Conservative Blogosphere Reacts to Tim Johnson’s Illness
When President Clinton underwent open-heart surgery, I was proud of how the conservative blogosphere reacted. Almost to a person, we wished him the best of luck, even though most of us had despised his policies and his presidency.
At the time I observed:
I would genuinely like to believe that those on the left would do the same if any current or former Republican President had a serious health issue — but then, we saw the way they acted when Ronald Reagan died, didn’t we?
Today I am once again proud of my colleagues, whose decency has risen about petty politics in addressing the illness of Democrat Sen. Tim Johnson. His death would almost certainly mean that the Republicans would regain control of the Senate — yet we are all sincerely pulling for his full and speedy recovery.
First and foremost, keep him and his family in your thoughts and prayers.
Once again, we extend our sympathy and hopes for a full recovery to Senator Johnson and his family.
Keep the family in your prayers.
Ace:
Obviously our hopes are with him.
I HOPE THAT TIM JOHNSON TURNS OUT TO BE OKAY, and I don’t have much more to say than that.
First, best wishes for a speedy and complete recovery to Sen. Johnson (D-SD).
And of course this blog had similar sentiments:
Best wishes to Sen. Johnson and his family. I hope he has a full recovery.
There’s nothing exceptional about this, by the way. It’s simple human decency. Just as I said when President Clinton had his surgery, I’d like to think we’d see the same from our colleagues on the left, if the tables were turned. I really would.
Except that the entire liberal world thinks it’s insincere. My buddy, who’s a lib, when he heard Thune wish for a speedy recovery, uttered angry bile and cried bullshyt.
I said, “Despite that the Senate hangs in the balance, I doubt Thune, or any Republican wishes the guy ill for politics.”
And, then I realized he woun’t believe me because that’s the way most libs have behaved in the GWOT and during Bushes entire Presidency.
Matt (f67d74) — 12/15/2006 @ 6:05 amI thought it was fascinating. The only place I saw that speculation was in the media, and then only on the left of center side. I was pretty much all over the web yesterday and didn’t see it at all on the right.
Dwilkers (4f4ebf) — 12/15/2006 @ 6:26 amI’d like to think we’d see the same from our colleagues on the left, if the tables were turned. I really would.
Sadly you would be wrong. I’ll not soon forget the liberal cheers when Reagan died – 20 years after he left office. It was disgusting.
Jane (5a66ce) — 12/15/2006 @ 7:15 amThe far left is all about the personal is the political, their very identity is wrapped up in the political views they deem legitimate. They can’t grasp why “unbelievers” would act any differently.
So while those with right leaning blogs can look at Tim Johnson as a human being in tragic circumstances, you have the left spinning conspiracy theories that Johnson’s illness is really a “hit job” by Rethuglicans (DU and outregeous remarks from “The View”)
We also get Markos wishing Michelle Malkin gets killed in Iraq.
LOVELY people.
Darleen (543cb7) — 12/15/2006 @ 7:17 amI couldn’t help myself with a “stroke of luck” comment. Yeah I’d burn in hell if it existed.
Gabriel (6d7447) — 12/15/2006 @ 7:40 amIt is a rule of life that projection assumes behavior of one’s real or perceived enemies that mirrors one’s own behavior. Ergo, the vile and vicious comments commonly uttered on the left are expected by them to be similarly uttered on the right. But most conservatives, libertarians and Republicans I know simply do not operate that way.
I noted that on Wednesday evening and Thursday morning, the biggest offenders in the speculation about Senator Tim Johnson’s illness were the alphabet idiots: CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and the little watched MSNBC. Fox News went a bit that way as well, but not as egregiously as did the others.
We are all, before any other “labels”, human beings. The climate of hate fostered by the Dems and their leftist insanely partisan pals is ultimately more damaging to them than to us – but still it is damaging to all to some degree.
Gayle Miller (1288b1) — 12/15/2006 @ 8:02 amDwilkers,
I think you need to look a bit harder then.
