Saturday, June 2nd, 2007...10:25 am
¡Pobrecitos!
I know that us liberals are supposed to be spectacular whimps compared to the oh-so-manly men that lead the Republican party. I mean, not one Democrat has ever shot a friend in the face while hunting captive quail.
But there is a strain of conservative commentary that makes them look like simpering three-year olds: the strain that advances the notion that conservatives are a put upon minority that those nasty liberals are discriminating against. As long as some liberal somewhere writes a column, teaches a class or has a television show, conservatives are opressed.
This whining reaches crescendo when our college campuses are discussed. Tony Cani has a bit in the YDA blog about a new “survey” from the Young America’s Foundation that alleges that graduation speakers have a liberal tilt. I put survey in quotes because the list looks selective and capricious rather than comprehensive. For example, the list includes the University of Arizona, but not the much larger ASU, let alone NAU.
If that isn’t enough to cast the survey’s results in doubt, we get to the rather strange way they judge between a Democrat and a Republican.
Dr. Richard Carmona, who gave the commencement at the U of A, is counted as neither a Democrat or Republican, despite the fact that he was appointed Surgeon General by George W. Bush and had been mentioned as a Republican candidate for congress and governor.
To be fair, Carmona has been for much of his life a registered independent and the Surgeon General is not seen as “political” the same as say, a cabinet official. But they do the same thing with Henry Paulson, who is the Secretary of the Treasury. I would count this as an oversight, except YAF’s website notes this as well, it just doesn’t count him as a Republican.
Then you’ve got the people who are counted as Democrats, and in this group they lump in all members of “the old, liberal” media. This apparently gives them license to throw in every actor or news anchor that has ever said anything mildly liberal. One that struck me funny was the inclusion of Soledad O’Brien, who apparently is a leftist for praising a Spike Lee documentary (the criticism they give of the movie was an illustration that they hadn’t actually seen it to know the context). I also can remember that O’Brien was critical of Janet Reno during the Elian Gonzales incident. She probably has the same hodge-podge of politics that most normal Americans have.
They count Tim Russert as a lefty because he worked for Mario Cuomo a quarter century ago. Don’t get me started on this one.
Being an someone who is actually elected as a Republican doesn’t count you as one either. Michael Bloomberg and Lowell Weicker are counted as a Democrats.
They had the good sense not to classify Wynton Marsalis or Julia-Louis Dreyfus as partisans. Although, Marsalis should be criticized for dissing Miles Davis in that Ken Burns series. A friend of mine won’t forgive him for that one.
I see that they go after the Univeristy of Vermont for inviting John Lewis to speak. Yes, Lewis is a politician, but he is also an important figure in the civil rights movement. The folks in the Young America’s Foundation may not like that, since their organization was founded in part to counter the sort of campus civil rights organizing that Lewis was involved in.
You know, those students at the University of Vermont would be Milton Friedman reading, Fox News watching red blooded conservatives if it wasn’t for the fact that the university is force feeding them speeches by a dangerous radical like Lewis.
The YAF misses a big point here: how many people with any significant amount of time since their graduations can even name their commencement speakers? Every year around this time, the networks fill time with bits from the speeches, but for the most part, they aren’t that good or memorable. This is even more true with the ones from active politicians, who may be promoting an agenda rather than trying to address the graduates.
They may be also missing out on a bigger problem: Brigham Young University, not exactly a hot bed of liberalism from staff or students, invited Dick Cheney to speak and there were large student protests. So, you see, students are perfectly capable of developing their own opinions no matter who gets invited to speak on campus, and unfortunately for YAF, they aren’t ones they are going to like.
NB - Last year, Chris Mattera, Poohbah of the Young America’s Foundation, debated Young Democrats of America President Chris Galloway on Hardball and came up with this amusing and elightening exchange when it was pointed out that he hadn’t enlisted despite his support for the War in Iraq:
MATTHEWS: No, I‘m just asking a particular question. Would you like to enlist in this war?
