« The Spice of Life | Main | It's Not About Virtue. It's Not About Principle. »

October 09, 2007

What Has Happened To The Right?

Something has gone wrong on the Right. Become sick and twisted and tumorous and ugly. To visit Michelle Malkin's cave is to see politics at its most savage, its most ferocious, its most rageful. They say they've spent the past week smearing a child and his family because that child was fair game -- he and his family spoke of their experience receiving health care through the State Children's Health Insurance Program. For this, right wingers travel to their home, insinuate that the family is engaged in large-scale fraud, make threatening phone calls to the family, interrogate the neighbors as to the family's character and financial state.

This is the politics of hate. Screaming, sobbing, inchoate, hate. It would never, not in a million years, occur to me to drive to the home of a Republican small business owner to see if he "really" needed that tax cut. It would never, not in a million years, occur to me to call his family and demand their personal information. It would never occur to me to interrogate his neighbors. It would never occur to me to his smear his children.

The shrieking, atavistic ritual of personal destruction the right roars into every few weeks is something different than politics. It is beyond politics. It was done to Scott Beauchamp, a soldier serving in Iraq. It was done to college students from the University of California, at Santa Cruz. Currently, it is being done to a child and his family. And think of those targets: College students, soldiers, children. It can be done to absolutely anyone.

This is not politics. This is, in symbolism and emotion, a violent group ritual. It is savages tearing at the body of a captured enemy. It is the group reminding itself that the Other is always disingenuous, always evil, always lying, always pitiful and pathetic and grotesque. It is a bonding experience -- the collaborative nature of these hateful orgies proves that much -- in which the enemy is exposed as base and vile and then ripped apart by the community. In that way, it sustains itself, each attack preemptively justifying the next vicious assault, justifying the whole hateful edifice on which their politics rest.

It is a blessing and relief that these mobs, as of yet, do nothing more than smear, that the blood they exult in is figurative and the inflicted harm is emotional or occupational. But they are howling, braying, thirsty mobs nonetheless, and their frequent, communal savagings of chosen representatives of their enemies is ugly and unsettling. It's impossible not to wonder when the first one will drive by a house, and then decide to ring the doorbell, and then. Indeed, it's already come damn close.

Christy Hardin Smith, has more, as does Digby. Think Progress has the facts of the story. And it's worth following some of the links, including the one to Malkin's attack on college students from years past. Malkin is, last I looked, the highest traffic rightwing blogger. What she's channeling is real, and it should repulse and worry decent people, no matter their political orientation.

Update: Read Jim Henley too. In fact, I'll quote him for you:

What we’re seeing here is the same tactics of personal destruction Movement Republicanism previously justified as necessary to winning The Greatest War Ever, now normalized as appropriate to handling a budget dispute. They wanted to get Jamil Hussein arrested or killed. They wanted Scott Beauchamp ruined or even fragged. They clearly want to destroy the Frost family. That’s why you just show up at someone’s workplace implying to their bosses and co-workers that they are liars, that they are trouble. To ruin them.

They wanted a war. Now they want everything to be a war. Any war.

October 9, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

I dunno.

Saying that a family (or child) becomes "fair game," as Mark Steyn does at The Corner, is wrong. One's political opponents, ultimately, are opponents - not traitors, not threats to one's survival.

But I read the adjectives and nouns in this post and ask if this is going to help.

"sick and twisted and tumorous and ugly", "shrieking, atavistic" "howling, braying, thirsty mobs" and so on.

There's "The Right," and there are decent people. Sigh. I suppose.

"You're "The Other!"" "No, you are!" "You!" "You!"

I worry that if you treat others as though they're disgusting, you run the risk of becoming disgusting yourself.

I'm just sayin'.

Posted by: Andrew | Oct 9, 2007 5:04:48 PM

You have to call a spade a spade. Something disgusting and ugly is occurring. I'm calling it what it is. What I;m not doing is digging into Malkin's past, or calling her husband, or visiting her home.

Posted by: Ezra | Oct 9, 2007 5:06:36 PM

For this, right wingers travel to their home to inspect its worth
I remember reporters reporting on the worth of the homes of parents of the accused in the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax.
Why no outrage then?

Posted by: Paul L. | Oct 9, 2007 5:07:53 PM

What she's channeling is real, and it should repulse and worry decent people, no matter their political orientation.

Yes, Malkin and Coulter and Limbaugh and the whole army of rightwing media hacks are scary on several levels, but few (okay, Malkin & a few others) seem nuts enough to actually believe everything they say. The problem is that they have audiences who are sick, savage people, but it's virtually impossible to say that hey, a significant number of 'regular Americans' make rabid animals look sane & rational. I honestly don't know how best to counterattack when they have highly visible, if somewhat insincere, media figures to draw fire. Somehow it worked out okay for the wingers to say hideous things about people like you or me, attacking our patriotism, intelligence (!), motives, relationships, and anything else they could think of, while we have legitimate grounds to condemn these nutburgers and are still constrained, because no one will back us if we insult fellow citizens.

Sigh... this is one of those why-the-hell-bother days, I'm afraid. Seriously, given enough money I'd invest in some property outside the US, the way things look right now.

Posted by: latts | Oct 9, 2007 5:09:52 PM

Interestingly, when the UC Santa Cruz story broke I thought -- well, why not find out where Malkin lives. And I did rather quickly. But it stopped there. The notion of posting it was so self-evidently wrong that by the time the results were on screen I had rejected the idea completely. (It was also in short driving distance from me as well, but, again, the notion of showing up at someone's house to intimidate them because you disagree with their politics is a scary one.)

The use of the term fascist is probably overdone in left wing circles, but there is indeed a strong whiff of fascism about these people. Hatred is at the core of their political experience and the desire to crush the other, particularly a powerless "different" other, runs deep in their collective veins.

Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | Oct 9, 2007 5:10:52 PM

Well, the conservative mantra has always been this: work for yourself, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, save money for retirement, make sure your kids work hard in school, and raise a family.

Once you do all of these things but then choose to support Democrats, however, you become a target for harrassment.

This family is every right-wing conservative's dream family, and yet they drive Michelle Malkin up the wall with rage. Let's see what sins the family committed: working for themselves and eeking out a modest income. Owning a home in a poor neighborhood and being an upstanding member of the community, having one child become academically smart enough to get a scholarship to a private school and another child a beneficiary of a public program to give the child access to the special-needs education she needs. And it was possible because they weren't bankrupted by health care expenses.

This serves as an implicit threat-- if you ever support Democrats because they helped you achieve the American dream, the right will make sure to try their best to punish you for it. The middle class is supposed to remain struggling and silent and thankful for crumbs that get tossed to them, not publicly discussing how programs that had helped them could help others.

If they were a rich family who had to pay estate taxes, conservatives would be leaping to defend them. If they were a poor family whose children were failing out of school, they would have been regarded as part of the problems that are destroying our social fabric and corrupting the purity of essence of our precious bodily fluids. Either of those would have made them acceptable public examples for conservatives. But to eek out a barely-middle class lifestyle and thrive with the benefit of SCHIP? It's a sign that they're too uppity.

Posted by: Tyro | Oct 9, 2007 5:18:38 PM

Well, Ezra, you can call a spade a spade. You're one of the most skillful policy analysts writing in the blog format right now, who genuinely helps me see things more clearly at least half the time I log on to your site, or TAPPED.

But why is what you write, in this post, different to a Coulter or a Medved or a Free Republic or ... ?

"Those [red state/blue state] types are vile and nasty (add loathesome adjectives)."

Some individuals - Steyn, Malkin - may have behaved badly. Fair enough. We can point this out without adopting their methods - a howl of disgust, a cry of "unclean!"

Read your fourth paragraph again, and see if it can be taken as anything other than saying that "the Right," as a collective group, are "... howling, braying, thirsty mobs nonetheless, and their frequent, communal savagings of chosen representatives of their enemies is ugly and unsettling."

That's not calling a spade a spade. That's just name calling.

Posted by: Andrew | Oct 9, 2007 5:19:26 PM

You may see it as name calling. You're certainly allowed to. I see it as a very accurate description of a very scary tendency being repeatedly exhibited on the right. What they're doing does strike me as savage and visceral. And I won't speak of it politely, draining the outrage and anger from the writing -- because I think that would make my writing less true to the act being described. I think we're seeing a group bonding ritual playing out. To describe this in the terms Id use for a policy debate would make me necessarily unclear.

Posted by: Ezra | Oct 9, 2007 5:24:53 PM

Cue concern troll in 3...2...1...aw, shit, too late.

Posted by: Captain Goto | Oct 9, 2007 5:27:08 PM

Andrew, Malkin's home address is relative public knowledge. You don't see Ezra posting it here and telling people to check out her house and harass her neighbors and employer, do you? No? Then he's obviously not acting just like the hateful right wing idiots, is he?

For those that have right-wing family members they will have to deal with during thanksgiving, you have my sympathies. Normally, one can bite one's tongue when listening to their pointless, meaningless trivialities. But if they start bitching and moaning about a struggling middle class family trying to get by in Baltimore, it's going to be tough not to call them a bunch of heartless, misanthropic jerks.

Posted by: Tyro | Oct 9, 2007 5:31:54 PM

It's not name-calling, Andrew. Those are merely well-chosen adjectives. Let's turn this around a bit. What if Ezra was describing, say, Jane Hamsher as "brilliant, beautiful and successful"? Would he be wrong? Methinks not.