While a fan of both, Ace’s and Powerline’s initial posts on Johnson’s condition all speculated about a possible power shift.
From Ace:
Powerline titled their post:
While subsequent posts have been more measured, the initial impulse was “What about the Senate?!”
Drudge was also a culprit when the story first broke.
So let’s not get too back-slappy right now…
Army Lawyer (498217) — 12/15/2006 @ 8:04 amIsn’t the tragedy of the liar that he can never believe anyone else? Seems like the same thing here.
Jinnmabe (cc24db) — 12/15/2006 @ 10:07 ami think it’s hilarious that people of a certain political persuasion are using this occasion to tell the world how much more moral and caring they are. does it make you feel good? bah, humbug.
assistant devil's advocate (720b00) — 12/15/2006 @ 10:15 am“The climate of hate fostered by the Dems and their leftist insanely partisan pals is ultimately more damaging to them than to us – but still it is damaging to all to some degree.”
-Gayle Miller
Would that “climate of hate” (my, but that’s catchy) include name calling, by any chance?
Why don’t we all just admit how morally decrepit we are and move on?
Here but for the grace of God go we, right?
It’s sad that the people trumpeting their moral superiority are the same people trumpeting their Christian beliefs…
Leviticus (ebf019) — 12/15/2006 @ 10:33 amGreat point, Patterico.
I would also add Hugh Hewitt & Mary Katharine Ham to the list of folks who have wished Senator Johnson a speedy recovery.
Of course, contrast these sentiments with the hateful bile (“Die, Strom, die !”) by the lefties when Strom Thurmond had health problems near the end of his final Senate term, or death-wish comments directed toward VP Cheney’s heart problems a few years back.
I would also respectfully add that it appears Army Lawyer drastically misunderstands the issue which Patterico brings up.
Army Lawyer brings up the fact that some bloggers have also asked, “how might this affect the power of the Senate ?”
But that is simply NOT THE SAME as cheerleading for Senate Johnson to DIE, as lefty bloggers acted toward Strom Thurmond, or Dick Cheney, when he had his heart problems a few years back.
It is perfectly reasonable to discuss what would become of the Senate should Senator Johnson not survive.
In fact, those who truly follow the goings-on in the Senate will recall that following the 2000 election which resulted in a 50-50 Senate (prior to Jim Jeffords defecting), party leaders Tom Daschle & Trent Lott knocked out a deal regarding potential “stand-by rules” which was entirely PREDICATED on the fact that there were several members of the Senate who were either of advanced age or declining health, and a death would easily tip the Senate in either direction.
But please, let’s not conflate discussing how a Senator’s potential death would affect Senate control WITH CHEERLEADING for someone’s death.
Desert Rat (ee9fe2) — 12/15/2006 @ 10:34 amDesert Rat:
Patterico stated that he was “proud of my colleagues, whose decency has risen about petty politics in addressing the illness of Democrat Sen. Tim Johnson.”
I’m pointing out that in their INITIAL posts on the issue of his illness, “petty politics” was front and center.
I agree it is perfectly legitimate to consider and comment on the ramifications of Sen. Johnson’s illness. What makes it unseemly (or at the least, not laudatory) is when one’s first reaction is to speculate how this will effect your party.
Army Lawyer (498217) — 12/15/2006 @ 12:09 pmArmy Lawyer,
I’m not sure I agree with you. None of us know Senator Johnson. I think it is understandable that, for people who don’t know him, the first reaction would be to wonder how his medical situation might affect our government. I know that was true in my case. My second thought was for him and his family because I know how devastating it is to experience a medical emergency like this.
The reaction that I would find troubling is for people to hope that Senator Johnson might die or become incapacitated. I haven’t seen that among conservative bloggers – although I did see one blog that jokingly speculated God was helping Republicans with Johnson’s illness. We have seen posts at liberal blogs that hope for bad things to happen to conservatives.
