Doctor, it hurts when I go *like this*
Fitting in with my “right wing idiocy” theme today, Rosemary Esmay has a startling revelation: Howard Dean is short! True proof that he is a poisonous demagogue out to destroy everything we hold dear in this country. How dare he!
The thing is, if that’s the best they’ve got, then bring it on, baby.
short people rule!
The photo is funny. Nice of you to make up the second part, then argue against it.
I didn’t make up the second part – “poisonous demagogue” is a direct quote from Dean Esmay. I was satirizing how the right doesn’t like it when liberals put a Hitler mustache on Ashcroft, but they don’t mind calling Howard Dean “Mini-Me” when they don’t have anything substantive to say about him. I think you missed the point, Mr. Mosey.
I don’t have the time or inclination to check out the blogs of rabid right wingers, but, from the sound of it, their next shocking revelation is likely to be that Carol Moseley Braun is female. Plus, Dean isn’t even that short…Kerry seems to be the only one of above-average height.
And I agree, short people DO rule! I’m 5’0″.
Did you just say, “Bring it on?” Ala George Bush? Teasing. *Ducks*
Short men are sexy, as I told Rosemary. Don’t like ’em? Don’t like their politics? Fine. More for us.
I’d love to ruffle his hair.
The only place those words apear is in your comment. THe entire post is, “I know Bradley is tall but…”
Unless you are seing words I don’t in that post. Or you are trying to bridge logic out of context on purpose.
You really do seem to like to put people into classes, you know, “the right doesn’t like…” but “they…” when it is one person you are talking about. Kind of ironic, don’t you think?
That is besides there is a loooong way from calling someone short (which 5’9″ is, and at 6’3″ you know that better than I do) and comparing them to Hitler (which the group apologized for I might add).
Mosey, if you put Rosemary’s post in the context of just about everything else they’ve written about him, then Adam’s irritation starts to come into focus. The thing about a genre of writing like a weblog is that unless you’re willing to explain and qualify absolutely every idea in every post (which would create some damn long posts), the only way to really have a sense of where the writer is coming from would be TO READ THEIR SITE FOR LONGER THAN THE CURRENT ENTRY. Context comes from long-term readership on such personal sites. It’s not so bite-sized as you’d like it to be.
You can’t defend their position by saying, “But they didn’t say in THAT post.” You have to read further, and you haven’t.
On and you supr sux u fag go marry ur dog or what e
Mosey: I was using Rosemary’s post, the same day of the outrage over MoveOn.org, as an example of the hypocrisy of the right, something I see all the time. Rosemary is an unapologetic conservative, something that puts her ahead of her “I’m a liberal but I hate them” husband.
No, it’s not the same thing as calling someone Hitler, but “Mini-Me” is stupid nonetheless. I *am* incensed that the right shouts “civility” at the left, while promoting “Clinton’s death squads” and the like. As the quote I printed a while ago went, “It’s like Tonya Harding coaching Nancy Kerrigan on sportsmanship.”
If the Esmays make up “the right,” do the people in your comments who frequently make childish, spiteful remarks about how ugly Mrs. du Toit is make up “the left”? I hope not.
Miss A: I don’t make cracks about MDT’s looks, and I do think it’s petty and stupid. If I didn’t take people to task over it, I should have.
That was me, and I did it in the spirit of irony — like Al Franken titling his book “Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot.” I said at the time it’s childish but kind of fun to reply to personal attacks from people like those mentioned above, whose level of argument seems to be “Michael Moore is fat.” Seems they can dish it out but can’t take it . . .
I like Jim Hightower’s philosophy that this is a serious fight, but we can have some fun with it.
When she talks about the sanctity of marriage and I look at her husband and children, it creates this interspacial metaphysical tension that usually ends with me going to the bathroom.
I agree that it’s disingenuous of the right to plea for civility. But a person making insulting jokes on their own weblog is, well, just that. If/when I hear Rush Limbaugh making a plea for civility, then I will shriek with fucking laughter.