Malkin is the flipside and Ezra has every damn right to say so.

Incidentally, how would you describe Michelle Malkin? Moderate?

Posted by: ts | Oct 9, 2007 5:32:07 PM

The attack about the private school tuition strikes me as possibly even more stupid than the rest of this stupid stupidity. Aren't rightwingers the ones telling us public education is a disaster and that parents should be able to send their kids to private schools? And aren't rightwingers the ones who tell us that private charity, not government action, should be the preferred means of helping people in need? And yet when a private school makes a decision to offer a large tuition subsidy to a child who needs it, that's somehow a sign that the child's parents are some sort of degenerate, unfit monsters. Disgusting and incoherent all at the same time.

Posted by: Chris G. | Oct 9, 2007 5:32:31 PM

But why is what you write, in this post, different to a Coulter or a Medved or a Free Republic or ... ?

Please tell me how you would describe Malkin without saying anything nasty about her or her behavior. Try it, dude. I dare you.

There are times when even cool, collected wonks such as Big Daddy Ezra K have to lose it in order to express the proper disgust at the wingnutosphere's actions- in this case the vicious and personal attack on a family whose crime was going to the government for health insurance.

There is no rational way to respond to stuff like this other than to say, "These are VERY VERY bad people."

Posted by: Brad R. | Oct 9, 2007 5:35:28 PM

I agree with Ezra's initial comments and his reply to Andrew.

Two groups of people can call each other lynch mobs. But only the one with the rope and the dead body deserves the title.

Posted by: Philly Boy | Oct 9, 2007 5:38:47 PM

Ezra:

I guess the Democratic Party's tactic of hiding behind a 12-year-old child was, in retrospect, not such a neat idea after all. Does that mean that the Dems will stop hiding behind 12-year-old children in the future?

Posted by: TLB | Oct 9, 2007 5:42:50 PM

Well said, Ezra.

Posted by: lux | Oct 9, 2007 5:46:21 PM

Brad R: Ezra's post didn't say "Michelle Malkin has become sick and twisted and tumorous and ugly." He described "The Right" in those terms. Last time I checked, 40% of the adults in this country described themselves as being conservative.

If you think it helps progressives' cause by getting into a food fight, where the tribunes of the Right say that liberals are godless, treasonous, vicious, scum, while the champions of the Left say that conservatives IN GENERAL are participants in hateful, howling, braying mobs, well, have at it, I guess.

For me, I find the writing and public comments of Limbaugh, Coulter and Malkin absurd, distasteful, and repugnant. I don't see any reason why we should have to "lose it," and become like them.

That was Ezra's substantive point, and it's the right one. For me, though, it got lost in the disgust at "the Right" in general. I can't see how this helps.

Posted by: Andrew | Oct 9, 2007 5:59:39 PM

TLB: Ask your God George Bush. He hid behind kids a couple of days before he vetoed the bill.

Posted by: DoubtingThomas | Oct 9, 2007 6:01:16 PM

I guess the Democratic Party's tactic of hiding behind a 12-year-old child was, in retrospect, not such a neat idea after all.

Well gee whiz, this is a fine case of blaming the victim, isn't it?

Tell me, oh sagely Lone Wacko, does this pro-abstinence education video featuring kids give me free reign to dig into their personal lives and find out if they're "REALLY" virgins? Because that's basically the same thing Malkin is doing to this family. It's demented and creepy.

Posted by: Brad R. | Oct 9, 2007 6:02:10 PM

This is well-put, but I don't think it's anything new. You should have seen these foul souls back in the Reagan 80s.

Posted by: Roxanne | Oct 9, 2007 6:04:36 PM

But why is what you write, in this post, different to a Coulter or a Medved or a Free Republic or ... ?

For the same reason they do. It's a cheap pop of face heat.

Posted by: Senescent | Oct 9, 2007 6:05:35 PM

You got it right Ezra...heh, just read the other day(sorry-it may be old news) that Miss Coulter thinks women should stop being given the right to vote, since the majority of women vote Democratic.

Posted by: Texican | Oct 9, 2007 6:06:04 PM

I guess the Democratic Party's tactic of hiding behind a 12-year-old child was, in retrospect, not such a neat idea after all. Does that mean that the Dems will stop hiding behind 12-year-old children in the future?

You mean like when the Democrats rolled a nine year old out to sell the dismantling of Social Security? Or when they used a young girl who lost her mother on 9/11 to help Bush get re-elected? Or when they shoved a bunch of "snowflake children" in front of cameras to score points on the stem cell debate? Yeah, those Democrats are ALWAYS using kids to do their dirty work, aren't they?

Funny, I don't remember anyone going to those folks' homes and harassing them, or posting their addresses online.

What a cocksucker.

Posted by: Seitz | Oct 9, 2007 6:06:34 PM

TLB, I've lost track of how many times Republicans have hidden behind children to push their policies. It was done on stem-cell, with the "snowflake" children. It is currently being done right now with the ads advocating abstaining from sex until marriage. It was even done during the Foley scandal.

The difference between the left and the right is that it wouldn't occur to us to attack children---and if it did occur, after this escapade of brutality by the right, we'd reject as completely immoral.

Having people advocate policies they agree with is not wrong. Saying that the policies those people want are not good policies is not wrong. Attacking a 12-year-old kid is wrong.

But to the far right nowadays, anything they do is by definition right, anything anyone who disagrees with them does is by definition wrong. That is why Moveon criticizing a general is treason, but their criticism of soldiers is perfectly acceptable.

Thus, actions are not right or wrong---only people. So Malkin can stalk and attempt to intimidate this family, and its fine, because she's Michelle Malkin. She, and those that defend her, are without any sense of decency or honor.

Posted by: JoshA | Oct 9, 2007 6:07:32 PM

Ezra:
I guess the Democratic Party's tactic of hiding behind a 12-year-old child was, in retrospect, not such a neat idea after all. Does that mean that the Dems will stop hiding behind 12-year-old children in the future?
Posted by: TLB | Oct 9, 2007 5:42:50 PM

Worked pretty damn well for a certain president who froze still for an hour or so at an elementary school on the morning of Sept 11, 2001.

Posted by: chowchowchow | Oct 9, 2007 6:17:38 PM

TLB (standing by my smashed up car with a baseball bat): I guess parking your new car in your driveway wasn't such a hot idea. Are going to stop parking your car there in the future?

Posted by: Justin K. | Oct 9, 2007 6:18:00 PM

That was nicely done, Ezra. When an accurate description of what people are doing sounds like an accusation, the thing that should change is not the description.

Posted by: Megan | Oct 9, 2007 6:27:52 PM

Andrew whines:

That's not calling a spade a spade. That's just name calling.

Maybe when, say, Mr. Klein drives to Malkin's doorstep and starts "name calling" from her front porch, and then moves on to hectoring her neighbors, maybe then there'll be some kind of functional equivalence. Until then, you're just making yourself look like an idiot.

Posted by: sglover | Oct 9, 2007 6:37:35 PM

After the visceral anger fades, you realise that when the Malkinites do this kind of thing reflexively -- and I mean that in its biological sense -- they've got nothing else.

Sure, Michelle will never want for cash, thanks to the Regnery-Faux gravy train she's hitched a ride upon. But these particular thugs are more like Wodehouse's black-shorts than Mussolini's blackshirts, with La Malkin as its pom-pom waving Spode.

At least, that's what I think with the help of cool reason. If I were to take it seriously, I'd wake up screaming in the middle of the night.

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Oct 9, 2007 6:41:48 PM

I guess the Democratic Party's tactic of hiding behind a 12-year-old child was, in retrospect, not such a neat idea after all. Does that mean that the Dems will stop hiding behind 12-year-old children in the future?

Right, fuckwit. The right-wingers would never resort to that. Just ask Elian Gonzales.

Posted by: sglover | Oct 9, 2007 6:45:34 PM

Ezra,

What's ultimately confusing about this particular episode, though, is that the target is not so much "other." Sure, Other is always bad, always evil, needs to be destroyed, etc... but do they really see the regular ol'working class Frosts as Other?

Posted by: Tisse | Oct 9, 2007 6:46:48 PM

Does that mean that the Dems will stop hiding behind 12-year-old children in the future?

Once you come out from under your bed, Kelly. Is the whole hating-on-brown people business getting stale, or do you just think that hating-on-kids is more likely right now to procure the good graces of your mistress?

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Oct 9, 2007 6:49:32 PM

do they really see the regular ol'working class Frosts as Other?

They're the worst kind of Other: Stealth Other. But it's also classic ressentiment from people who are being fed shit by their political idols while being told it's chocolate pudding.

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Oct 9, 2007 6:53:39 PM

Ezra is "name calling"? Give me a break. Can you honestly look at the likes of Malkin going after a 12-year-old boy and not be completely disgusted? Ezra is calling them out on their barbarism, and rightfully so. And in pops the concern-troll throwing off yet another version of the old "you're intollerant of their intollerance!" fallacy.

No. Never. Calling a disgusting, self-centered spite-monger a disgusting, self-centered spite-monger is not name calling. It is truth, and should be shouted from the roof-tops. And don't even try to sell me on that "we shouldn't sink to their level" stupidity. We *aren't* sinking to their level, because our accusations are true. Their's are base lies.

