClatchy) Washington bureau, for which the left has practically
canonized McClatchy? He was the bureau chief in those days.

Whatever Clark is — liberal, conservative, none of the above (my own
favorite) — his actions reveal him as scrupulously fair-minded. He’s
pretty much gored everybody’s ox when he thought they deserved it.

Bottom line, for me: If Clark says it, it’s worth paying attention to. That’s no doubt what the Times was thinking when it hired him to be its "Internal Affairs" guy.

Don’t send me snail mail!

2 Replies

Snail_003

Being a fan of history and an instinctive traditionalist to boot, it pains me to say this. There is a certain elegance and grace to the written letter, a quality that says, "You were important enough for me to go to this much trouble," that is the exclusive domain of the handwritten letter.

But while I appreciate the compliment, I simply don’t have the time to deal withSnail_002
it. As a matter of fact, I am removed by about five degrees of separation from even being able to think about having the time to deal with it. I used to have a staff person to open the mail, deal with most of it on the front end, place in my IN box the very, very few pieces that absolutely needed my attention, and then do with it whatever I decided with it (respond, file, forward) after I glanced through it and then placed it in my OUT tray. And even then I didn’t have time to deal with it. The virtual mountains of e-mail,  the press of constant meetings, the obligation to occasionally, when I could get around to it, do a wee bit of journalism, kept me from keeping up even in that system.

Now, I don’t have any of that support, so mounds of snail mail — most of it bound for the wastebin, but some of it actually in need of my attention — pile up on my desk, until such time as some emergency causes me to plow through it in search of something, and I push aside all more urgent matters just long enough to reduce the pile in one mad surge — and I promise you, if you sent me something, I don’t spend one percent of the time you spent sending it. And this makes me feel guilty, but I don’t know what to do about it.

And then, finally, there’s the problem that increasingly, I find it very hard to read. I find it hard even to read enough to determine whether I should read further. I go to the end to see the signature, go back, try to read it again, and just can’t make it out.

I don’t know whether this is because I’ve been spoiled by type, or I’m getting older and lack the mental elasticity to intuit meaning from few clues, or what.

But if you want me to read it, type it. And as long as you’re going to type it (since "type" these days means on a word processor; RARE is the note written on typewriter, and that is usually from some clinically insane person from the other end of the country), please send it electronically. Then I might, at some point, be able to get to it. I’ll do my best, anyway.

NOTE: The illegible (to me) sample I’ve included here is from someone from out-of-state; I didn’t wish to to embarrass a regular reader or anyone identifiable.

Snail_001