MATTERA: No, because I‘m fighting a separate battle. I‘m fighting—we‘re fighting the culture war here, but I‘m also supporting the battle that‘s raging in Iraq.
MATTHEWS: Well, what kind of people should fight in this war, if not you?
MATTERA: Those who want to, those who want—who feel the desire, who have the passion to go over to Iraq. I have many friends who are in Iraq myself, people from my church, people who I graduated with.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
MATTERA: They went to go fight over there. I‘m here. I‘m fighting the culture war right now. Both need to be fought and both need to be won by conservatives.
I’m sorry, I take back all I said about these guys being whimps. They are obviously very tough because they are willing to send other people to get shot at.
15 Comments
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:58 am
This post is too damn looong to read all the way through…get to your point *succinctly* please. I will comment that liberals are weak asses who need to grow a major backbone. Repubs did send troops to be killed but *only* with complicity from dems, and when the time came to stand up to Bush to bring the troops home, they caved. Disgusting. And, where is the criticism from you and other ‘lefty’ blogs against Giffords for votting for that piece of crap spending bill? Don’t pretend to be some tough ‘edgy’ blog when you can’t stand up to the important issues like an american slaughter fest. Or are you only up for nit picking the ’safe’ crap like potshots against republicans ? Let’s start with own before we cast those idealogical stones.
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:04 pm
It seems like what these people are demanding is some kind of Affirmative Action for rightwingers. Do they want some kind of quotas for this poor oppressed minority of angry white males?
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:21 pm
“…where is the criticism from you and other ‘lefty’ blogs against Giffords for votting [sic] for that piece of crap spending bill?”
PLENTY of ‘lefty’ blogs have criticized Giffords for her recent vote on the Iraq Supplemental. For an example, see here. It’s obvious that you don’t read many left blogs and are simply talking out of your ass, Indy. As for your short attention span, well, that seems to be endemic of right wing mouthbreathers.
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:46 pm
There were many, Indy, who opposed the war from the very beginning. I think a lot of those who voted for the war on theDemocrat and Republican side would not have done so if they had not been lied to by this administration and those who brought us faulty intelligence. It is also clear that there might have been some that were swept up the fervor of patriotism and the fear that followed the attack on the World Trade Center…so many that wanted to believe anything the President and the military said about keeping us us safe.
Where I can agree with you is that there were some of us who opposed the war from the very beginning and who got even angrier when we say how the war was waged, planned for, and prepared for.
On all accounts, those who planned it and got us into it, should be held accountable…and by that I mean, not the folks that placed their trust in this administration, but those who did the lying and deceiving to put us here now…and those who continued to fail us as they prosecuted the war for the past 4 years.
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Zelph-I am hardly a right wing mouthbreather. I am a registered independent working mother who doesn’t have the time or patience with endless ego bantering. I’m also a legit lefty activist who has done my time in handcuffs in the fight against neoconservative assholes. We don’t have time for existential dilemmas on this non-war imperialistic invastion, or giving excuses to dem politicans who need to stand up and stay up. Get to the point. Do the right thing. And do it now.
June 2nd, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Ok, I’ll do the right thing, and magically change the partisan makeup of the senate from 51 Dems, 49 Republicans to 70 Dems and 30 Republicans, so we can impeach Bush and Cheney and give Nancy Pelosi the title of Commander in Chief, because until someone besides those belligerent idiots is in charge of the executive branch, there’s no way the troops are coming home. Even if funding was cut off for the war, Bush would keep the troops in Iraq–without food, water, fuel, medical supplies, and ammunition–because he’s a stubborn a-hole.
Oops, I think I left my magic wand at your house, Indy. Could you do it for me?
And next time, read the entire post before launching into a tangentially-related rant. Or at least include health care next time you decide to talk about something other than what the original post was about.
June 2nd, 2007 at 3:34 pm
I cannot fathom why Giffords would cast a vote in favor of this Bush nightmare. I’ve read her reasons why and I can tell you I am even more confused at her logic.