DRJ (6dbcaa) — 12/15/2006 @ 12:37 pmBy the way, as a Republican and a Christian, I object to joking about Sen. Johnson’s illness and I tried to leave a comment to that effect at the blog I mentioned. The blog requires registration and I have not been authorized by the site administrator, but I plan to post a comment objecting to the “joke” as soon as possible.
DRJ (6dbcaa) — 12/15/2006 @ 12:41 pmI’m not saying it’s unreasonable to initially react that way. I’m just saying that you shouldn’t get praised when your secondary reaction is the laudable one. If the “good reaction” were the first one, then you get credit. Otherwise, you don’t.
Army Lawyer (498217) — 12/15/2006 @ 1:16 pmArmy Lawyer,
The fact that I along with other conservatives also felt concern for Sen. Johnson on a personal level is a good thing and a laudable reaction. The fact that some of us also had another practical reaction doesn’t detract from that fact. By your analysis, if I had any thought at all except concern for Sen. Johnson – even if my other thoughts were reasonable – then I don’t get credit for good intentions. That’s not logical or fair.
The only bad reaction here would have been to hope Sen. Johnson dies or becomes incapacitated. Wondering how his illness affects our government isn’t a bad reaction. I think you and I agree it’s a logical and normal reaction, especially for people who don’t know Sen. Johnson. I might agree with you if you could show me where the bloggers that Patterico linked hoped for a bad outcome for Sen. Johnson, but you can’t. Frankly, I can’t help but wonder why you are setting the bar so high for conservative bloggers.
DRJ (6dbcaa) — 12/15/2006 @ 1:30 pmDRJ:
It detracts from the argument that you should be applauded for it. I’m reminded of the Chris Rock joke:
“Hmph, I take care of my kids.”
“You’re SUPPOSED to you dumb muthaf*****! Whaddya want? A f’n cookie?
If your initial reaction is to speculate on the political fallout, you don’t get credit for LATER coming to the “right” reaction. That wishing ill on Sen. Johnson is clearly “bad”–refraining from doing so isn’t necessarily “good.” Or certainly not so good as to make one stop and point it out.
Not wishing harm upon another is the moral equivalent of not spitting in public. It’s nice, makes the world a better place, but it’s also expected conduct. What becomes notable is only when there are gross deviations from that expected conduct (like spitting in public or wishing harm to someone).
Because I’m Glenn Greenwald.
Army Lawyer (498217) — 12/15/2006 @ 1:46 pmHell, even Patrick notes that there’s nothing exceptional about it, that it’s simple human decency.
My point again was to note that two of those being lauded-but-not-lauded-since-it’s-not-exceptional-conduct don’t quite measure up to that low standard of first engaging in petty politics since well, they did.
Army Lawyer (498217) — 12/15/2006 @ 1:55 pmArmy Lawyer, either you’re being a bit obtuse, or you’re deliberately talking past the points being made. DRJ said:
Your response was to ignore that and simply repeat your original contention:
And then:
Well, that’s the point, isn’t it? Leftys just can’t keep their bile from surfacing at these moments. So yes, I think it speaks well of our side that we don’t engage in that kind of disgusting, revealing behavior.
CraigC (aa6a7c) — 12/15/2006 @ 3:13 pmYou just love to talk about it. Declaiming moral “principle” while patting onesself on the back is a standard issue Republican parlor trick.
David Ehrenstein (af13fc) — 12/15/2006 @ 3:17 pmCraigC:
You get as much credit as you would if you refrained from spitting on the sidewalk. It’s expected (expectorated?) of you.
You don’t (or shouldn’t) get a blog post about it: “Hey look at what I didn’t do! That which I wasn’t supposed to do in the first place! Yay for me!”
Being a regular decent human shouldn’t get you much credit. And certainly not enough to have a circle-jerk over. When the charge is that “our side is better because we look beyond petty politics”–those that react first by NOT looking beyond petty politics don’t get the plaudits.