Posted by: Shade Tail | Oct 9, 2007 6:58:39 PM

Well said, Ezra. Yes. That is precisely so. Sometimes to recognize a thing for what it is, you have to name it. And, you have named it accurately and fairly.

Posted by: mk | Oct 9, 2007 7:01:39 PM

This is not politics. This is, in symbolism and emotion, a violent group ritual. It is savages tearing at the body of a captured enemy. It is the group reminding itself that the Other is always disingenuous, always evil, always lying, always pitiful and pathetic and grotesque.

Amen, Ezra. I was on MM's site awhile back for some odd reason. I saw this post:

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/23/impeach-a-palooza-comes-to-washington/

Money quote:

It needs to launch an aggressive counter-attack exposing the shadow party behind the Democrat Party.

Look at these people. Look. At. Them:

Followed by pics of demonstrators.

This isn't just a policy disagreement. MM lives to hate. She's basically exhorting her minions to despise the Other.

Posted by: IanY77 | Oct 9, 2007 7:02:28 PM

But pseudo in nc, can't they see, the minions, that this one time it is shit they're being fed, because can't they see themselves in the facts of the Frosts???

Posted by: Tisse | Oct 9, 2007 7:03:49 PM

Oh my God, what have we become?

"What do mean we, Kemosabe?"

Get out of the blogosphere for a month or so, get out of DC or whatever city you have favored with your personal bloggy eminences.

Do you not understand that you are screaming at each other? Do you realize you're being played by both effing Brock and effing Limbaugh?

America yawns at both insane sides.

Posted by: tao9 | Oct 9, 2007 7:06:43 PM

I have to agree with "Klein's Tiny Left Nut."

The word fascism is thrown around a lot. But this whole incident smells a lot like sending the Brownshirts out to intimates people with threats of violence because they disagree on things.

As for Ezra's point, I don't see what's wrong with calling out the violent hate from the right.

I can't think of one recent example of liberals getting a hold of a right-winger's address and then harassing his entire neighborhood for simply talking about their experiences.

It is stupid to say "oh yeah they are idiots, but you can't call them idiots."

Give me a break.

Posted by: Tony | Oct 9, 2007 7:24:13 PM

Heartless neo-Republican policies are going downhill fast (these are not the Republicans of Eisenhower's time). The neo-Republicans know this. Thus, this disgusting example of amoral behavior.

Few groups of politicians have done more to have earned their fall from grace.

Posted by: Ms. Clear | Oct 9, 2007 7:32:41 PM

If the Dems trot out a child as some sort of poor victim of an unfair health care program, the child's background becomes fair game.

When the child's maternal grandfather was a Vice President of Bendix Corporation, you've been outed as a fraud pretending to be poor.

The Dems mousetrapped themselves and now are thrashing about whining and playing the victim card. They're making bigger fools of themselves by trying desperately to ignore the fact that the kid's family has money, and that the Dems have once again played a shell game with the public.

Posted by: daveinboca | Oct 9, 2007 8:06:29 PM

Sorry Ezra:this is indeed politics. Did you not study any history?

Politics does not only get personal and vindictive, but actually violent sometimes.

Henley was right:One side wants a war. The other side wants a debate club.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Oct 9, 2007 8:07:48 PM

And I'd seriously doubt that liberal media -- not the allegedly liberal, RW enablers like CNN but any as nakedly partisan as Rush Limbaugh -- would lather up the flying monkey swarm and urge them on in this organized harassment. (And, of course, Rush gets commended for his past loyalty to this freakshow by his whackjob brehren from the floor of congress.)

Building on the upstream comment about lynching, it's one thing to sling around the "fascist" label so everyone's covered with much and presumably only Cloud Being -- or his imaginary friend History -- can sort it out, quite another to be part of a de facto fascist govt/media juggernaut.

Posted by: Ellie | Oct 9, 2007 8:17:06 PM

You liberals are a laugh. You are so obvious. This isn't pre-internet days when you guys could get your story printed without any opposition.

The fact is all of this is about beating the Republicans. You attack Malkin, Rush, Bush, etc. and whine about how this Graeme Frost is being treated. But you ignore the issues. Why was Graeme Frost trotted out in front of the cameras? It's to make Bush look bad.

If you liberals cared about children, you would have compromised on this SCHIP program in order to get the aid to the kids. But you did no such thing. Bush said he was going to veto it in it's current from a long time ago.

I see all of the complaining about Republicans but all I see is the Liberals being useless (again.) It's uselessness towards the PEOPLE, but focused on self-serving gains. Sorry guys, we can see through it.

Posted by: Al | Oct 9, 2007 8:21:22 PM

Damn Al, you really nailed us. Bush is doing something we, and most of the nation think is bad, so we try to make him look bad by pointing this out. WE'RE HISTORY'S GREATEST MONSTERS! I now see why harrassing a 12 year old and his family is totally legit and is winning you guys the debate. Everyone will see the wisdom of cutting S-CHIP now.

Posted by: Justin K. | Oct 9, 2007 8:36:24 PM

You actually see a strain of this run through all current conservative commentary. There are no conservative triumphs to discuss, there are no current events that can be written about without adressing the failure of conservative policies. Its not a comfortable situation. Conservatives, therefore, must continue to attack. Their attacks must become more viscious in order to draw attention from their other failures.

Posted by: rk | Oct 9, 2007 8:39:08 PM

You actually see a strain of this run through all current conservative commentary. There are no conservative triumphs to discuss, there are no current events that can be written about without adressing the failure of conservative policies. Its not a comfortable situation. Conservatives, therefore, must continue to attack. Their attacks must become more viscious in order to draw attention from their other failures.

Posted by: rk | Oct 9, 2007 8:40:36 PM

I remember reporters reporting on the worth of the homes of parents of the accused in the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax.
Why no outrage then?

Well I don't remember that, Paul L., but that sounds pretty [darn] outrageous to me, now that you mention it. Tell me (us), were you outraged about that when it happened? Are you still? How do you feel about what Ms. Malkin et al are doing to the young Mr. Frost and his family? Are you outraged?

Posted by: ed | Oct 9, 2007 8:46:49 PM

Shorter Al: We conservatives have the power to counter any facts with lies and spread them as wide as we wish.

Posted by: Tyro | Oct 9, 2007 8:49:52 PM

shorter TLB:

Of course the bitch got raped. She had it coming for wearing a short skirt like that.

Posted by: r€nato | Oct 9, 2007 8:53:56 PM

Henley was right:One side wants a war. The other side wants a debate club.

Um, I'm not about to stoop to stalking people who disagree with my politics. War is one thing, acting like a deranged psychopath is quite another.

Posted by: r€nato | Oct 9, 2007 8:56:09 PM

When the child's maternal grandfather was a Vice President of Bendix Corporation, you've been outed as a fraud pretending to be poor.

what the fuck does that have to do with anything? Since when did my rich relatives' assets become the same as mine? Do you pool your assets with those of your cousins and uncles?

Retard.

Posted by: r€nato | Oct 9, 2007 8:58:12 PM

Kristallnacht, Revisited.

Posted by: ROGNM | Oct 9, 2007 8:58:28 PM

Personally, as someone who is more anti-conservative than liberal, I'd like a war. But those simpering conservative fools will run away at the first sign of anything real happening, just like their chickenhawk leaders do.

Right, Al? If you ever met me, the speed with which you'd run away from me would get you in the NFL.

Posted by: Dr. Squid | Oct 9, 2007 8:59:23 PM

I just want to say I'm very concerned about the angry language in this post. Why is the left so angry? I'm very concerned that if the left becomes angry, it will look just like the right. Leftist bloggers like Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias need to agonize more about these difficult questions and see both sides, lest they succumb to Malkin Derangement Syndrome.

Posted by: Concern Troll | Oct 9, 2007 8:59:29 PM

those simpering conservative fools will run away at the first sign of anything real happening, just like their chickenhawk leaders do.

I think a commenter at Dan Riehl's place said it best (via sekmet):

'You get 'em, Dan. It's so nice to see you chickenhawks find an enemy you're all willing to stand up to. Iraqis? Hell no, those dudes have guns and stuff. But 12 year old kids? Yeah, that's right up your alley, especially if they've already been a major car accident.

I think it may be a tough fight, Dan, but if you fight dirty, I think you can take him. '

Posted by: r€nato | Oct 9, 2007 9:02:26 PM

Somebody named Doug had this comment about Ezra's post over at another blog: "Ezra is a sniveling little putrid fool that is way too young to remember the outrages inflicted on some of the people, mostly single women, who had the temerity to object to the illegal and obnoxious behavior of the 42nd President of the US, as well as the execrable actions of some of his minions who harrassed, physically and mentally, some of these same unfortunate souls."

Actually, that's probably not far off the mark, although I would prefer he leave out the personal adjectives. On the other hand, I guess they are perhaps excusable in this instance given the over-the-top nastiness of Ezra's own childish rant.

Posted by: Andrew | Oct 9, 2007 9:05:36 PM

The right wing in the US is indeed inching (running?) towards fascism. I feel very afraid.

Posted by: Wendy | Oct 9, 2007 9:10:14 PM

Shorter Andrew: Clinton did it!

It always boils down to this sooner or later with these types. There needs to be a Godwin's law for this.

Posted by: r€nato | Oct 9, 2007 9:12:56 PM

What a cocksucker.

Hold on there, pardner. "Cocksucker" should not be used as a term of opprobrium. There are many righteous cocksuckers in the world.