Grijalva did the right thing-vote for the social spending program and against the Iraq funding. The Democrats had a perfect chance to bring Bush to the table to talk seriously about deadlines and yet, they let him off the hook. This was nothing but a spineless move by those Democrats who voted for the Iraq spending. They said that “Change can’t wait.”
Well, I guess it can.
June 2nd, 2007 at 5:51 pm
They did try to put deadlines on the table– and if you remember, it got vetoed. Do you want them to do it again? Guess what the outcome would be. No, really, repost with your guess about what would happen.
And if they were to keep doing it, eventually, without a budget, the federal government would shut down. Is that what you want?
June 2nd, 2007 at 6:16 pm
The government would not have shut down if this measure had not passed, this measure was specific to funding the Iraq war, it was not a general funding bill. So yes, they should have resubmitted another measure with deadlines and let Bush veto it again and again and again. Read Michael Bryan’s analysis at Blog for Arizona on this matter. I am disappointed in both Giffords and Mitchell for their votes. I worked for Mitchell last time around and am happy the he’s in Congress instead of JD, but I really don’t like this vote.
June 2nd, 2007 at 7:13 pm
I’m a student of history and the way I see it, it’s becoming painfully obvious that Conservatism is nothing but a trod back to the way things were…crica 1865.
The Conservatives were a minority prior to Reagan and Goldwater, when the Reagan Revolution’s Conservative Movement succeeded in the ’80s, everything that America stood for went to hell, the FCC was politicized so much so that the media’s right leaning majority, force feeds the political agendas, perspectives, and views of Conservatism.
These last 30 years have been unprecedented, I can’t believe I’m living in this age. This is the age of tyranny and it must end. Progressivism must return to majority status to fix the damage started since Reagan…we’re starting here and now.
Damn I love this blog
June 2nd, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Indeed, you make the supposition that the Federal Government would shut down. (I guess you guys learned what would happen when Newt and Dole tried those shenanegans against Pres. Clinton:-)
But how does one funding bill-aimed at providing $$s to the effort in Iraq-shut everything else down?
I guess the end result would be that Bush, if stubborn enough, would veto the bill (and probably the social spending one as well). That action, in turn, would then force the two sides to the table over the Memorial Day holiday weekend (not a bad thing, I think the local parades wouldn’t mind if they were doing important business). What would we get in turn? A spending bill in Iraq that would be a saner compromise than the no checks and balances act that was passed two weeks ago.
I was at Giffords’ “Congress on the Corner” set-up today on Prince and Campbell. I can tell you this, there were people there who were not the least bit happy with her and were there to let her know it.
June 2nd, 2007 at 8:40 pm
I work at a community college. Our commencement speaker this year? Jake Flake.
Here is a thought: The stereotype (and likely at least somewhat true) is that conservatives are more likely to be motivated by cold cash while liberals are more likely to be motivated by a desire to do some good in the world. So if they want to get more conservatives in the classroom, why don’t they start by raising salaries for teachers?
Zelph:
It seems like what these people are demanding is some kind of Affirmative Action for rightwingers.
OK. I wonder if they will then set a quota for liberals to be members of the Heritage foundation, the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute and the rest of those right wing think tanks that they trot out as ‘alternative sources.’ To say nothing of talk radio.
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:42 pm
My commencement speaker: Earl Butz. I won’t tell you when or where. But he was most definately a right winger. Google him if you don’t know who he is.
June 3rd, 2007 at 7:20 am
I yield to no one when it comes to thinking the war should be ended - as I said when I was running for Congress - NOW. And I wish Giffords had voted against the bill. And I think it is very important that her constitutents tell her what she needs to do, how she needs to vote in order to represent them. But if anyone is deluded enough to think that there is any force that can cause the President to change his mind - well, I’d just like to know what they are drinking or smoking because I’m going to get some for myself!
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:19 am
No, this President will not change his mind on the war. It’s still important for Democrats to take a stand and not play cynical political games with the lives of our troops.
Leave a Reply