I see a lot of unpleasantness coming from liberals, but I hold Rush responsible. He changed the tone of discourse and everyone wants to follow suit — now there is such a thing as the “liberal shock jock” (an unnatural creature if you ask me).
I think it’s mistake for Democrats to “fight as hard” as Republicans — they aren’t very good at it (just come off as shrill) and their strong point has always been civility and reasonableness (relatively speaking).
Miss A: I don’t think liberals have to fight as dirty as conservatives, but we do have to fight back somehow, or get run over. That’s the cold truth that’s just now becoming clear to a lot of people. Do we want a mealy-mouth like Joe Lieberman, whose every utterance is some sort of “I agree with the President” line, or someone like Howard Dean, who’s going to fight for what’s right? The answer is clear, and that’s why Dean is surging.
Fox News is full of commentators talking about how shrill and awful the Dems have become. Well, what they’re really doing is just starting to stand up for themselves. About time, I say.
I agree with Adam on this one. One person’s idea of “shrill” or “angry” (the media’s favorite label for Dean) is another person’s idea of sticking up for one’s self. Dems cannot allow themselves to get run over, or to be pigeonholed by others’ simplistic labels. Calling someone “angry” is just another way of dimissing them personally without dealing with the substance of their words/ideas.
You most certainly can not just take any web post quote and attribute it to another. That is just not how any person with a hint of logic works.
Well, I never said Dems should stay silent. Anger works up to a point if you’re framing issues in a way voters can relate to — Clinton could do that — but the sad truth is, shrill just turns people off. People who aren’t already in the choir, that is.
It certainly SEEMS silly to point out that Dean is short – especially using a pic that crops out most of all the other people who are much shorter than Bradley. Limbough is using the phrase “Bill Bradley endorsed the diminutive Howard Dean ….” which is sort of pathetic. BUT, if one really wants to take a serious look, in terms of who wins, who loses, height does seem to affect people’s impressions of whether they consider someone good for important jobs like Leader of the Free World. Its quite possible Dean can ovecome that; who knows? Another tidbit to think about ——- anyone think we will ever see a BALD president again??? Most of you probably cant remember the last one – EISENHOWER – from the pre-TV era.
Miss A, can I have an example of a statement by a Dem candidate that is “more shrill” that statements made by Dem candidates in the past?
They don’t seem any more shrill to me this time around.
What does seem to be happening is that the “free press” seems content to gobble up the Rove machine’s accusations of shrillness without critique. And that consumers of media are equally uncritical in evaluating what constitutes shrillness.
I think VanDaemon hits on something important. The media (and right-wing bloggers) harp on Dean being “angry” without ever giving any examples of that over-the-top anger. But if it gets repeated often enough, it becomes true.
As Stephen Colbert said on The Daily Show last night, “It’s widely reported, which makes it fact-esque.” Brilliant line.
Carol Moseley Braun: “Bush was not elected by the American people.”
Al Sharpton: “We are witnessing a nonmilitary civil war. It started with the recount in Florida, it went to the redistricting in Texas, now it’s the recall in California. It’s a rejection of the American people.”
John Kerry: “The economic policies of George W. Bush are the worst in the nation’s history.”
John Edwards’ campaign offered t-shirts with Bush’s head on a turkey’s body.
These are just a few examples. But don’t ask me why they’re shrill. That’s like asking me to prove that a person you find beautiful is ugly. Shrill is in the eye of the beholder and is dependent on where you are in the political spectrum. The question is, are the votes of independents and swing voters important in your view? If not, then we’re talking at cross purposes. Obviously the base won’t find this stuff shrill — but imo it’s important to understand that other people do (and not just Republicans — I’ve never voted for a Republican in my life).
I’m not asking why their shrill. But how are they different from comments made in previous election cycles?
The Edwards thing is softball. The Dems followed Bush Sr. around with a giant Chicken in 92 and referred to him as “Chicken George” (I believe it was Ann Richards that started this).
The Kerry Quote: That sort of thing get’s trotted out every election cycle. Clinton termed the Bush Sr. economy “the worst economy in 50 years”. About 50 years before that was the tail end of the Great Depression. Was Bush’s economy really the second runner up to the GD on the all-time worst list? Seems shrill by your standards. Unless it is significantly less shrill to be “second worst”.