Being better than the worst doesn’t make you good.
Army Lawyer (498217) — 12/15/2006 @ 3:47 pmArmy Lawyer,
I can tell this debate is at a stalemate but let me try one more approach.
Let’s assume you are given a plum assignment. Your first thought is “Wow, I might get a promotion out of this” followed closely by “This is a great opportunity to do good work and help people.” The second sentiment is your prime motivation and sustains you throughout your work on the project but, under your rationale, your intial personal thought would taint the entire project – no matter how good your work turned out to be.
I think your standard is too harsh. Motivations matter but so does conduct and in this case, conservative bloggers seem largely motivated by good thoughts for and good conduct toward Sen. Johnson.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 12/15/2006 @ 4:09 pmBut we’re not talking about credit for how good my work is in the new assignment. We’re talking about me getting credit for my REACTION to the news that I’m getting a new assignment.
The “good” reaction is the “now I can help people.” The “bad” reaction is the “now I can get promoted.” If you want to hold me up as one who is not self-serving, it doesn’t help when the first words out of my mouth are self-serving.
In Ace’s and Powerline’s cases, their initial reaction was to focus on the potential political fallout. That makes it hard to credit them with being above petty politics in their reaction . Like I said, their subsequent posts have been more measured/less political. But what you are attempting to give them credit for, their initial reaction, was not. So no credit.
They may be lauded for their subsequent posts–but that wasn’t the subject of this blog post. This post was concerned with how conservative bloggers reacted to the news. Some reacted well and should be praised comensurate to the level that not actively wishing harm upon someone for political gain deserves praise. Others reacted less well in that, while not actively wishing harm, their initial reaction was essentially self-serving.
No happy good job soup for them.
Army Lawyer (498217) — 12/15/2006 @ 4:37 pmBalls, Army Lawyer.
The point is the second reaction.
On the right, the second reaction is, “This is a human being. We hope he’s well.”
On the left, the second reaction is — nonexistent. The mildest you’ll see is gloating that another Rethug is out of the way, grading down to Moulitsas, who will be taking up a collection to send the guy’s physician to Mozambique so he’ll die and leave Democrats with an advantage.
And if we’re a little too self-congratulatory, you know damn well du Toit is right — the Stupid Party gets the moral high ground, and the pseudoLeft gets control of the Government. Leave us something, you chinchy SOB.
Regards,
Ric Locke (2bc3e3) — 12/15/2006 @ 5:37 pmRic
Army Lawyer and DRJ, you are both missing the point. No one should be lauded or condemned for how they they feel or what they think because we don’t have the sort of control over our feelings or random thoughts that would make us morally responsible for them. Blame and praise should only be attached to conscious actions, so this whole debate about whether blame or praise should be attached to the first or second reactions is pointless.
Army Lawyer is right that conservatives wouldn’t deserve praise for acting like decent people under normal circumstances, but these aren’t normal circumstances. Ever since the Florida election fiasco, the left side has been relentlessly hateful and spiteful, struggling to drown the political system in a swamp of bile, and sometimes the right has responded in kind. Anyone who manages to rise above this environment should be praised for it.
Doc Rampage (47be8d) — 12/15/2006 @ 6:12 pmDavid
Parlor trick? Oh… you approach “morality” like troll Neville…. that right of center never acts in either good faith or with sincerity.
Thus, if someone not of the Club of Anointed Lefties does a little side by side comparison that doesn’t spit shine the Left’s clearly superior status (which they remind the rest of us great unwashed constantly and loudly), then of course it’s nothing but crassly selfserving and not true.
It’s the Kerry/Rangel view of the members of the military writ large.
You snarl at the post and the comparison, but you can’t refute it.
Good god, haven’t y’all left 7th grade yet?