Posted by: Herschel | Oct 9, 2007 9:16:12 PM

OK, now I've got "the Frosts are really rich," I've got "Duke lacrosse players," and I've got "what about Clinton." If someone will just mention Ward Churchill, I'll have wingnut comment bingo.

Posted by: Michael Bérubé | Oct 9, 2007 9:19:51 PM

sorry Michael, that's only four columns. In order to score wingnut comment bingo, you also need a, 'I checked the font's kerning in Word'.

Posted by: r€nato | Oct 9, 2007 9:23:40 PM

Beat up a 12 year old or talk about this:

"A small private intelligence company that monitors Islamic terrorist groups obtained a new Osama bin Laden video ahead of its official release last month, and around 10 a.m. on Sept. 7, it notified the Bush administration of its secret acquisition. It gave two senior officials access on the condition that the officials not reveal they had it until the al-Qaeda release.

Within 20 minutes, a range of intelligence agencies had begun downloading it from the company's Web site. By midafternoon that day, the video and a transcript of its audio track had been leaked from within the Bush administration to cable television news and broadcast worldwide."
http://www.attytood.com/2007/10/betrayal_how_bushs_iraq_politi.html
========
George needed a distraction and he is getting one...


Posted by: owlbear1 | Oct 9, 2007 9:29:40 PM

If the Dems trot out a child as some sort of poor victim of an unfair health care program, the child's background becomes fair game.

Yeah, "fair game". Being "fair game", of course, means it is acceptable to stalk the family home and business, call the child's home, talk to their neighbors and publish information about the family and grandparents on the Internet. That's "fair game".

This family should seek a court order restraining Michelle Malkin. There are laws against stalking. Her stalking would be easy to prove as she has already publicly admitted it. Get it on the public record that this woman is a sociopath, no better than David Letterman's stalker. People have a right to be left alone by hateful stalkers.

Posted by: Pug | Oct 9, 2007 9:32:48 PM

Pardon my french, but these are the same f**ksticks who want to label anyone even a few degrees to the left of themselves as "unhinged" and "moonbats" and yet they are the ones consistently stalking people, calling for blood and howling at how persecuted they feel when someone interferes with their ability and desire to persecute others.

Steyn, Malkin and the rest of them can and should all go and take a flying f**k at a rolling doughnut, preferably as it rolls toward the edge of a steep cliff.

Posted by: The Crapture | Oct 9, 2007 9:33:47 PM

CQ.com, 9/17/07

"In the first half of 2007, the health care sector doled out more than $227 million for lobbying efforts — the first time spending has topped $200 million, according to a tally of semi-annual reports filed with the Senate Office of Public Records.
{...}
"What’s behind health care lobbyists’ spending frenzy? Most signs point to legislation in the House and Senate to reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, popularly known as “SCHIP.” It’s the first time Congress has had to reauthorize the program and it’s one of the biggest pieces of health care legislation in the last decade."
http://public.cq.com/docs/hb/hbnews110-000002585480.html

For the children, of course.

Kristallnacht? William Shirer's ghost somewhere reels.

Posted by: tao9 | Oct 9, 2007 9:34:06 PM

Actually, r€nato, my card has a free space for "the poor in Europe have it much worse," so four is all I need, and the kerning thing isn't on my diagonal anyway. But thanks!

Posted by: Michael Bérubé | Oct 9, 2007 9:37:28 PM

damn you, Bérubé! *shakes fist*

Posted by: r€nato | Oct 9, 2007 9:40:19 PM

i'm not a wingnut, but ward churchill!! and my brother has a lot of cash, but i am not on the phone asking for funds to pay my bills.

Posted by: trrwv | Oct 9, 2007 9:41:50 PM

Posted by: TLB | Oct 9, 2007 5:42:50 PM

how many "snowflake babies" does it take to make a slushy?

Posted by: grover nerdkissed | Oct 9, 2007 9:42:43 PM

on the brighter side, only about 30% of us are still signed up for pretzel boy's knotheadedness, with a smaller fraction of that in the hatefully insane category. so at least on the electoral front, high fives all around. but watch out for the crazy eyed folks.

Posted by: trrwv | Oct 9, 2007 9:48:20 PM

Concern Troll: the left is so angry because they have nothing to do but attack people. I was attacked for what I wrote, so I reread it. All I said was the Democrats used the SCHIP issue for gain. I'm right. As I said, if the Democrats cared about kids, they a) wouldn't use a kid to make their partisan point and b) they would have compromised like they say others should do. That's all.

For the guy who compared using this kid to make a point to kids hunting Easter eggs or playing t-ball at the White House, I just have to laugh. Bush isn't putting them straight in the media for the sole purpose of attacking his opponents like the Democrats are.

As for this kid being "fair game", the people who put him on and helped him with his script are certainly fair game. And to say that bringing in his family history is out of line is silly. The whole SCHIP issue is about families and how to pay for healthcare. Family background is part of the policy!

For those who can't handle the truth, I suggest doing some Socratic thinking on the issues so you can learn how to make choices. Simple name calling without any ideas or rigid ideas is kindergartenish. For those, who say conservatives are rigid, I have to laugh. We have all sorts of ideas on fixing Social Security, the schools, healthcare, energy, etc, but the liberals are the people stuck in the 40's.

For example, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. It almost should be illegal. Not only that, people only get about 2% to 3% on their money - and then they can't borrow against it and then the have to pay taxes again on it! There are better ways that will help all Americans retire easily and, at the same time, provide a fallback for when things go wrong. And all the liberals want to do is prolong the misery.

Look at the schools. Huge budgets and big problems. Competiton works wonders, but the Liberals are stuck in the 40's and just want more money to prolong the misery. School choice will go a long ways to fix things. Think of what we can do with the money if we don’t have to spend it on inefficient systems????!?!?

The same logic applies to energy and healthcare.

For every issue, the Liberals are on the wrong side of progress. In the world's history, the more liberal ideas are tried, the worse off people are. And don't say socialism works in places like Sweden. It has a very homogeneous population equivalent to about five of the six main counties around Chicago.

And this fascism angle that you guys have is funny too. Conservatives believe in the individual. Fascism subordinates the individual to the state just like Liberals do. Just listen to the Democrats and the pattern of more and bigger government is the GOAL. This is why Conservatives advocate smaller government. Republicans, on the other hand, have succumbed to spending our money like it’s theirs. Whoever goes to Washington falls for this. The only answer for the people is to push hard for smaller government.
These huge programs that come out of Washington are a waste of our money. Many of the programs help people, but why do we need to use such wasteful ways to attain our goals??? There has to be better ways to get things done than to rely on government. So stop calling people names and start thinking!

Posted by: Al | Oct 9, 2007 9:49:50 PM

Al, we've been trying things your way for some time now. It's our turn. The American people are fed up with Republican incompetence, corruption, lies and waste.

Posted by: r€nato | Oct 9, 2007 9:53:59 PM

Not sure if I'm a "these types," but I'm certainly not the Andrew of 9:05:36pm (mouse over the eMail addresses).

God forbid that progressives should start stalking snowflake babies. God forbid that the Left should start opposition research on every commentator on a right wing blog. God forbid that liberals should start acting like Malone in "The Untouchables"

"They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the *Chicago* way! And that's how you get Capone. Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?"

This is not concern trolling. It's saying that there ought to be a distinction between people with conservative views - collectively known as "The Right" - and some individuals who run conservative blogs or conservative talk radio shows who act reprehensibly.

Pouring vituperation on "liberals" or "The Right" because of the actions of any individual - a blogger, a diarist, an academic or a newspaper columnist - is not going to get us anywhere.

Posted by: Andrew | Oct 9, 2007 9:54:16 PM

Andrew:
The point is that people on the left don't do that. We don't stalk the homes of the snowflake babies. If, when and until you take back the Republican party from the flith you will be lumped in with them.

Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | Oct 9, 2007 10:04:57 PM

I guess the Democratic Party's tactic of hiding behind a 12-year-old child was, in retrospect, not such a neat idea after all. Does that mean that the Dems will stop hiding behind 12-year-old children in the future?

Posted by: TLB | Oct 9, 2007 5:42:50 PM


So you don't dare criticize The Decider for his stunt with the snow flake babies when he vetoed the Stem Cell bill?

Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | Oct 9, 2007 10:05:54 PM

Andrew, you may not be aware, but "The Right" controls the right wing talk show hosts and the blogs. All members of the right wing media act in concert, repeating talking points at the same time in a coordinated fashion. In 1995, the newly elected republican congressmen talked about making Rush Limbaugh an "honorary" congressman.

Who, for example, came up with the talking points about the Frost family that the republicans are repeating, verbatim? Turns out that it looks like they came out of Senatoe Mitch McConnell's office (that's the Senate Minority Leader, who is a Republican, in case you weren't aware).

The test, as I said before, is at the Thanksgiving table. Are the right wingers going to repeat these talking points in front of their families, hoping that this will give them credibility as someone who "knows about politics," or is this going to backfire, leaving everyone disgusted and leaving the rank-and-file consumers of right-wing media too cowed and embarassed to try it again?

Posted by: Tyro | Oct 9, 2007 10:07:21 PM

Methinks they should not strive so recklessly to instigate fights. There are genies that just shouldn't be let out of the bottle.

Truth be told, it really feels like the time is coming for a reckoning.