Since your taking Sharpton “seriously” and regarding him as reflective of the Democratic mainstream, I will too, for the moment. He is a Jackson Analogue and the opposite number of Pat Buchanan, they are the only point of comparison, campaign-wise, I can think of. And there are veritable gold-mine of Jackson quotes both from his campaign and from time immemorial that would match or surpass that one in shrillness. Do you disagree?
So, as of yet, I don’t see any verifiable increase in shrillness between your examples and mine.
So, between those sets of examples, what would make a “swing voter” decide your examples are more shrill than mine?
Context.
Hyperbole seems shrill when you disagree with its basic meaning.
Most people thought the economy was bad in 92, so they liked to hear Cllinton give it to Bush Sr.
Most people think it’s cool that W. kicked Saddam’s ass, so they think it’s “shrill” when the Democrats give it to Bush Jr.today.
It’s unwise to make wild, hyperbolic remarks about Bush under these circumstances. Now if the economy tanks a bit more, and things really go to hell in Iraq, remarks like “Bush’s policies are the worst in history” will seem a lot less shrill.
Hmm…reading the Braun, Sharpton and Kerry quotes above, all I can think is “true, true, and possibly true.”
Lance Uppercut,
If what you are saying is true, then are you also arguing that there is *no effective campaign strategy* against Bush at this point? Because no political campaign in the United States (and likely the world) has ever been conducted without use of hyperbole. It is the most common weapon for a politico to pick up, and arguably it’s the only one that works. Every campaign inflates its own positives and plays up the negatives of its rivals.
If that is the case, and I believe it is, then it is also the case that today’s Dem’s are no more shrill-seeming than they were the last time they were arguing in the face of (some perceived) popular opinion. Which cuts to the heart of the argument that the Dem’s are now more shrill than they have ever been.
Even if this is not the case, tell me how Dems could campaign against Bush without using hyperbole? As I noted above, campaigning is hyperbole. Campaigns that aren’t hyperbolic fail to attract any interest. Consider Al Gore in 2000. Technocrats and policy wonks don’t win elections.
I still can’t see this shrillness as anything more than a demarketing gimmick by the Rovies. The difference is that the popular press has been cowed into buying the gimmick this time, after years of bludgeoning by claims of an(imaginary) anti-rightist bias.
Yes, I think there is no winning campaign strategy for the Democrats right now, the political process being what it is.
As long as the invasion of Iraq remains politically popular (as it is), slamming Bush on this and calling him rude names is a losing battle, and simply makes the Democrats seem like anti-patriotic whiners desperately trying to score political points.
And it’s no use reminding people that Bush led the nation to war under false pretenses, etc., because most people just don’t care. We won. We kicked the bad guys’ asses. Who cares how?
Everyone’s heard all the arguments, and most people just don’t care. Thus the Democrats ARE more shrill-seeming now, because they’re bitching against the tide. If the majority was on their side, their remarks would seem reasonable (as they do to you, because you don’t approve of Bush’s methods).
Basically, you’re asking: how do we win a campaign against a guy who has the majority on his side? Telling the truth hasn’t worked. People either aren’t listening or don’t care. What do we do now? Yell louder? Fine, but don’t be shocked if you seem “shrill.’
I think that VanDaemon and Lance Uppercut are the same person. Don’t you? Not that it’s a bad thing: I use fictional dialogue all the time to make a point. I just don’t know what his is.
Height is just about the finest predictor of elections you know. The taller candidate has won 10 of the last 13 elections, and Gore did win the popular vote. Even more telling, the taller candidate won in 23 of 31 Senate races last time out.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36966-2003Dec28.html
Dukakis, the shortest nominee in living memory and eternal butt of comedian short jokes by and by, was 5’8″
http://www.all-encompassingly.com/archives/Dukakis_tank.jpg
People just have a more favorable opinion of tall candidates in presidential debates. Whomever told you life was fair, by and by, sold you a sack of it. But just because it ain’t fair doesn’t make it any less real.