Darleen (543cb7) — 12/15/2006 @ 6:28 pmDoc,
People do have control over how they feel about things. Entertaining a habit of feeling anger or resentment breeds … more anger and resentment. Engaging in rationale discourse breeds … more of the same. But I agree that this discussion has gotten slightly off-tangent in one sense and I apologize to the extent my failure to point this out earlier contributed to it:
There is nothing wrong with wondering what effect Sen. Johnson’s illness might have on the Senate. That is not a bad reaction. It is a neutral reaction with practical consequences. It would be a bad reaction – bad form, as the British would say – to celebrate his illness in order to shift power to the Republicans. But that didn’t happen, did it?
I’m sure there are millions of Democrats who don’t wish personal tragedy on President Bush and other Republicans and who don’t blog or comment about that happening. Good for them, too.
DRJ (6dbcaa) — 12/15/2006 @ 6:44 pmDoc:
I’m not concerned with their unconscious or unstated feelings–which I agree is pointless to debate about. I’m basing my criticisms on the sentiments their first POSTS made (making a post is, at last check, a conscious decision). Such posts are, I think it’s fair to say, open to criticism (or praise). Patterico (and DRJ) praised them, I’m being critical.
As to:
I think it’s pretty weak tea to argue that “The left is really bad, and sometimes they’re so bad that they make us on the right be bad too, so when we resist their nefarious temptations, we should be praised.”
That’s showing the moral firmness of a nerf football.
Ric:
Uhhh…ok. *golfclap*
Army Lawyer (6853dd) — 12/15/2006 @ 7:16 pmDRJ:
If it’s a neutral reaction, what’s the justification for praising it?
Army Lawyer (6853dd) — 12/15/2006 @ 7:18 pmAbout three months ago I was in the ICU waiting room listening to five brothers trying to decide whether they should put their mother who had had a massive stroke into hospice (as the doctors recommended) or “on the floor” with hope for recovery. It was heartrending. From my point view, our host had it exactly right. No decent human being should give a rat’s ass whether the Senate operates with a 100 Senators or 99 or whether there’s Republican or Democrat control when talking about Senator Johnson’s illness. To whatever extent we may care TO CARE we should wish the best for him and his family. The Senate can take care of itself. And America too.
nk (d5dd10) — 12/15/2006 @ 7:31 pmI can’t speak for Pat, but I rather think that the point was not so much, “Hey, aren’t we wonderful,” as much as it was that we look good by comparison with the hateful, spiteful, spittle-flecked assholes who comprise much of the Left these days.
I can see why pointing that out would make you uncomfortable.
CraigC (aa6a7c) — 12/15/2006 @ 7:33 pmI’m sure there are many on the right that have the view that the left started it. But I think more on the right might say that we all are base creatures and we can sometimes congratulate ourselves for not being so all the time.
Pat Patterson (5b3946) — 12/15/2006 @ 8:16 pmArmy Lawyer,
My point was that it’s not horrible to think, in passing, about the effect Sen. Johnson’s illness might have on the Senate, nor is that reaction worthy of praise. It is laudable that so many in the conservative blogosphere apparently put concerns about Sen. Johnson ahead of partisan politics. This is not the greatest single act of compassion known to man, but it’s not bad either.
What’s with you today? I’m starting to think you really might be Glenn Greenwald, but I won’t be convinced until you wish me Good Day, Sir.
DRJ (6dbcaa) — 12/15/2006 @ 8:23 pmLong before you were a bulge in Daddy’s pants dear.
Pointing to the failings of the Right doesn’t automatically confer glory on the Left.
David Ehrenstein (af13fc) — 12/15/2006 @ 9:31 pmDRJ:
And at least two of those bloggers cited did not do that. Which was my point from the beginning.
Army Lawyer (6853dd) — 12/16/2006 @ 8:51 amI hope the guy recovers and can represent the folks who elected him. I would love to have control of the Senate back, but not like this…
Big Dog (b23cbc) — 12/16/2006 @ 10:34 am