Passions are rising and someone on one side or the other is going to do something violent. It just feels inevitable.

God, what a disgusting place we're at. But if you ask me - I'd have to honestly say I don't think I'd shed a tear if someone hurt Malkin or Coulter or the like.

Yes, I know it is wrong. I know we're not supposed to say that out loud. We're supposed to be good little liberals. I hate myself for even feeling that way. But they're vile and disgusting human beings and I can't feel any sympathy for them and their ilk. They and Rush Limbaugh use this anger to line their own pockets while brushing off the things they say as "entertainment" or "opinion". I'm not advocating violence, but I'm not going to be surprised when someone reacts that way.

Ugh.

Posted by: Austinrunn | Oct 9, 2007 10:07:42 PM

It's time to finally bring out the F-word. To every right winger breezingly dismissing fascism, stating people are going overboard with the term, being too extreme with the language - make them justify these two words, spoken to rapturous applause:

"DOUBLE GUANTANAMO"

That applause said it all. No mention of why it was needed to expand, or just who would fill it. And of course, no comment about "rules", "justice" or "law".
Nope, the audience didn't need any of that! They just wanted to imprison, torture, and hurt those they can consider "the enemy", and all Romney needed to do was to promise twice as much of it.

At "heart", that's all Malkin and her fellow brownshirts want - an enemy to hate and a boot to kick them with. They've now spent days harassing this family. Are they really thinking their actions have caused one person to change their mind about SCHIP, as opposed to another person turning away from the Republican Party in revulsion? It doesn't even get to the level of thinking or strategy - it's running on the sheer enthusiasm and joy they get out of intimidating
the family, on getting them to cower and hide and beg for peace. In the end, they want the family to be Harry Whittington - forced to apologize for all the abuse they've given them.

Posted by: a1 | Oct 9, 2007 10:09:26 PM

In the world's history, the more liberal ideas are tried, the worse off people are. And don't say socialism works in places like Sweden.

Close enough! I call bingo!

And Al, you're probably right that people were worse off after liberals and leftists passed those child labor laws and those food inspection laws and those eight-hour workday laws and those occupational safety laws and those flame-retardant-children's-sleepwear laws and those civil rights laws and those minimum wage laws and those unemployment insurance laws. When are people going to wake up and realize how badly the left has screwed them?

Posted by: Michael Bérubé | Oct 9, 2007 10:09:27 PM

Don't presume this is just madness & spite. There is a veto override coming up, and the Malkins have a strategy and a purpose, perhaps to intimidate those House Republicans they need to flip, perhaps something else.

But this is politics.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Oct 9, 2007 10:15:21 PM

If the Dems trot out a child as some sort of poor victim of an unfair health care program, the child's background becomes fair game.

What's your address, dave?

Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Oct 9, 2007 10:18:51 PM

Asshole syndrome, what else could we call it? Big time pussies that don't even have an ounce of balls to serve. I did my time in Afghanistan as a civil servant, and I did not do it to get my career advanced (which had the unintended effect to have the opposite effect) but my intentions were to create a better society in a society that had gone wrong. But when I hear these pussies brag of American hegemony, it wrings my stomach. Where is their fucking sacrifice? When have they put their assess on the line? Who do they think they impress? I would love to meet these pussies in a dark alley. Bitches, whores, cunts. If you're going to talk the talk walk the walk. CULEROS

Posted by: el loco | Oct 9, 2007 10:20:14 PM

If I were to call the BTK Killer or Dahmer "monsters" or "inhuman," wouldn't that make me just like them? Wouldn't I be objectifying them in the same way they did to others, which allowed them to do such horrible things?

Of course not. That's stupid. The BTK Killer is a monster, Dahmer was a monster. I can say that because of what they did.

The same dynamic is at work here. Ezra's harsh words were saved for and directed at those who acted in reprehensible ways. The Lefty blogs react strongly when people's lives are put in danger.

The difference is, of course, that Ezra stops at rhetoric, as do other liberals. The conservative bloggers and Rush's dittoheads first of all explode with rage and fury against those with whom they disagree. They call for the extermination of groups of people - San Francisco, the UN, the New York Times, etc. - just because they are perceived as "liberal." And of course the other main difference is that they can't stop with rhetoric.

We are fully within our rights to label trash like Malkin, Limbaugh, the Freepers and all the rest as exactly that: trash, because that's how they act. No one gets angry at Michelle Malkin because she voted for George Bush. No one gets mad at Limbaugh for being a supply-sider or whatever. We get mad when they publish personal information, when they harass innocent people, when they call on their listeners/followers to invade people's privacy and endanger them.

At what point will we as a society finally recognize the harm being done by the Right Wing Hate Machine and take definite steps to stop them, to shut them down and put them away?

Posted by: Stephen | Oct 9, 2007 10:20:55 PM

Thanks, Ezra, for such a powerful denunciation of this kind of 'politics' if it can be characterized as such.

It's too bad that none of these things has any effect on these people. Coulter thrives. Rush laughs all the way to the bank. And Malkin screams to the millionth hit. And the Krauthammers, and Wills, and Kristols keep on pontificating as the arbiters of the moral and the ethical, while the fearles leader talks to God to get his instructions for the next round of killing and destruction in a faraway land.

Posted by: gregor | Oct 9, 2007 10:27:54 PM

I think a commenter at Dan Riehl's place said it best

Hey, cool, that was me!

Posted by: Seitz | Oct 9, 2007 10:33:25 PM

We need to resurrect the term MFB. Motherfucking Brownshirts.

(I think that was the term-- it's been years since I've seen it on teh internets.)

Posted by: gfw | Oct 9, 2007 10:35:30 PM

The post sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me. I have lived among the liberals and conservatives my whole life. And when it comes to hate rhetoric there is plenty to go around on both sides. Perhaps one of the nastiest was when I read a local Quad City progressive blogger "The Inside Dope" bust a gut castigating and insulting some young teen who took time to from his schedule to volunteer to help out with the Republican Political party. Or perhaps just skimming through the Democratic Underground Forum and read them calling Christians insulting names and calling them mental patients. There is no lack of ridiculous hate from either side of the political spectrum. It has become so bad I noticed that conservative Cal Thomas and liberal Bob Beckle have joined forces to right a book about it they called "Common Ground". Maybe it would do well for both parties to start handing it out to their media attack dogs. Perhaps the best thing that could come from the pissing match is that the sane citizens of this country are starting to notice how alike the two parties are and both party's poll numbers continue to wind up in the toilet. This country is ripe for a third party to step up and pull the lever that flushes both the Republican and Democrat Party with a swish and a swirl down the sewer. I will personally dance a jig on that day.

Posted by: theScoundrel | Oct 9, 2007 10:38:25 PM

Republicans have already shown us their willingness to resort to terrorism.

In Okhlahoma City- the Murrah Federal Building. At women's health clinics around the nation. And even on 9/11, when a terrorist organization with ties to the Bush administration flew airplanes into both the Pentagon and World Trade Center.

When they can't divide and conquer, they resort to terrorism... and conquer. If John Gotti ever dreamt of being "big time"... he would dream of being George Herbert Walker Bush, or Dick Cheney.

Posted by: jsg | Oct 9, 2007 10:40:20 PM

The Scoundrel: Can you please point out something that the left blogosphere has done that's equivalent to Malkin during this episode?

If you cannot, then you are wrong and one side *is* worse than the other.

(Tricky, that empirical evidence stuff.)

Posted by: gfw | Oct 9, 2007 10:53:07 PM

If the Dems trot out a child as some sort of poor victim of an unfair health care program, the child's background becomes fair game.Posted by: daveinboca | Oct 9, 2007 8:06:29 PM

Yup, 12-year-old boys are fair game for davinboca. Must be one of those Mark Foley republicans. Do you have a wide stance as well?

Posted by: limbaugh's pilonidal cyst | Oct 9, 2007 10:57:14 PM

Great post, Ezra. These people are truly disgraceful.

Posted by: Korha | Oct 9, 2007 10:58:14 PM

Al, the SCHIP bill was ALREADY a compromise between the republicans and democrats, thats why it passed with a large MAJORITY in BOTH houses and also why most governers, including your beloved Govenator in California WANTED it to pass.

Personally I think Bush is playing one big mind game to see exactly how stupid he can make his "base" look by making them try and justify the most stupid veto ever made...

Posted by: JoeTX | Oct 9, 2007 10:59:06 PM

Let's see, the parents say they can't afford health insurance; I've seen quotes for some plans for a large family as low as $452/month.
So, there is a horrible accident and it's Bush's fault that there was no health insurance.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Posted by: JR | Oct 9, 2007 11:20:40 PM

Ezra,

You inspired me to post about this story tonight; it's rare I hear you sound so bereft (I describe you as "unrelatably cheerful" - acknowledging that one of those words made be made up). But then I come to post here and the vitriol in the comments is heating up as I scroll down. I feel like both sides of the aisle are barely in control, if I had to use political blog comments as proxy.

I like bob mcmanus's comment; politics is violent - no doubt.

Posted by: Redstar | Oct 9, 2007 11:26:35 PM

I'm just so much more smarter and more successful than you liberals, and you can't stand it.

Posted by: daveinboca | Oct 9, 2007 11:34:06 PM

Only $452 a month, JR? Then those Frosts must definitely be lying! Everyone can afford an extra $452 a month -- unless they live in Europe, ha ha ha. Oh, and that low, low $452 premium included coverage for children with disabling prior conditions resulting from car accidents, right?

Can you please point out something that the left blogosphere has done that's equivalent to Malkin during this episode?

I can, gfw. They made a rhyme out of a General's name. Truly, a vile lowering of public discourse, worthy of censure by the world's greatest deliberative body.

Posted by: Concern Troll | Oct 9, 2007 11:36:56 PM

I've seen quotes for some plans for a large family as low as $452/month.

I've also seen people on the teevee who make millions with no money down. Your point being?

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Oct 9, 2007 11:37:00 PM

I think it was "MBFs" (Moronic Brownshirt F--ks"), Yes?

And Al, conservatives advocate rights of the "Individual"??? Please!

Substitute shareholder or CEO, maybe. Conservatives would love to drown "the State", our government of the people, for the people in the proverbial bathtub as it is the only thing standing in the way of corporate feudalism!

Posted by: St Paul E Wog | Oct 9, 2007 11:44:21 PM

I think it was "MBFs" (Moronic Brownshirt F--ks"), Yes?

And Al, conservatives advocate rights of the "Individual"??? Please!

Substitute shareholder or CEO, maybe. Conservatives would love to drown "the State", our government of the people, for the people in the proverbial bathtub as it is the only thing standing in the way of corporate feudalism!

Posted by: St Paul E Wog | Oct 9, 2007 11:45:14 PM

I think it was "MBFs" (Moronic Brownshirt F--ks"), Yes?

And Al, conservatives advocate rights of the "Individual"??? Please!

Substitute shareholder or CEO, maybe. Conservatives would love to drown "the State", our government of the people, for the people in the proverbial bathtub as it is the only thing standing in the way of corporate feudalism!

Posted by: St Paul E Wog | Oct 9, 2007 11:45:21 PM

I've been told by more than one wingnut that they are waiting for a civil war, in America.

The Bush Administration clearly conceived of the Bush Administration as fighting a two-front war: the war on Islamofascism abroad, and the war against liberals and Democrats at home.

The leading response to the "chickenhawk" charge is "I'm fighting the culture war."

Consider this: The 2008 Republican presidential campaign will invest hundreds of millions to blanket the airwaves with the message that Democrats are traitors. The rage -- already so close to exploding into violence -- will be further fueled in the next 13 months.

If you listen to CSPAN's callers in the morning, or callers to talk radio, they already talk about executing liberals, or putting them in jail. We're right on the edge of something horrific happening.

Pink Floyd's Run Like Hell comes to mind.

It's about what happens when wingnuts make that fateful leap to Nazi.

Posted by: TwinSwords | Oct 9, 2007 11:48:06 PM

The New York Times weighs in, and provides the response to the conserva-nuts who complain that the Frost parents "chose" not to get health insurance.

Ready?

They applied three times and were denied because of pre-existing conditions.

THAT oughta shut up the rightwing crazies.

(No, I'm kidding. Of course it won't)

Posted by: Kenneth R Ashford | Oct 10, 2007 12:03:43 AM

I think you are right, St. Paul E Wog: Moronic Brownshirt Fucks.

Posted by: gfw | Oct 10, 2007 12:06:50 AM

Casual, intimidating violence is what brownshirts are all about. Have we already reached that point? I defer to dave niewart...

Posted by: gfw | Oct 10, 2007 12:08:19 AM

If I lived on the East Coast, I would volunteer to watch the family's house....Perhaps people could take shifts...Has there been any talk of this???

Posted by: Hank Essay | Oct 10, 2007 12:20:19 AM

It is a blessing and relief that these mobs, as of yet, do nothing more than smear, that the blood they exult in is figurative and the inflicted harm is emotional or occupational.

Usually.

Posted by: Seth D. | Oct 10, 2007 12:26:59 AM

I've been told by more than one wingnut that they are waiting for a civil war, in America.

yeah right, and who's going to fight it? Not them. They are too busy fending off the islamocommienazifascist hordes from mommy's basement.

Posted by: r€nato | Oct 10, 2007 12:59:00 AM

I guess the Democratic Party's tactic of hiding behind a 12-year-old child was, in retrospect, not such a neat idea after all. Does that mean that the Dems will stop hiding behind 12-year-old children in the future? Posted by: daveinboca | Oct 9, 2007 8:06:29 PM

Oh, dear daveinboca,

The child was an example of a person who is impacted by an important government program -- healthcare for children.

Nobody is hiding behind this child. Quite to the contrary: Democrats are showing how government works to the benefit of us all.

I hope that you all have health insurance. I hope that Michelle Malkin has health insurance too.

For many of us -- including this child of a family with hard-working parents -- health insurance is impossibly expensive and often impossible to get, if you have a pre-existing condition.

In disagreeing with you, I do not propose to visit your home or Michelle Malkin's home or place of work. I do not propose to estimate your income or hers. That is not "journalism" -- it is harrassment.

I hope that you understand now.

Sincerely,
MS

Posted by: MS | Oct 10, 2007 1:09:10 AM

Simple name calling without any ideas or rigid ideas is kindergartenish.

Behold the awesome irony of our wingnut overlords.

And personally, I prefer complex namecalling. Why simply call someone an asshole when you can say the same thing in four paragraphs?

"Al" sounds an awful lot like Al Maviva. Especially when he cites a spoof/troll on his old haunts at Balloon Juice.

Posted by: John S. | Oct 10, 2007 1:13:00 AM

I hope that you understand now.

unlikely. Bullies don't pay any attention to reason or logic.

The way to deal with a bully is to pop him in the nose and watch him go crying to his mommy.

Not surprising, really, that the right-wing - which is largely composed of bullies and psychopaths - would pick on a 12 year old boy with brain damage. That's just what a coward would do.

Posted by: r€nato | Oct 10, 2007 1:49:45 AM

I think you liberals live in another world. The fascism/brownshirt angle is soothing to you guys, but it doesn’t make sense. Read up on fascism. We want smaller government and not to be ruled by a dictator. It makes no sense that you guys believe this. A lot of us don’t like Bush either for some issues.

Conservatives believe in the individual. We generally dislike big government and especially dictators.

We believe in freedom, but with freedom goes responsibility. If you think about it, it’s the only way it will work. Without responsibility, things won’t work and people won’t get along. Think of the Statue of Liberty. We all think of the torch that symbolizes freedom, but it’s the Book of Laws in the other hand, that makes it work. In fact the whole Statue of Liberty symbolizes freedom and it is assumed that responsibility is part of it. I know many of you people don’t understand this as you think we all should just be able to do whatever we want whenever we want. Without some rules, we all sink. Whether we’re talking about riding bikes on a crowed path or having a meeting or just plain living with many other people, we need some common rules, ethics and morals to make it work. The anarchists, etc, are just selfish. When you are following the rules, you are giving to your fellow man. All of this is obvious to me. I can see why some people think liberalism is a mental disorder as there is no way to resolve the conflicts of how to live without rules but, at the same time, we all need them.

Go ahead and call me a "wingnut" or something, but I'm right.

Posted by: Al | Oct 10, 2007 2:00:28 AM

I have read the constitution many times and have yet to find the part that states it is the responsibility of the federal government to supply you with health care. If this was a 3rd trimester child the vast majority of you would see no problem butchering it and sucking it out of the womb with a shop vac.

You want to read hate, go to Kos or start at the beginning of this page. Of those on this page, how many of you volunteer your time to help others or do you pass it off on the government to take from others. Last I saw, the right donates more of their time an money the "progressive."

Please define what a progressive is by the way. Most of the ones I have met want something for nothing and live in a world of delusion.

Oh, I am a physician and volunteer 1 day a week at a shelter. So, please tell me what you give to your country and those around you or do you just take.

Posted by: proudneocon | Oct 10, 2007 2:00:36 AM

Something has gone wrong on the Right. Become sick and twisted and tumorous and ugly.

Ezra, I've been paying attention to right-wing talk radio for about 6 years now and I'd say this statement is at least 6 years too late.

Posted by: Steve J. | Oct 10, 2007 2:08:43 AM

We believe in freedom, but with freedom goes responsibility.

Then why did Pres. Bush give Franks, Bremer and Tenet the Medal of Freedom? Did you protest that?

Posted by: Steve J. | Oct 10, 2007 2:10:07 AM

Oh, I am a physician and volunteer 1 day a week at a shelter.

Do you go along with your wife, Morgan Fairchild?

Since the right is all about sharing personal information, could you at least tell us which state licenses you, so that we can ensure we never have the misfortune to be pawed by your healing hands?

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Oct 10, 2007 2:25:12 AM

I've been told by more than one wingnut that they are waiting for a civil war, in America.

I've been reading posts like that for a few years. Those people are scary.


Posted by: Steve J. | Oct 10, 2007 2:25:16 AM

Al says this: "I think you liberals live in another world. The fascism/brownshirt angle is soothing to you guys, but it doesn’t make sense. Read up on fascism. We want smaller government and not to be ruled by a dictator. It makes no sense that you guys believe this. A lot of us don’t like Bush either for some issues."

If you read up on the topic of fascism, what you'll find is that fascists are the people who do things like what Malkin and her creepy pals are doing.

That's all there is to it. It's fascism. They are threatening the well-being of individuals for purely political purposes. That's what fascists do. Though there are many slightly different definitions for the term, it's generally accepted that fascism requires two things: A nationalist, pro-corporate movement and/or government, and a bunch of thugs who will cajole, threaten, and deliver violence on behalf of that movement or government.

And that's what Malkin's Army is: Brownshirts for Bush. It's fascism. That's what it is, Al. Get used to the term 'fascism' being attached to stuff like this, because it fits entirely. There's simply no way around it.

So with that in mind, Al, we come back to one question: Since you're willing to apologize for them, are you one of them? We need an answer quick, because this country is going down the crapper soon if the Malkinites aren't marginalized post-haste.

Posted by: Enoch Root | Oct 10, 2007 2:35:19 AM

"Since the right is all about sharing personal information, could you at least tell us which state licenses you, so that we can ensure we never have the misfortune to be pawed by your healing hands?"

The answer of a coward. I see you did not answer a single question. Colorado and Texas.

Again, what have you done for someone other than yourself. I am a pro innocent life physician. What about you? Do you support the butchering of the unborn because the child might cramp you style or get in your way.

As for my wife, she spends 2 days a week volunteering at a shelter for battered women and children. What about you?

I suspect you will not answer because you know you do nothing for anyone but your self.

Posted by: proudneocon | Oct 10, 2007 2:41:25 AM

'Last I saw, the right donates more of their time an money the "progressive."'

Cite please. And remember to factor out church giving.

Posted by: Sock puppet of the Great Satan | Oct 10, 2007 2:57:56 AM

I have read the constitution many times and have yet to find the part that states it is the responsibility of the federal government to supply you with health care.

The Constitution does not prohibit it, either. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Justice Holmes thought on this issue:
...But a constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the State or of laissez faire. [p76] It is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States.

Lochner v. New York, 1905

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0198_0045_ZD1.html

Posted by: Steve J. | Oct 10, 2007 2:58:50 AM

We have assholes that claim to be on our side too. Unfortunately they are given link love and cover by the people on our side that we would like to think of as our leaders.

Compare and contrast the following posts and determine for yourself if Amanda Marcotte has a problem with the truth and a problem involving her misrepresenting and smearing people. And with Amanda Marcotte, so goes LGM and Shakespeare's Sister.

The post that started it all:
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/10/ask_dr_helen_5.php

Amanda's reaction:
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/08/6148/

Scott Lemieux:
http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2007/10/i-defy-you-to-show-me-christian-white.html

Glenn Sacks:
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1255
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1257

Are there any ethical werewolves around that can help us out in determining if Amanda's representations were ethical or not?

Or maybe Amanda is just joking, as she often claims. It is her sense of humor that I don't get. Nor Ann Coulter's for that matter.

Ezra, Michelle Malkin is a shitbag, and you ain't going to change that. Is there something you could be doing, should be doing, locally?

Posted by: feh | Oct 10, 2007 3:22:15 AM

Proudneocon, please learn proper grammar. Someone with your professional credentials should be able to string together a coherent thought with ease but you're failing miserably at it.

You want to know what us progressives "do for others"? I can't speak for everyone here but I help run my town's animal shelter, volunteer an afternoon every week to the local Boys & Girls Club, and coach my alma mater's soccer team.

So shove it with this "your so greedy and lazy you socialists!" crap... it's annoying.

Posted by: FizzyLikeFresca | Oct 10, 2007 3:24:43 AM

Ooh, yeah, I can totally see how Glenn Sacks has anything whatsoever to do with this post.

Posted by: Auguste | Oct 10, 2007 4:27:15 AM

They applied three times and were denied because of pre-existing conditions.

I just thought that needed repeating.

Posted by: Auguste | Oct 10, 2007 4:32:02 AM

'It would never, not in a million years, occur to me to drive to the home of a Republican small business owner to see if he "really" needed that tax cut. It would never, not in a million years, occur to me to call his family and demand their personal information. It would never occur to me to interrogate his neighbors. It would never occur to me to his smear his children.'

So if the republicans, for example, dragged out some family and claimed that theyd be bankrupted by proposed democratic tax raises, you wouldn't even get the flicker of an inkling to try and establish whether that claim was true or not?


Posted by: pimp hand strikes! | Oct 10, 2007 4:39:56 AM

Glenn Sacks has as much to do with this post as Graeme Frost's parents.

Amanda Marcotte, your co-douchebag blogger has as much to do with this post as Michelle Malkin.

What has happened to the Right? What has happened to us in the left that we provide cover to Amanda Marcotte, the Ann Coulter wanna-be of the left?

We like to claim we're reality based -- read the links above and decide for yourself how reality based we are.

Amanda has been shown by men, women, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, straights, gays, and the transgendered to be an out and out liar that misrepresents their posts.

Auguste, I have often wondered if you cobloggers of hers truly understand that you can find these verified, validated, documented complaints on so many sites, and such diverse sites.

Auguste, I am sure you have seen Amanda's Airport post. Do you really buy her second post? Auguste, do you really agree with Amanda that we will never know what happened in the Duke house because Nifong screwed it up? Do you really agree with her that the AG's statement that the students were innocent is not to be believed?

Auguste, you contribute to the site. What is your site's official policy towards using other people's copyrighted artworks? Do you pay royalties? Do you even ask for permission? Do you sell ads and if so, do you feel your use really falls under fair use?

Auguste, are any of you embarrassed yet that you let that authoritarian reichtard Ilyka Damen into your blog? She never was a democrat. She found you assholes because your authoritarian tactics were just like the ones she was familiar with at Dean Esmay's site.

Auguste, Glenn Sacks has as much to do with this post as Graeme Frost. You sure have lots to do with this post however. I am not sure if you're one of the assholes that is an enabler of Amanda, or if you're just as fucked up as she is. What do you think?

Apart from your dismissal of Sacks, what do you actually think of Amanda's characterization of it? Do you stand behind it, Auguste? Ezra, feel free to answer that question as well.

Posted by: feh | Oct 10, 2007 4:43:31 AM

I think another blow against the idea that 'the left' remains untouched by political tribalism is the fact that a post about the specifics of obama's climate change policy got 2 comments whilst a post about how big, mean and crazy wingnuts are got well over 100.

Posted by: pimp hand strikes! | Oct 10, 2007 4:58:25 AM

Who in his right sense would believe that to give a sick boy to read the text concocted by Washington staffers is a fair play? It seems more like Palestinian tactic to launch rockets from behind children's backs and then whinning about collateral damage from fire return.

Posted by: Sergey | Oct 10, 2007 4:59:56 AM

To Mr. Klein, this is my first visit to your blog. It may be my last. This is exactly the level of discourse we don't need. You may think you are right, but even you can't be arrogant enough to believe you are right about everything, and your political opponents are all evil fiends in human form. If so, then how do you explain the Gen Petraeus advertisement?

Just a few observations on your column:
1) Where and when was this 12 year old boy "smeared"? That's a flat-out lie. Please show me some link somewhere or withdraw your accusation. That is, quite literally hiding behind a child to avoid the real debate.

2) Scott Beauchamp was criticized by people like me (such as here). Reason: I've served in Iraq (twice) and knew his stories were impossible.

3) It would never occur to you to investigate this family? Really? It certainly occured to the man who made "Roger and Me" & "Bowling for Columbine", and "Farenheit 9/11" to do things like this. It occured to whoever decided to expose Sen Mark Foley or Larry Craig. It occured to some people to try to dig into Gen Petraeus's background (even question his medals).

If you are this narrow minded and politically polarized, then I doubt you will listen to any contrary voice, but your "side" needs to wash its own hands before they complain about the dirt on others.

Posted by: John Rohan | Oct 10, 2007 5:19:55 AM

We all know this sort of behavior seems rational to right-wingers is because they have an emotional need for authoritarian "logic" and structure that overrides intelligence.

Liberals are always their target because the entire concept of making appropriate policy choices by balancing conflicting interests is too complicated for them. They like simple, orderly, ideological responses to EVERYTHING.

Thus, they can't possibly treat those with differing opinions as people of good faith. It makes their heads hurt, just thinking about it. This is a war.

Posted by: Susie from Philly | Oct 10, 2007 5:58:18 AM

There's an ancient Taoist saying, "What you resist, you become."

Nietzsche put it more poetically.

Beware when you battle monsters,
lest you become a monster.
And as you gaze into the abyss,
the abyss gazes also,
into you.

The 'Right' (I hate the terms Right and Left) had a major enemy for many years. Opposing this enemy gave their lives purpose, shaped their perception of the world.

That enemy vanished from the world.

And now it's apparent that they have become the thing they reviled so much.

Posted by: Rob Graham | Oct 10, 2007 6:38:47 AM

I remember when the elderly were off limits too. Gore said an elderly woman in Des Moines, Iowa, Mrs. Skinner, has to collect empty cans along the highways seven days a week so she can pay for her prescription drug bills. She ended up being wealthy but mentally ill. Dems do a poor job of investigating who they choose as examples.

Posted by: Dennis | Oct 10, 2007 7:18:50 AM

More Leftist Bolshevik Jew Distortion..

Posted by: Mike | Oct 10, 2007 7:20:50 AM

I think you liberals live in another world. The fascism/brownshirt angle is soothing to you guys, but it doesn’t make sense. Read up on fascism. We want smaller government and not to be ruled by a dictator. It makes no sense that you guys believe this. A lot of us don’t like Bush either for some issues.

Conservatives believe in the individual. We generally dislike big government and especially dictators.

I guess the Bush Administration has been a big disappointment for you then?

Posted by: Roxanne | Oct 10, 2007 7:21:55 AM

Conservatives believe in the individual.

Harassing individuals who don't believe in you.

What's stunning is how quick Republicans are to turn on "one of their own." This is by all accounts the sort of family Republicans idolize, except for two things-- they weren't rich and they made use of government relief for health insurance when they had no private options. That leaves them the target of demonization, even from "proudneocon" for whom SCHIP helps pay his salary.

Posted by: Tyro | Oct 10, 2007 7:45:38 AM

Wow. With all the concern trolling and other wingnuttia infesting this thread, I'd have to say that Ezra must have hit one hell of an exposed nerve.

Posted by: Doug H. | Oct 10, 2007 8:02:14 AM

Seth D - thanks for the link to the story of Pro-War Activists displaying their activism by beating up the father of a fallen soldier just because he opposed the war in which his son was killed. On the local news (out of NYC) I saw a woman lamenting to a reporter about the anti-war protestors behind her, "We have people fighting and dying so they can do this, and I just think it's wrong." Wrong? To exercise several of your First Amendment rights at the same time? What is the point of our soldiers fighting and dying so they could do that if they can't be allowed to do that? And while they are fighting and dying for us, it' so that Pro-War Protestors can say they're for the war, not so they can beat up someone who isn't.

As for those who make the claim that Conservatives care about the individual, this is highly disengenuous. Yes, it's true, that as part of the philosophy you support the individual, but in practice conservatives will happily get together with others like them (usually rich white men who may or may not be members of a Secret Society, like Skull & Bones) to destroy their ideological and financial competitors. The way that many conservatives want to apply their "philosophy" is from a selfish point of view. Their actions are anything but those of the individual, and the party-line voting seen in Washington tends to be more of a Republican trait (the conservative-leaning party) rather than a Democratic one. And if you truly believe in your conservatism, then you would be opposed to many of things that liberals have fought and died for, such as clean air you can breathe and clean water you can drink; Social Security and Medicare programs so your parents can grow old with dignity and not send you to the poor house; a forty-hour work week with an opportunity for overtime (unless you've sold your soul to become "management", in which case, unless you're the top boss, you're treated like a slave to your employer) and safe work place in which to do it; a public education system so your kids can spend their days learning something, playing with and making new friends, and generally staying safe from predators as opposed to working in a factory or on a farm, which a hundred years ago was where 5-7-year-olds were sent to work; and the right to fall in love with someone of another race and to share public facilities with that person. You would be opposed to all of those things because all of them were attained through the hard work of liberals and all of those things were opposed by conservatives like you.

Posted by: Wayne A. Schneider | Oct 10, 2007 8:58:37 AM

Pity the poor wingers. Targetting a 12 year old boy and his family for harassment in real life because of political speech is thuggery. It begins and ends there. If you don't want to be called a thug, don't be one. Oh, and Tyro - using government health insurance isn't why the wingers are trying to destroy this family. The Frosts opposed Dear Leader Bush, which makes them the enemy. This, and this alone, justifies making them the object of the current 5 minute hate.

Leave aside the reflexive defense of your tribe, wingers. Does what *your tribe* is doing to the Frosts make you uncomfortable in the least?

Posted by: Marc | Oct 10, 2007 8:59:45 AM

Nothing will ever damage your philosophy more than attacking children. This shows how fundamentally broken to right really is, not just morally, but instinctually. Most people have an instinctual disgust of attacking children. We're a communal animal. We aren't supposed to have parental instincts only for our own offspring, we are supposed to have them for ALL children in our society. That these people don't shows them to be genetically or psychologically flawed. These instincts, much more so than 'traditional marriage' or any other construct, is what makes civilization possible.

Posted by: soullite | Oct 10, 2007 9:05:35 AM

Where and when was this 12 year old boy "smeared"?

Maybe you haven't been checking out Dan Riehl or Michelle Malkin. Or maybe you just think that surmising that because the kid's dad has a Suburban and his mother has a rich father makes his story bullshit.

I've served in Iraq (twice) and knew his stories were impossible.

I'll take personal anecdotes for $500, Alex. Did you set up a model in your local sandbox to simulate Beauchamp's scenarios in order to disprove their veracity? I bet you did.

It would never occur to you to investigate this family?

You call sneaking around someone's house and publishing their personal info online investigative journalism? That's fascinating. I'm sure the Frost's situation could have been validated in appropriate fashion (like the NY Times and Wa Post did), but I don't think this word 'investigate' means what you think it does. Especially when you think what was done to General Petraeus is equivalent to this situation.

If you are this narrow minded and politically polarized, then I doubt you will listen to any contrary voice

Exactly. Go back to your little bubble, Mr. Rohan, where demonizing brain damaged kids isn't just warranted - it's PATRIOTIC!

Posted by: John S. | Oct 10, 2007 9:12:21 AM

I would note that this is disturbingly similar to Maenadic rites, where, "The mysteries of Dionysus inspired the women to ecstatic frenzy; they indulged in copious amounts of violence, bloodletting, sexual activity, self-intoxication, and mutilation."

Posted by: Matthew Saroff | Oct 10, 2007 9:51:09 AM

It would never occur to you to investigate this family?

No. You must be a real peach of a neighbor.

Posted by: r€nato | Oct 10, 2007 9:57:06 AM

To Mr. Klein, this is my first visit to your blog. It may be my last.

o noes!

Posted by: r€nato | Oct 10, 2007 9:58:36 AM

Wow. Right on, Ezra!

Posted by: HFS | Oct 10, 2007 10:02:04 AM

soullite said:

Nothing will ever damage your philosophy more than attacking children. This shows how fundamentally broken to right really is, not just morally, but instinctually. Most people have an instinctual disgust of attacking children.

BEFORE REPEATING THAT SAME TALKING POINT AGAIN, SOMEONE PLEASE PROVIDE AT LEAST ONE REFERENCE WHERE MALKIN OR LIMBAUGH (OR ANYONE) "ATTACKED" OR "SMEARED" THIS CHILD. NOT THE FAMILY'S FINANCIAL CLAIMS, NOT THE DEMOCRATS, BUT THIS CHILD. I AM STILL WAITING.

That is all. Please excuse my primal scream.

Posted by: John Rohan | Oct 10, 2007 10:33:10 AM

John, the family's financial claims were confirmed by the S-CHIP program. It was rush and michelle who ended up having to lie about the family's financial situation.

The question is, of course, why did they go after this family with their unhinged ragew? Why have right wingers been harassing the family? Is something wrong with them? Are they ill? Why did Mitch McConnell's office participate. That's what Ezra is trying to figure out here and what you don't have an answer for-- what is WRONG with the right wing? Why did they end up resorting to a campaign of dishonesty and innuendo against a family that did everything that republicans told them to do?<

Posted by: Tyro | Oct 10, 2007 10:39:53 AM

So John,
you don't think calling the family's home several times, which MM's accolytes have done, snooping, calling his family's finances into question, isn't smearing the child? Like he's not supposed to care if his parents are put through the ringer because he stepped forward and wanted to do the radio address? Or his peers at school aren't going to harass him if this pack of lies gets into common circulation?

Posted by: lou | Oct 10, 2007 10:46:29 AM

To Mr. Klein, this is my first visit to your blog. It may be my last.

Posted by: John Rohan | Oct 10, 2007 5:19:55 AM

Well, buh-bye, then.


BEFORE REPEATING THAT SAME TALKING POINT AGAIN, SOMEONE PLEASE PROVIDE AT LEAST ONE REFERENCE WHERE MALKIN OR LIMBAUGH (OR ANYONE) "ATTACKED" OR "SMEARED" THIS CHILD. NOT THE FAMILY'S FINANCIAL CLAIMS, NOT THE DEMOCRATS, BUT THIS CHILD. I AM STILL WAITING.

That is all. Please excuse my primal scream.

Posted by: John Rohan | Oct 10, 2007 10:33:10 AM

How can we miss you when you won't go away?


Posted by: limbaugh's pilonidal cyst | Oct 10, 2007 10:55:44 AM

How about a retraction for smearing Malkin, since she did not question the Frosts or go up to their doorstep or neighbor's doorsteps? You are a new breed of hypocrite: a blog-happy hyping-crite.

Posted by: Dave Turson | Oct 10, 2007 11:16:41 AM

john, I'm sorry this unhinges you. Like I said, this is nothing short of an assault on these childrens lives, you people are camping their schools, trying to destroy their parents livlihoods. your actions are clearly designed to have these children's scholarships taken away. Don't pretend you're not trying to do serious damage to the lives of these children. You, as a political movement, are seeking to destroy a family because they said something you don't like. It's not my fault that you can't live with your own actions, and that being called on this shit unhinges you. But you're the one that's flawed here. You're the one that's not quite right.

Posted by: soullite | Oct 10, 2007 11:31:22 AM

Dave, she made it so that other people would. You don't get to incite a riot and skate because you walked away before the shit hit the fan. You people are just too cowardly to stand by what you've done. You know it reveals just how sick and demented you people really are. You do not destroy families. You do not try to hurt children. you do not understand that.

Posted by: soullite | Oct 10, 2007 11:33:46 AM

Ezra,

An inspired post. This has been going on for some time. Recall the frenzied feeding on Nick Berg's anti-war father in the days just after his son's decapitation video made the rounds.

Posted by: