No Hate Speech by Prominent Leftists?
A certain intellectual fraud who goes by the name of Glenn Greenwald (as well as a few other names) recently said that leftist hate speech is not uttered by prominent leftist figures, but rather only by anonymous blog comments and e-mailers:
[I]t is undeniably true that there are people of every ideological stripe who express profane and reprehensible sentiments. The difference is that right-wing authors, talk radio hosts and bloggers — read and listened to by millions of people — traffic in such sentiments regularly . . . . But to find such sentiments outside of right-wing circles, one must go where right-wing bloggers went today — digging into anonymous blog comments (or e-mails allegedly received). That difference is so obvious — and so meaningful — that it all ought to go without saying.
This post puts the lie to Greenwald’s ridiculous assertion.
Below I have listed more than 20 examples of hate speech by prominent leftist figures, such as politicians, journalists writing for major newspapers or radio networks, television and movie industry personalities, and the like.
I have restricted the examples to true hate speech, such as calling for (or exulting over) the beating and/or deaths of conservatives, or naked racism and anti-Semitism. I have deliberately excluded speech that simply brands conservatives as Nazis or fascists. Such speech is hateful, but I want to leave minimum room for leftists to quibble with the list.
Brace yourself for the leftist hate:
- National Public Radio legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg:
[I]f there is retributive justice [Sen. Jesse Helms] will get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.
- USA Today syndicated columnist Julianne Malveaux, on Clarence Thomas:
I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease.
- Washington Post syndicated columnist Richard Cohen:
For hypocrisy, for sheer gall, [Newt] Gingrich should be hanged.
- Comedian and (former) talk show host Craig Kilborn [Caption under footage of George W. Bush]:
- Members of the St. Petersburg Democratic Club:
And then there’s Rumsfeld who said of Iraq “We have our good days and our bad days.” We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say “This is one of our bad days” and pull the trigger.
- Actor Alec Baldwin on Conan O’Brien:
[I]f we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together, all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him to death! [crowd cheers] Wait! Shut up! Shut up! No shut up! I’m not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families.
- Comedian Chris Rock:
If President Clinton would pardon me I would whip Starr’s ass right now. I will get a crew from Brooklyn and we will stomp him like, like, we’re Savion Glover. We’ll stomp him like it’s bringing da noise.
- Director Spike Lee on Charlton Heston:
Shoot him with a .44 caliber Bulldog.
- James Carville on Ken Starr:
He’s one more mistake away from not having any kneecaps.
- Syndicated columnist Alexander Cockburn:
There is a sound case to be made for dropping a tactical nuclear weapon on the Cuban section of Miami. The move would be applauded heartily by most Americans. Alas, Operation Good Riddance would require the sort of mature political courage sadly lacking in Washington, D.C., these days.
- Columnist, author, media pundit, journalist, and newspaper editor Dan Savage:
My plan? Get close enough to Bauer to give him the flu, which, if I am successful, will lay him flat just before the New Hampshire primary. I’ll go to Bauer’s campaign office and cough on everything. Phones and pens. Staplers and staffers. I even hatch a plan to infect the candidate himself; I’ll keep a pen in my mouth until Bauer drops by his offices to rally the troops. And when he does, I’ll approach him and ask for his autograph, handing him the pen from my flu-virus-incubating mouth.
That column also appeared on Salon.com. It was a little more than hate “speech” — the guy actually did try to give Gary Bauer the flu.
It’s racism you want?
- Democrat Senator Robert Byrd:
There are white niggers. I’ve seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I’m going to use that word.
- Democrat presidential candidate Jesse Jackson on Jews:
and on New York City:
- During his presidential campaign, Jesse Jackson was linked with (and refused to denounce) Louis Farrakhan, who has at times been linked with the Congressional Black Caucus, which also supported his Million Man March. Farrakhan is a man of the left who has been a harsh critic of President Bush.
- Here’s Farrakhan on Jews:
Many of the Jews who owned the homes, the apartments in the black community, we considered them bloodsuckers because they took from our community and built their community but didn’t offer anything back to our community.
- Farrakhan on Pope John Paul II:
no good cracker
- Farrakhan on white people:
White people are potential humans – they haven’t evolved yet.
- And again:
Murder and lying comes easy for white people.
- Here’s Farrakhan on Jews:
Does it count as “hate” speech if you say you “hate” Republicans?
- Howard Dean:
I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for . . .
Back to assassination wishes:
- British pundit Charlie Brooker, during the presidency of George W. Bush:
John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. — where are you now that we need you?
Actual elected officials have engaged in hate speech:
- Democrat Representative Pete Stark, speaking to a Republican:
You think you are big enough to make me, you little wimp? Come on. Come over here and make me, I dare you. You little fruitcake.
- Alabama Democratic congressional incumbent Earl Hilliard, on challenger, Artur Davis:
Davis and the Jews, No Good for the Black Belt
Let’s not forget the bloggers:
- Markos Moulitsas Zuniga crowed over the death of American contractors in Iraq:
I feel nothing over the death of merceneries [sic]. They aren’t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.
- Duncan “Atrios” Black discussing ABC’s The Note:
[M]y take on The Note has always been, with apologies to Douglas Adams:
A bunch of mindless jerks who will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
- Huffington Post blogger Tony Hendra wished for Dick Cheney to die:
O Lord, give Dick Cheney’s Heart, Our Sacred Secret Weapon, the strength to try one more time! For greater love hath no heart than that it lay down its life to rid the planet of its Number One Human Tumor.
The point of this list is not to argue that leftists are more hateful than conservatives. There are many documented examples of hate speech on the right; Ann Coulter provides many examples, but she is not the only one. I publish this list simply to rebut the Greenwald-spawned canard that leftist hate speech is exclusively the province of anonymous trolls on the Internet. On the contrary, prominent leftists have said some pretty awful things.
This is an open-source project. If you think of other examples, leave a comment below, or e-mail me at patterico AT gmail DOT com. Bloggers, feel free to blog it and notify me of your post. Make sure to include a link that proves the quote, and make sure that the quote truly represents hate speech. I will continue to add examples as they come in, giving credit (and links, where appropriate) to those who provide new examples.
UPDATE: I have added context for the Atrios quote, and found a more accurate version of the Byrd quote. Thanks to commenters.
UPDATE x2: Some might argue that a couple of the above examples are intended as humor. Of course, that is Ann Coulter’s defense: when she talks about how someone ought to put rat poison in Justice Stevens’s creme brulee, it’s a “joke.” But the point of the “joke” is the same as that of the “jokes” above: I hate this person enough to want to see violence done to him. Ha, ha. Get it?
If leftists defend any of the above quotes on the grounds that they’re “jokes,” they cannot consistently criticize the likes of Ann Coulter for making the same kinds of “jokes.” But they’ll try. Just watch.
It should be obvious that this post is not a “they do it too” defense of Coulter or her ilk. To the contrary, my repeated condemnation of her is a matter of record. For examples, see here, here, here, here, here, and here. I continue to believe that her sort of comments are counterproductive to what conservatives are trying to do — just as the comments listed in this post are counterproductive to the goals of leftists.
UPDATE x3: Comments left between about 8:30 p.m. on March 5 and about 6 a.m. on March 6 may be lost. Details here.
UPDATE x4: My entry on Pete Stark above originally said that the comment was made “on the floor of the House of Representatives.” I have removed that language, as a commenter points out that it was made in a committee hearing room, not on the House floor. Thanks for the correction.
By the way, there are many, many, many more examples in the comments below. I never claimed that this was a comprehensive list. I’ll add the best examples to the post when I get time, but I am currently preoccupied with moving my blog to a new server.
Also, some of you leftist commenters and bloggers really need to learn to read. I have never seen so many people completely ignore the language of a post as today. And Greenwald? I’m including you in this group. I quoted you accurately. It’s a sad comment that you can’t admit when you’ve been busted.
UPDATE x5: I never should have ruled out speech calling Republicans Nazis and fascists. Greenwald cites to posts which trumpet the mirror image, like this one which cites Ann Coulter saying lefties want to do bad things.
That’s what I get for playing fair. OK, commenters, let loose with the Nazi analogies. If those count, we’re gonna be here all year.
That’s gonna leave a mark.EFG (da5a7b) — 3/5/2007 @ 12:15 am
I hope it leaves an indelible mark, so that all effected can be instantly recognized for what they are!
While I’m at it, Liberals seem to desire socialism, Nazi’s were socialists weren’t they? Who are they to call somebody an Nazi? I think the mirror may be tilted and they have just not figured it out yet.TC (b48fdd) — 3/5/2007 @ 12:52 am
hypocray is as easy to swallow as dry lima beans
Look,Ann was wrong but it wasn’t a homophobic speech nor a long slam at Edwards
It was a tasteless joke and an extremely poor comparison
The difference in left hate speech is its mainly from their PARTY LEADERSHIP our hate speech is from pundits and fringe associations
Its a difference but a huge oneEricPWJohnson (405d78) — 3/5/2007 @ 1:19 am
Your Byrd quotation is not exactly correct. I don’t have a transcript in front of me, but I remember it vividly: after saying “white niggers,” he said “I’m going to use that word,” or something very similar — not “if you want to use that word.”
The sentiment is the same, of course; just, in the interest of accuracy, please double-check that quotation.
[You’re right. I fixed it. — P]Dafydd (445647) — 3/5/2007 @ 1:39 am
“If I had my way, I would see Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell strapped down to electric chairs and lit up like Christmas trees. The better to light the way for American Democracy and American Freedom!”, from minor radio personality Stephen Crocket
And then there is Randi Rhodes (roughly equivalent to Limbaugh) joking about shooting President Bush. A less biased source might be in order; I can’t figure out how to link to the radio.
Does Ward Churchill count? He’s no blogger, but he’s an author, at least of academic works.roy (d2bdef) — 3/5/2007 @ 1:47 am
To be fair to Atrios, that’s a verbatim quote from “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”.
[I added a line for context. Thanks.
A couple of these are obviously intended as humor. Of course, that’s Coulter’s defense, too. — P]Robert Crawford (9eef80) — 3/5/2007 @ 4:16 am
And there’s radio talk show host Mike Webb who was not joking when he suggested having Bush executed for war crimes.w3 (853e72) — 3/5/2007 @ 4:17 am
Don’t forget the Democrat in Congress who used to be a member of the clan… I’m sure he’s used a slur or two in his day…Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 3/5/2007 @ 4:57 am
These two may be tangential. Perhaps as a sub-topic – the popular “The administration questioned my patriotism.”
From memory – both shouted:
Howard Dean: “[President Bush]is not patriotic.”
Al Gore: “[President Bush]has betrayed America.”C M Smith (843567) — 3/5/2007 @ 5:43 am
Actors and theater people don’t count as major figures, of course, but what about the play running in New York during the Republican convention in 2004 that was about assassinating George Bush ? There were posters up throughout NYC. These are cute fantasies by lefties who get by the ban on such talk by pretending to be writing fiction when they are giving voice to their real fantasies.Mike K (416363) — 3/5/2007 @ 6:14 am
I was surprised at these. But then not so surprised when I hit the first link and saw that it went to a David Horowitz piece that has no links. Can you get back to the original sources on these things?BeowulfSchaefer (89b454) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:13 am
Hatespeech of the left or right shows that extremist views tend to meld into each other. To demonize those with opposing points of view as not just wrong, but evil, is itself an evil.Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:13 am
Expect some of the Atrios crowd to come spilling in here. Our old pal David Ehrenstein has left a comment over there characterizing this post as a defense of Ann Coulter.Patterico (04465c) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:18 am
Spike Lee and some guys at the St. Pete Democratic Club are not prominent Lefties.
[Spike Lee isn’t prominent? Or he isn’t a lefty?
I’m thinking he’s more prominent than you.
Are any of my examples from anonymous blog commenters or e-mailers? You’d never know it from reading the lefties on this comment thread, but that’s the Greenwald assertion I’m debunking. You lefties need to go back and read the post. Read Greenwald said about how you *have* to dig into anonymous comments and e-mails to find examples of leftist hate speech. So: is he right? Can anyone here admit that he isn’t? — P]Blue Neponset (a09128) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:22 am
Why disappoint him? I used to read the Chicago Reader for many years. Dan Savage had a (mostly) sex advice column in it. He would edit the questions sent in to start with the salutation: “Hey, faggot!”nk (db0112) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:23 am
Media Mogul Ted Turner and his “Jesus freaks” insult of Catholics on Ash Wednesday back in 2001.Roger H. (e8782c) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:27 am
Dan Savage? He’s the guy who boasted of visiting a Republican campaign office while sick with the flu, and attempting to pass the infection on to the volunteers.pst314 (672ba2) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:31 am
In other words, he didn’t just recommend doing it.
[I said that in the post. — P]pst314 (672ba2) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:34 am
Al Gore once raged “Republicans are Evil! Evil!” at a Democratic Party convention. Do you remember exactly when, Patterico, and can you find a link?pst314 (672ba2) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:36 am
Well-researched post. Thx.insider (98c5b6) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:44 am
Bush has incredibly low approval ratings, it is tru many Americans HATE him.John Ryan (dd3d89) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:59 am
He should see more movies.Jim Treacher (15574e) — 3/5/2007 @ 8:02 am
Bill Mahler argues for Cheney’s assassinationAmphipolis (fdbc48) — 3/5/2007 @ 8:09 am
This is gonna be a long thread.
Thanks, Patterico. This should be interesting.Leviticus (35fbde) — 3/5/2007 @ 8:09 am
The country is $9 trillion in debt, in the midst of a very expensive war which will drag on for at least another 2 years regardless of whether or not we will “win” or even if we can simply “afford to stay” (which we cannot), the population has a negative savings rate, current values in the stock market are unmoored from reality, most people have declining buying power, the cost of energy has more than doubled, and the housing market has bottomed out like it hasn’t bottomed out in over 35 years. And this is what you come up with? You 30 percenters sure are stubborn. Funny how none of you will actually go fight to defend your country.ronjazz (e2adbb) — 3/5/2007 @ 8:11 am
To forestall LA calling me a liar again.nk (db0112) — 3/5/2007 @ 8:12 am
“Funny how none of you will actually go fight to defend your country.”
I’m with you. Where’s the front line? Will you equip me or should I bring my own gun and ammunition?nk (db0112) — 3/5/2007 @ 8:18 am
My personal favorite was Bill Clinton calling banged-up war hero Bob Dole an “evil, evil man”.spongeworthy (45b30e) — 3/5/2007 @ 8:28 am
Web Reconnaissance for 03/05/2007…
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention….The Thunder Run (59ce3a) — 3/5/2007 @ 8:31 am
The Right Rev. Al Sharpton:
Jews are “diamond merchants” with the “blood of innocent babies on their hands”.
But he’s not racist.Cassandra (c9069a) — 3/5/2007 @ 8:34 am
2nd try… *sigh*
The Right Rev. Al Sharpton:
Jews are “diamond merchants” with the “blood of innocent babies on their hands”.
But he’s not racist.Cassandra (c9069a) — 3/5/2007 @ 8:36 am
It kinda loses something, huh?Leviticus (35fbde) — 3/5/2007 @ 8:44 am
But, other than those people, what proof do you have?
😉Kevin (3fd7a6) — 3/5/2007 @ 8:53 am
Liberals opposing California Proposition 209 (to ban racial quotas) portrayed the proposition’s backers as racists and Nazis. They even invited David Duke to speak, hoping to confuse voters into thinking he had been invited by conservatives.pst314 (672ba2) — 3/5/2007 @ 9:01 am
A prominent political cartoonist portrayed Republicans as elephants in Klan robes.pst314 (672ba2) — 3/5/2007 @ 9:01 am
Farrakhan is a prominent leftist?
[Association with former Democrat candidate for president Jesse Jackson: check. Calling for Bush’s impeachment: check. Association with Congressional Black Caucus: check. He ain’t a Republican. — P]Polimom (b7daa3) — 3/5/2007 @ 9:05 am
Actually, due to Greeny’s phrasing, almost anything I choose to be offended by qualifies:
…[I]t is undeniably true that there are people of every ideological stripe who express profane and reprehensible sentiments.”
“Profane and reprehensible” can mean anything I choose to find offensive. This is really the key to understanding Greeny’s drivel. If you parse it carefully he’s never literally lying. Sort of like the definition of “is”, you see?
Anyway, there was William Arkin and his mercenary column a few weeks back. I found that reprehensible, so it qualifies.
So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way…
But it is the United States, and the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary – oops sorry, volunteer – force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.”EllisonEllenbergGreeny (4f4ebf) — 3/5/2007 @ 9:05 am
I agree with EllisonEllenbergGreeny. He really nailed it.Dwilkers (4f4ebf) — 3/5/2007 @ 9:08 am
“Farrakhan is a prominent leftist? You’re kidding…”
Fascism is one variety of leftism. (If that puzzles you, please read F. A. Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom”, Leszek Kolakowski’s “My Correct Views On Everything, and various analyses by other scholars.)pst314 (672ba2) — 3/5/2007 @ 9:17 am
The chairman of the CaliforniaDemocraticParty said that Proposition187 was the “LastGasp of WhiteAmerica in California”. He might have retired very recently, but until a month ago he was still the Chairman.
California] SenatePresident Pro Tem DonPerata refered to some of those opposed to IllegalImmigration as “crackers”. Another case here.More examples (cc42f6) — 3/5/2007 @ 9:17 am
Let’s settle this. BOTH SIDES spew hate speech at some point. What I am sick of is when it happens on one side, the defense is “Well, the other side says it, too!” And then we have some commenters on here trying to soften what Ann Coulter said. There is no other way to spin her calling Edwards a faggot. Condemn her, and move on. When a liberal says something stupid, condemn that person and move on. If one side or the other doesn’t call their own party on it, then they are worthless. I despise hate speech of all kinds. But today, Ann Coulter is on the hot seat. Why not give her both barrels and avoid the trap of saying the other side are hypocrites?
[I already wrote that post. It’s linked above. I’ve been criticizing her for ages. I should let Greenwald get away with an easily refuted misstatement . . . why? — P]happywash (cd665c) — 3/5/2007 @ 9:18 am
I say ronjazz is clinically depressed and hereby give him a hug. Come on now, let’s show ronjazz some neocon love, or at least a group Zoloft by proxy of our a omni-benevolent cyber will.J. Peden (81e3ba) — 3/5/2007 @ 9:18 am
J. Peden (81e3ba) — 3/5/2007 @ 9:23 am
Using Hillary’s Rule Number 5 for radicals:
“5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
The radical left’s real problem with the military is that due to the Armed Forces’ policies against fraternization they will never get what they would really like from a barracks room with 30 nineteen-year olds in it.nk (db0112) — 3/5/2007 @ 9:24 am
Patterico: Hate Speech From the Left…
Ayup. Patterico’s full of crap. You can say that again. I just did. Oops….WuzzaDem (72c8fd) — 3/5/2007 @ 9:25 am
Not a single one of your quote is linked to the ORIGINAL. It is all hearsay.
If you want some credibility, do your homework, get the original offending articles, videos, or audios, and link to them.Devil's Advocate (bef18b) — 3/5/2007 @ 9:29 am
I agree “hate” speech comes from all sides. However, I would hope the best deterrent would be for those of us that are in one or the other camp spend our time being critical of those who share our ideology rather than simply launch bombs into the other camps which seems to invite another equally obnoxious response.Ron Rouintree (d8da01) — 3/5/2007 @ 9:34 am
You should challenge Greenwald–say, for every one of your examples of left-wing “hate” speech, he has to come up with a hundred from the right. I’ll put all my money on Greenwald…Bob Gordon (d737be) — 3/5/2007 @ 9:37 am
I agree with Ron Rouintree’s comment — It’s trivially easy to come up with lists upon lists where pundits of both political sides say outrageous things. It’s wrong, plain and simple. And we should have the courage to say no to these people. It’s hard enough to come to compromise as it is. So I say these people quoted were wrong, and Patterico is amplifying the problem as much as Glenn Greenwald is.
[What are you talking about? I have criticized Coulter repeatedly. I’m just noting that both sides do it, contrary to Greenwald’s ridiculous assertion. I didn’t even claim there’s more of it coming from the left, though a lot of illiterate leftists seem to think that’s my point. My point, however, is simple and undeniable: it’s not just anonymous commenters and e-mailers who say this stuff. And Greenwald is flat wrong when he claims otherwise. Simple. — P]Gary Goldberg (89f19f) — 3/5/2007 @ 9:52 am
I’m a liberal and have been one for decades.
But I appreciate it when anyone holds both sides to higher rhetorical standards.
Congratulations. It was painful, but necessary.
Thanks.David Terrenoire (eccbec) — 3/5/2007 @ 9:53 am
i think the real issue is not who is claiming the least amount of hateful and mean comments, rather the total departure from real issues into the relm of total illusion. these kinds of colums serve only to perpetuate the hollow rethoric of modern politics rather than prove anything substancial or of interest. lets count the dead bodies and see who is winning, lets count the money and see who is right, let us never asses with our minds the uselesness of right and wrong, black and white, or left and right. god forbid we refuse to judge all those around us, god forbid we are not ourself alone and correct.jeff (78fd4f) — 3/5/2007 @ 9:55 am
I’m not defending Coulter — just point out (because not many are) that CPAC should have learned their lesson last year with the “ragheads” remark, but instead, invited her back.rightwingprof (5649f5) — 3/5/2007 @ 9:58 am
wow… gotta link to the “ORIGINAL” according to Devil’s Advocate….. this must be a court of law or something.G (722480) — 3/5/2007 @ 9:58 am
Typical right-wing lies and misleading.
I looked into one of the quotes, Alec Baldwin, and sure enough – the video is on the web – it was a *comedy bit*, but the right here misrepresents it as serious commentary. After his ranting to kill the children of the republican politicians on Conan’s show, Conan pulled out an oxygen mask…
It was clearly a satire about his liberal views, planned in advance.
Notice how nearly all the quotes are the democrats attacking one person, not groups with hate speech?
Notice how they are not serious meetings of the Democratic Party cheering them on?
The issue isn’t Coulter attacking Edwards for being a democrat, it’s the ‘faggot’ line, and the crowd’s roaring approval of it, which the examples here don’t show from democrats.
Greenwald was right, and this blog is wrong.Craig (baffa3) — 3/5/2007 @ 10:02 am
Hate-speech is hating a whole group of people because of their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. It’s not hating individual people for their bad policies. Your definition is too broad.
Using the proper definition I can only find 3 legitimate examples. Cockburn, Farrakahn, and Hilliard. Farrakahn has been denounced years ago and has no influence. The other two I’ve never heard of, but I denounce what they’ve said.
None of them play a major role in the Democratic party like Coulter does in the Republican party, and this is the main point that conveniently gets overlooked.AkaDad (be3abf) — 3/5/2007 @ 10:16 am
wow… gotta link to the “ORIGINAL” according to Devil’s Advocate….. this must be a court of law or something.
Comment by G — 3/5/2007 @ 9:58 am
No, it is the First Law of Good Research: go the source.
It is also called intellectual honesty, as in presenting the facts such as they are, and letting people decide for themselves what to make of them.
Linking to second- and third- hand sources, whose bias is well-known to make a point is intentionally misleading and totally dishonest.Devil's Advocate (bef18b) — 3/5/2007 @ 10:17 am
An interesting postscript to the Jesse Jackson and the Hymietown incident: when the Washington Post’s Milton Coleman duly reported Jackson’s “Hymietown” remarks, Coleman was subjected to a death threat from Louis Farrakhan himself.
Quoting now the editors of The New Republic (April 30, 1984, p. 7):
In the same issue of The New Republic Jackson is also quoted as stating (regarding the death threat): “I think that continuing to raise this issue is overspending my time.”DubiousD (fdfa71) — 3/5/2007 @ 10:20 am
I can’t wait to see Sadly No! to give Patterico his usual spanking for this drivel. Craig Kilborn? Earl Hilliard? Charlie Brooker? The St. Petersburg Democratic Club? Julianne Malveaux?
If these people aren’t the functional equivalent of anonymous commenters, I don’t know what is.
Talk to me when these people’s products are promoted all over every left-wing blog. When they are the featured speaker at liberal movement events.
You proved Glenn Greenwald’s point better than he ever could.Ed (fcb51d) — 3/5/2007 @ 10:25 am
uh, yeah, chris rock and alec baldwin are “the left” So’s carrot top I hear. Great job digging up the dirt on the all powerful left.
Coulter is the conservatives sweet heart. Shes political. Chris rock is a comic. What do you not get about that critical difference?Alexande (f00570) — 3/5/2007 @ 10:37 am
This is amazing. There ought to be a website where this could be posted – by itself – until the next national election.DRJ (8b9d41) — 3/5/2007 @ 10:49 am
Really? What major role does Coulter play in the Republican party?
Go back to Sadly, No! It should be evident there. And tell Josh we all send kisses.Pablo (08e1e8) — 3/5/2007 @ 10:50 am
Hillary and Bill Clinton: referring to people as “Jew bastards”, “Mother F*cking Jews”, “n*ggers”, “goddamn n*ggers” etc. etc.
Barry Rubin, director of Nebraska Democratic Party calls someone “Uncle Tom”: http://www.negop.org/newsdetails.asp?id=17
Hillary Clinton implies that Mahatma Ghandi ran a gas station: http://www.counterpunch.org/gavin01102004.html
NAACP Spokesman says to be suspicious of Lieberman since Jews are really into money: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20000810/ai_n14320995Lehosh (2fc6bc) — 3/5/2007 @ 10:51 am
Hey Craig – Coulter thinks that all her stuff is comedy too – it’s not and neither was Baldwin. If you can’t understand that, then you’ll have to repeat 2nd grade AGAIN.holdfast (42bed3) — 3/5/2007 @ 10:53 am
Who are these people you’re trotting out?
You might as well involve our secret leader Ward Churchill, too!The Liberal Avenger (b8c7e2) — 3/5/2007 @ 10:56 am
Well, let’s see…Maybe she was telling a joke, too?
Did any of you trolls read the article? Was he defending Coulter? Hell, no!
He was merely pointing out that hateful speech proscribing violence in a joking manner for individuals that are opponents of conservatives does, in fact, exist. He did so with facts. And the fact that a few trolls take fault with his sources (not legit enough? Did you need soundbites?) or his definition of hate-speech is not up to your standard. (Statements condoning violence or murder sound pretty hateful to me.)
Go back and bury yourself in Amanda Marcotte’s cat’s litter box. Come back when you grow up.Dale (b48357) — 3/5/2007 @ 10:58 am
If you’re that clueless, LA, there’s this to help you. Let us know when you get up to speed, OK?Pablo (08e1e8) — 3/5/2007 @ 10:59 am
Your first two quotes are from a newsmax review of Goldberg’s anti-media book ‘Bias’. Goldberg says they said this, but that is just hearsay.
Coulter spews her venom publicly, she sells millions of books that say similar (and worse) things, and what is the response from conservatives? They show their disapproval by inviting her to speak at CPAC, and to opine on their TV shows.Colin (d9c98e) — 3/5/2007 @ 11:09 am
She was for two years running, the key-note speaker at a major Conservative conference, where two of the top three Republican candidates for President and many influential Conservatives were present. She speaks for Republicans on Fox and other shows.AkaDad (be3abf) — 3/5/2007 @ 11:10 am
Unfortunately, no, this won’t leave a mark. These people are slime. You can’t leave marks on slime.Jason (4cb299) — 3/5/2007 @ 11:15 am
Wow. Nina Toutenberg and Craig Kilborn (the notorious lefty, who ran for President in 2000?).
Could you find more obscure people?
Coulter was on the cover of Time Magazine and is trotted out on the political cable shows on a weekly basis.
Cheney goes on Limbuagh’s show so the interviewer won’t laugh in his face when he spouts nonsense (last throes, greeted as liberators, etc).
But thanks for proving Greenwald’s point.
The Left’s wingnuts are obscuros who you have to Google to find out who they are, the Right’s are front and center with the Right’s movement.
I will say this for Coulter though, she’s as funny as she is beautiful.*
*She’s neither.Robert (f05910) — 3/5/2007 @ 11:15 am
Scratch a liberal, get a racist.
Garry Trudeau and Pat Oliphant
Some dipweasel named Jane HamsherGordon (ad47c7) — 3/5/2007 @ 11:16 am
Really? Key note speaker? What conferences were those? (Mike DeMint was the key-note speaker at CPAC) And who says she speaks for Republicans on TV? Does she have a contract for that? A “spokesperson” title?
Or are you just making that up?Pablo (08e1e8) — 3/5/2007 @ 11:17 am
Dan Rather refers to plack people using the epithet “Buckwheat”: http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2001/7/23/162636
Billy McKinney (D-Georgia) blames his daughter’s troubles on a Jewish comspiracy, saying it’s all because of the “J-E-W-S”: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/079tehyf.asp
Doonesbury cartoonist Gary Trudeau refers to Condoleeza Rice as “Brown Sugar”: http://www.command-post.org/oped/2_archives/011436.html
Senate President Mike Thomas V. Miller of Maryland calls Michael Steel “Uncle Tom”: http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20051114-015140-6451r.htm
Senator Biden “YOu can’t enter a Dunkin Donuts or a 7-11 without an India Accent”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM19YOqs7hU
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid slurs Clarence Thomas, suggesting his opinions are written in Ebonics and that he may be the janitor: http://colorblind.typepad.com/the_colorblind_society/2004/12/when_liberals_c.htmlLehosh (2fc6bc) — 3/5/2007 @ 11:18 am
Farrakhan is NOT a man of the left. He pushes a rightwing ideology that espouses hate of gays and others.
He’s just loathsome in general.Geek, Esq. (f63bcd) — 3/5/2007 @ 11:20 am
Coulter is a liar and a hack, so of course she’s revered by the Right.
They revere the liar and hack President too.
BTW, if you want to see Coulter’s REAL Comedy Gold, you need to follow the footnotes in her books. Totally made-up comedy.Robert (f05910) — 3/5/2007 @ 11:21 am
But of corse, she pulled the wool over the eyes of the Right, and they missed the humor.
Yeah, James Carville, Howard Dean, Jesse Jackson, Robert Byrd, Pete Stark, Bill and Hillary…
Who are these nobodies?Pablo (08e1e8) — 3/5/2007 @ 11:23 am
Wow, this is as convincing as Intelligent Design, The Myth of Global Warming and all the other delusional nonsense the right wing has been pushing as ‘ideas’ lately. I’m the first to say that the level of political discourse has dropped into the sewer over the past twenty years, but I place blame squarely on Limbaugh, Savage, Coulter, and the shouting ninnies over at ‘Fox’. If that’s how you folks want to debate, you shouldn’t whine when you reap what you sow.Winston Delgado (014258) — 3/5/2007 @ 11:27 am
C’mon, Farrakhan? I promise not to use David Duke as an example of a Conservative if you promise not to use Farrakhan anymore.Nick (dc6219) — 3/5/2007 @ 11:31 am
From Markos himself:
A Greenwaldian parsing of that quote manages to include a disregard for the rule of law,torture, *and* reprisals.
Hell, Misha was taken to task by Glenns Greenwald for 5 Supreme Court Justices. Kos would take the whole Supreme Court out. Yet, nary a peep from Glenns.BumperStickerist (5ccdc8) — 3/5/2007 @ 11:32 am
Patterico, you couldn’t have proved Glenn’s point better if you tried. Learn to use original sources (did you take English in college? did you go to college?), which leaves out any bias or omissions by the secondary sources who quote them. The people or orgs you cite are nobodies compared to the regular dose of hate and vitriol espoused by mainstream figures on the right. You proved Glenn’s point.alyosha (635c17) — 3/5/2007 @ 11:35 am
Riiiiight. Like hate of Republicans, perhaps?Pablo (08e1e8) — 3/5/2007 @ 11:38 am
Farrakhan calls for impeachment of Bush
“While I’m at it, Liberals seem to desire socialism, Nazi’s were socialists weren’t they? Who are they to call somebody an Nazi? I think the mirror may be tilted and they have just not figured it out yet.”
Look up National Socialist on Wikipedia and take a few minutes to educate yourself before spouting such idiotic drival.
R. MuttR. Mutt (76b564) — 3/5/2007 @ 11:42 am
Really, only for of them have run for President of the United States. Never heard of them, have you, aloysha?Pablo (08e1e8) — 3/5/2007 @ 11:47 am
Riiiiight. Like hate of Republicans, perhaps?
Farrakhan calls for impeachment of Bush
“What should they do about a man who has been lying to America?” Farrakhan said. Then, turning to face Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat who chairs the House Judiciary Committee and shared the stage in Detroit, he added: “If you won’t impeach him, sanction him.”
Speaking of impeachment, I guess that means Dana Rohrabacher hates his own party then and is a “prominent leftist”:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200702/NAT20070207d.htmlLib4 (91e469) — 3/5/2007 @ 11:47 am
Fascinating. You’ve really blown the lid off “leftist” “hate”.
It’s irrelevant, of course, that many of your speakers are entirely marginal: several are professional comedians; the St. Petersburg Democratic Club is hardly a “leading leftist figure”; one source was a TV-show reviewer and British to boot; Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, is hardly a liberal. If the definition of “leftist” is merely “insults people you approve of”, then of course many leftists do insult people you disapprove of. (If you scour both sides of the Atlantic, you can come up with not quite two dozen.) QED! Of course, the same definition that makes Louis Farrakhan a “leftist” also makes Pat Buchanan one, but never mind.
Just for fun, though, I took it upon myself to look up the dates of the quotes you give. Here they are:
St. Petersburg Democratic Club: 2004
Carville: 1998, if not earlier
Farrakhan: 1995, 1994, 2000, 1994
Hilliard: 2002 (not proven he wrote the flyer)
Atrios: 2006 (a direct quote of a joke from The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy)
I can’t help noticing that some of them are as much as 23 years old. In fact, of these 24 quotes, barely a third were spoken in this century (counting from 2001) – only two within the last year. On average, these quotes are almost 8 years old.
But you’ve proven your point: the “leftists” of America and Europe (defined to include religious reactionaries, comedians, and The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy) do say rather undisciplined things about conservatives . . . once a year, on average.
Why, they make Ann Coulter (Pat Budhanan, Newt Gingrich, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney . . .) look positively restrained! Who could have thought there would be any comparison?!
[Provide links. — P]Kevin T. Keith (8dcc85) — 3/5/2007 @ 11:53 am
[…] However… I don’t find Ann remarks any less offensive than any thing said by John Kerry, Jack Murtha, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, or Michael Moore. […]More On Ann Coulter : “7.62mm Justice” ™ (307db6) — 3/5/2007 @ 12:00 pm
[…] at least as vile as “faggot.” Posted in Politics, Culture and Society | Trackback | del.icio.us | Top OfPage […]Common Sense Political Thought » Archives » The Pearl-Clutching of the Left (819604) — 3/5/2007 @ 12:01 pm
And Ann Coulter says her remark was a joke. So your point is . . . ? Surely not that Alec Baldwin wasn’t making a serious statement, since he’s nothing more than a Hollywood airhead and is incapable of making serious statements.rightwingprof (5649f5) — 3/5/2007 @ 12:03 pm
Watch in awe as lefties search for some niggling reason why it’s different when they do it. They’ll pretend the speaker holds a different status on the Left than on the Right. They’ll claim one was joking when another was serious. They’ll seize on any difference and blow it up to be the determining factor between good and bad behavior. We really ought to make up a name for this.
Left unconfronted is Gleen Grenwald’s idiotic claim, but then I’m sure there’s some niggling reason why it’s different when Gleen does it. I know! Gleen has been quoted by Senators on the floor of the Senate! So it’s, you know, different!spongeworthy (45b30e) — 3/5/2007 @ 12:03 pm
In other words, only speech against one of your current little pet groups counts — which renders the definition meaningless, since you can count or not anything you like.
Idiot.rightwingprof (5649f5) — 3/5/2007 @ 12:05 pm
[…] Added: Just out of curiousity, when did Louis Farrakhan become a “Prominent Leftist“? Was Polimom left off of another Important Memo distribution list? Again? […]Polimom Says » So who’s next? (2610c3) — 3/5/2007 @ 12:09 pm
You conveniently left out the rest of that comment and the whole point of it, didn’t you? You know, the “moderate” part.rightwingprof (5649f5) — 3/5/2007 @ 12:12 pm
Oh please! College is necessary for thinking logically? College is necessary for blogging an opinion which clearly states that its purpose is not a defense of divisive, senseless, self-aggrandizing rhetoric, but a refutation of a dishonest opinionist. For hypocrisy to be eliminated it must be exposed. Patterico is doing just that. Good job.aqvik (9dea2b) — 3/5/2007 @ 12:14 pm
“What should they do about a man who has been lying to America?” Farrakhan said. Then, turning to face Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat who chairs the House Judiciary Committee and shared the stage in Detroit, he added: “If you won’t impeach him, sanction him.”
Sorry, Pablo. Farrakan is a Black Muslim, whose social conservatism would be, if it were not for his own racist views of anglos and Jews, indistinguishable from James Dobson, Anne Coulter, or any of the leading lights of modern conservatism.
It’s awfully feeble-minded of you to suggest that merely opposing Bush, or sharing a stage with John Conyers automatically makes you a leftist.
Regards,R. Mutt (76b564) — 3/5/2007 @ 12:16 pm
Great fisking on the sock puppet!Pulchritudinous Patriot (1757af) — 3/5/2007 @ 12:19 pm
#79 – alyosha – You make a sweeping conclusion without any cites or links to the original quotes that you demand Patterico provide. Follow your own condescending advice: Learn to use original sources (did you take English in college? did you go to college?), which leaves out any bias or omissions by the secondary sources who quote them.Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 3/5/2007 @ 12:22 pm
Previous commenter is correct saying that Patterico is not trying to defend Coulter. (He seems to be clever enough to understand he’d lose that argument.)
What he said is that Greenwald is a “fraud” for stating the obvious: conservatives worship Coulter, and by repeatedly inviting her to speak at their most prominent conference, they are endorsing the things she says.
Farrakhan is marginalized. Byrd and Jackson apologized for their remarks. (Coulter celebrates hers.) Baldwin, Rock, Lee, and Kilborn are entertainers and are not invited to speak on political shows (or at Democratic conferences), as Coulter is.
Totenberg and Malveaux: hearsay from rightwing hack Goldberg’s book. Note: they’re not invited to speak at Democratic conferences, either.
Savage, Cockburn, Brooker, Hendra: I’ve never heard of these people.
Stark: Would it have been ok if he told the GOP rep to f*ck himself?
Atrois: He’s right, they are jerks. That’s hardly hate speech.
Kos: He’s not “crowing” over the merceneries’ deaths. He’s saying that he doesn’t care that they were killed. Read what he said again.
Cohen: Get back to me when progressives are lapping up his bestsellers and he’s speaking at Democratic conferences. Besides, everyone hates Gingrich.
On your entire list I’d say Carville is perhaps the best comparison, but even that is a huge stretch. I don’t recall his ‘kneecap’ quote drawing much praise or condemnation, and you have to do a lot of Google digging to even find it. And I’ll say it again: progressives do not worship him or buy his books in droves.
Your list of examples does not support your assertion that Greenwald is a “fraud” when he points out the obvious: conservatives like and approve of the things Colter says, and they prove that by making her books bestsellers are inviting her to speak at their most prestigious (I use the term loosely) conferences.
[There sure are a lot of reading-impaired lefties out there. Greenwald said you can’t find examples of hate speech by prominent lefties. — P]Colin (d9c98e) — 3/5/2007 @ 12:24 pm
HEY! STIFLE! She bought hate-speech offset credits from Algore before the show! No harm, no foul!Mike (800d48) — 3/5/2007 @ 12:34 pm
I try not to let a Greenwald-related post go by without pointing out that the collective noun for sockpuppets is known as a “glenn” in his honor.
“The blogger create a literal glenn of sockpuppets to defend her views”.David (d432ae) — 3/5/2007 @ 1:04 pm
Be interesting to see a graph of your additional from Sadly Retarded and assorted Greenwald acolytes, Patterico. You seem to have hit a nerve.
I am surprised, though, that you didn’t dig up anything from arguably the single most prominent lefty hatemonger of them all: Michael Moore. And this guy’s won Academy Awards, been a guest of honor at their national convention, and draws standing-room-only crowds at his speaking engagements.BC (baffa3) — 3/5/2007 @ 1:06 pm
For crying out loud! Can’t a bunch of folks get toghether and have a good old-fashioned neck-tie party for Ann Coulter without someone like Patterico bringing up “facts” and silly things like the truth?
BTW – If Glenn Greenwald said the sun rose in the East, I’d ask for two reliable confirming sources before I quoted him. Are you his bitch or what?Gunga (321e0c) — 3/5/2007 @ 1:06 pm
How about the obscure, little-known Barney Frank accusing President Bush of ethnic cleansing in New Orleans?
Talk about hate speech by leftists.Ken McCracken (25c937) — 3/5/2007 @ 1:07 pm
Also take a look at the language on various left-right sites:SeanF (3ffbdf) — 3/5/2007 @ 1:08 pm
Hahaha. Typical bullshit equivocations. This wasn’t the Laugh Factory this was a convention. Cheney and most of the GOP presisential contenders spoke. That was the problem. If she said this on a comedy show it would have been far less of a big deal.
Also, I couldn’t find the quote where Greenwald said you couldn’t find it on the left.
It’s funny how much ire Greenwald stirs up in you guys. I think it’s because he’s such a smart insightful writer.
GGGary Greenwill (12b938) — 3/5/2007 @ 1:11 pm
You told Kevin T. Keith to “provide links” to the dates he cites for each of your sources in comment #85. He doesn’t need to: they have bylines, and he’s using them.
Although I agree that Greenwald’s statement is characteristically stupid, and that the left wing is just as vitriolic as the right, you may want to find something a little more recent that fits in the mainstream category.
[I meant he should provide links for the examples of right-wing hate speech by the people he mentioned. Then we can all nitpick and cherry-pick the way lefties have here. — P]Leviticus (43095b) — 3/5/2007 @ 1:13 pm
How about Nancy Pelosi calling President Bush “dangerous” and “a liar”?JohnJ (80f453) — 3/5/2007 @ 1:13 pm
Sorry I have to give Chris Rock a pass. He did say.-joe (6b7029) — 3/5/2007 @ 1:21 pm
“You don’t pay taxes – they take taxes.”
John J, it’s not hate speech if it’s truth!
George Bush IS dangerous, and a liar.
You didn’t know that? What planet are you from?delphine (40e2da) — 3/5/2007 @ 1:22 pm
fwiw, I think some of Patterico’s examples are a bit long in the tooth. Hymietown was a long time ago – Gore’s ‘extra chromosone’ comment would be more recent.
Glenns’s [sic] point is that Ann becomes more popular the more she uses this kind of rhetoric and that this approach wouldn’t work on the Left. The Left doesn’t reward ‘hate’. Which is ironic since Greenwald himselves engaged in over-the-top rhetorical bomb throwing, et cetera to ascend to his position.
As did Hamsher.
They spoke ‘truth’ to glower and for some it worked out.
My hunch is the best source for dumbass lefty hate rhetoric will come from The Daily Howler’s incomparable archives – he’s no fan of dumbassedness, whether on the left or the right.
If Glenns’s point is that bloggers don’t count because Ann is a media figure, we can either admit that Air America wasn’t entertaining, or take Randi Rhodes entire show as evidence and good chunks of Al Franken’s show as well.
What will be funny is that the failure of Air America will now be ascribed as a consequence of the Left’s kinder, gentler tendencies. Rather than a poor business model and potentially illegal funding activities. Not to mention talentless hacks as hosts whom the audience never connected.
This brings us to the hoi polloi of the Left and their 68,000 instances of the word ‘Bushitler’ on teh intertubes – a phrase which equates Bush with Adolf Hitler’. Not hateful, at all.
We could throw in all the Chimp/Chimperor stuff as well. It being hate-based material which dehumanizes the President(hey! lighten up, Bush looks like a chimp!), material which to my knowledge Glenns has never publicly chastised his fellow bloggers and/or commenters.
The Jane Hamsher on the Left has a recent post up which claims that Cheney is not only insane, but Dr. Strangelovian crazy … et cetera.
Larry Johnson is a frequent, seemingly deranged, guest on various shows. Ditto Laurence O’Donnell – no stranger to hate-flecked rhetoric he.
That’s about a dozen or so more recent, more prominent lefty types for consideration. If that’s not enough, perhaps someone on the Left could provide the characteristics they’d use to determine who speaks for and to the Left.
.BumperStickerist (5ccdc8) — 3/5/2007 @ 1:42 pm
The event was honoring Farrakhan on the occasion of his retirement. Why do you think Conyers was there if not simpatico? It’s awfully disingenuous of you to suggest there’s no political connection when there clearly is. If you’d like you can go look for his support of Jesse Jackson’s presidential campaign as well. Jackson wasn’t running as a right-winger, was he?
Now sit. Stay.Pablo (08e1e8) — 3/5/2007 @ 1:51 pm
I totally agree with Gary Greenwill. That guy is just so insightful and brilliant!Gerry Greenison (08e1e8) — 3/5/2007 @ 1:54 pm
Leading Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel could have his own hate speech category:
Referring to the Republican Contract for America – “They don’t say sp*ck or n*gg*r anymore. They say, ‘Let’s cut taxes'”
To a cheering crowd at the Congressional Black Caucus’ 35th Annual Legislative Conference – “George Bush is our Bull Connor.”
Referring to the liberation of Iraq – “It’s the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country,” Rangel told WWRL Radio’s Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter. “This is just as bad as six million Jews being killed. The whole world knew it and they were quiet about it, because it wasn’t their ox that was being gored.”
On another note, saying “both sides do it” ignores the context. It isn’t 50/50, more like 90/10 (Left/Right). Hateful speech is routine and widespread on the left.The Editors, AFJ (c73f7e) — 3/5/2007 @ 1:57 pm
Oh R. Mutt? Farrakhan’s Million Man March?
Who was there.
How about that?Gerry Greenison (08e1e8) — 3/5/2007 @ 2:01 pm
Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy, May 10, 2004.DRJ (0c4ef8) — 3/5/2007 @ 2:04 pm
Nothing pisses me off more than seeing Greenwald get so popular he gets a high-paying gig at Salon while guys like us can’t do anything but toss rotten eggs from podunk sites like this one. Oooohh it makes me so dang mad I could spit. Greenwald is a fake and the only reason he’s so popular is that millions of people pretend to like him. Secretly they don’t. hahaha.Milo (d8da01) — 3/5/2007 @ 2:12 pm
As for hate, if the lefty wackos had their way we’d all be in concentration camps.
Craig: Notice how nearly all the quotes are the democrats attacking one person, not groups with hate speech?
What does that have to do with anything? Remember what Rick Ellensburg wrote: [I]t is undeniably true that there are people of every ideological stripe who express profane and reprehensible sentiments.
Thomas Ellers never wrote anything about anti-group biases, he was talking about bad, hateful rhetoric in general.
Your statement is also a blatant lie on its face. How is referring to Jews as “hymies” and Jewish areas as “hymietown” not bigoted against a group? The same goes for Farrakhan’s statements and Hilliard’s.
How is Ms. Malveaux’s death wish on Clarence Thomas not anti-black bigotry?
How is Cockburn’s prayer for the annihilation of the Cuban area of Miami not anti-Cuban bigotry?
How is Dan Savage’s bioterrorism (that’s what you’d call it if a right-winger tried to make leftists sick, and you’d be right) against conservative Christians not group-directed bigotry?Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 3/5/2007 @ 2:18 pm
Salon is paying big money? Really?
I guess P.T. Barnum was right.Pablo (08e1e8) — 3/5/2007 @ 2:19 pm
You could argue that Ann Coulter’s remark was intended as comedy. Doesn’t excuse it, though. So why is Alec Baldwin’s bit exempt from criticism?Steverino (d27168) — 3/5/2007 @ 2:22 pm
Let me give you one more. The reason the word c**t was invented: Ann Coulter.Kary Walker (9cd016) — 3/5/2007 @ 2:24 pm
LA, can you look up “manshake” while you’re there? Let me know what you find – I’m curious.John from WuzzaDem (dfd3ae) — 3/5/2007 @ 2:26 pm
Leftist Hate Speech…
Gotta love the Intranets. So for those of you in denial about the Left and whining that there are no “Coulter equivalents”, think again.Gay Patriot (c71a05) — 3/5/2007 @ 2:34 pm
Below I have listed more than 20 examples of hate speech by prominent leftist figures, such as politi…
Meanwhile, Huffington Post reports on Dick Cheney’s blood clot.
The salient point?
I wonder why that is.Pablo (08e1e8) — 3/5/2007 @ 2:34 pm
Instead of wasting bandwidth listing incidents of “hate speech” remarks made by prominent (?) leftists just so you can take a cheap and rather lame shot at Glenn Greenwald, where’s the outrage over the deplorable treatment our wounded troops are receiving? Oh, but I guess in rightie-land “support the troops” really means that we good patriots just need to keep telling our troops that they’re doing the right thing by putting their lives on the line for no damn good reason. And “support the troops” means House Republicans voting to increase veterans’ medical fees and voting to reject increased funds for veterans’ health care. And “support the troops” means the wounded soldiers in Building 18 must now stand ready for inspection every morning at 7 a.m. and it means prohibiting them from talking to members of the press.
I think Ann Coulter sums you people up pretty well. In fact, I don’t think you could find someone who better expresses your complete lack of values.3reddogs (81bfc7) — 3/5/2007 @ 2:37 pm
This is all you swine have?Z-ray (e290f9) — 3/5/2007 @ 2:38 pm
This is what Greenwald actually said. He wasn’t talking about hate speech in the sense of an expression racial animosity or something similar, as some have claimed. He was talking about “profane and reprehensible sentiments.” Patterico has provided a list of such sentiments from prominent people on the left.
Isn’t it reprehensible to refer to New York as Hymietown? Isn’t it reprehensible to wish physical harm or death upon your political opponents, as Malveaux, Lee, Hendra and others did? Isn’t Kos saying “screw ’em” about murdered countrymen, who were escorting a shipment of food and water, I believe, and whose bodies were burned & hung from a bridge, reprehensible?
If you can’t find these reprehensible, then you’ve elevated party over basic human decency.
Greenwald was clearly wrong. No shifting of the goal posts can change that.T-web (ac713a) — 3/5/2007 @ 2:38 pm
Ted Rall. Apologies to anyone who already mentioned him.Roger H. (e8782c) — 3/5/2007 @ 2:38 pm
I can’t believe you left out Al Sharpton:
“If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.”LagunaDave (9adc1d) — 3/5/2007 @ 2:51 pm
3reddogs–That’s exceedingly lame. By your logic, you should be criticized for wasting time by crticizing us. And Greenwald should be criticized for writing about civility in the first place, since there are so many ohter problems in the world that he could be addressing.
Here’s what happened: A prominent liberal blogger criticized the right. Patterico responded. It’s ridiculous to criticize Patterico for that, or other people for being interested. You’re just trying to change the subject because you’re losing the argument. Suck it up and take your licks.T-web (ac713a) — 3/5/2007 @ 2:54 pm
Please consider adding a link to my homepage… http://www.netradionetwork.com
SteveSteve (299ae9) — 3/5/2007 @ 3:09 pm
Funny how none of you will actually go fight to defend your country.
Comment by ronjazz
Perfectly said, sir. Absolutely perfect!Tom (15735c) — 3/5/2007 @ 3:10 pm
Here’s another one for you. I heard it on XM comedy channel 150. It’s George Carlin, fairly well-known for his leftism. Here’s the exact quote:Gaius Obvious (6f2b67) — 3/5/2007 @ 3:13 pm
[…] No Hate Speech by Prominent Leftists? Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:01 am A certain intellectual fraud who goes by the name of Glenn Greenwald (as well as a few other names) recently said that leftist hate speech is not uttered by prominent leftist figures, but rather only by anonymous blog comments and e-mailers: [I]t is undeniably true that there are people of every ideological stripe who express profane and reprehensible sentiments. The difference is that right-wing authors, talk radio hosts and bloggers — read and listened to by millions of people — traffic in such sentiments regularly . . . . But to find such sentiments outside of right-wing circles, one must go where right-wing bloggers went today — digging into anonymous blog comments (or e-mails allegedly received). That difference is so obvious — and so meaningful — that it all ought to go without saying. […]» Pulled from Pajamas Media site, and you thought all the little lefties were nice? Think again… (5508d6) — 3/5/2007 @ 3:18 pm
The quote by Alec Baldwin was made on Jay Leno’s show not Conan O’Brien’s. It’s the reason that I will not view, rent or support anything the man is involved with.Rick (fd0cd2) — 3/5/2007 @ 3:19 pm
TO ALL CONSERVATIVES WHO ARE GOING OUT OF THEIR WAY TO DEFEND THESE REMARKS:
the “no such thing as bad publicity” addage only applies to entertainers, not politicians or political movements. she will no doubt sell more books, but you will lose voters, along with your credibility.brandon (c256e8) — 3/5/2007 @ 3:19 pm
How about candidate for US Senate from Minnesota, Al Franken:
Franken in 1976 on homosexuals: “It’s not preppies, cause I’m a preppie myself. I just don’t like homosexuals. If you ask me, they’re all homosexuals in the Pudding. Hey, I was glad when that Pudding homosexual got killed in Philadelphia.” Source: Harvard Crimson.
Franken in 1996 on Richard Armey: “And Richard Armey is a Big Fat Dick.” Source: Entertainment Weekly.Eric Anondson (c7323f) — 3/5/2007 @ 3:24 pm
[…] Gotta love the Intranets. So for those of you in denial about the Left and whining that there are no “Coulter equivalents”, think again. Below I have listed more than 20 examples of hate speech by prominent leftist figures, such as politicians, journalists writing for major newspapers or radio networks, television and movie industry personalities, and the like. […]World and Global Politics Blog » Blog Archive » Leftist Hate Speech (604d74) — 3/5/2007 @ 3:25 pm
Does Al Gore referring to the “extra chromosome right wing” count (October 28, 1994)?
* An extra-chromosome would be Down Syndrome for you insensitive, ignorant Gore-types over on the left.John (25d97b) — 3/5/2007 @ 3:26 pm
Sort of ironic Liberal Avenger posts in this thread.
I mean, if ANYONE’S behavior proves Greenwald wrong, it’s his.
Incest, homophobia… he and Coulter should take that comedy routine on the road. Preferably somewhere far, far away, on a one-way ticket.TallDave (a0d3c0) — 3/5/2007 @ 3:30 pm
Bob Beckel: Gays hanging out around young boys is like a bank robber hanging out around a bank:
Source, with video. 🙂
-johnJohn (25d97b) — 3/5/2007 @ 3:32 pm
Did everyone forget Cindy Sheehan? You know, how she calls people in the military rapists, bloodthirsty animals, murderers, etc. etc. etc. (what about her own son?!), not to mention her ridiculous droning on about “Bush murdered my son?” What about when Zarqawi was killed, she said she wished it was Bush?
(I wish everyone would forget her.)
P.S. For the record, I have not defended Coulter’s “faggot” asshattery in the least. Don’t even bother going there.Beth (4c11b6) — 3/5/2007 @ 3:35 pm
I’ve said a pox on both your houses a long time ago, if you want to justify or somehow mitigate Ann Coulter’s statements by saying, ‘but they did it too’ then maybe you should all go back to the third grade and learn how to play well with each other.
Doesn’t anyone have any maturity left on either side?
So, if someone jumps off a cliff, is that going to justify jumpping off a cliff?
*shakes his head*
Conservative, Liberal, You all need some serious parenting, cause I wouldn’t let my child behave like that, I certainly expect better from Adults.
And yes, I’m talking to you!
I’ll stick with the Libertarians, they may be kooks, but at least they’re not third graders about it.Mark (b1b031) — 3/5/2007 @ 3:41 pm
Please leave Dan Savage out of it, at least for his “give the flu to Bauer” campaign. I’m generally on your side, Patterico, but I’m going to defend Dan when you’re going to associate him with genuine whackjobs like Jesse Jackson or Robert Byrd.
Read his book, Skipping Towards Gomorrah, to get the full scoop on that little bit of exaggeration-to-make-a-political-point. Dan didn’t lick any doorknobs.
Dan’s said much worse; look at his campaign against Sen. Santorum.Jennifer (bcf2a1) — 3/5/2007 @ 3:45 pm
Let’s see, Noam Chomsky accused the U.S. of committing genocide in Afghanistan. That seems pretty offensive, and yet rather than being shunned he was recently voted the world’s leading intellectual. As vile as Coulter can be, she’s only ever accused Mao and Stalin of mass murder, and their crimes are accepted facts.
Remember kids, this thread is not for defending Coulter; this is not a tu quoque defense but a debunking of Greenwald’s assertion was that such speech is common on the right but only found in anonymous comments on the left.TallDave (a0d3c0) — 3/5/2007 @ 3:50 pm
Alexander Cockburn is a Maoist — if that’s your analogy, then that convention was embracing a nazi.Jake (fdc706) — 3/5/2007 @ 3:50 pm
It’s worth pointing out that Coulter is not “a prominent conservative, who makes hateful remarks”. She became prominent precisely because of her despicable attitude and all the controversy it created. MSNBC fired her trying to have integrity, but she promptly started making the rounds on Fox News. Conservatives loved her, and made her rich and famous because they loved her hateful remarks. There’s no reason why they shouldn’t be stuck with them now. Some of us hold exactly the same opinion of her as we have for quite some time.
That’s the difference. These “prominent” “leftists” (the use of both is questionable in some cases) haven’t made a career purely out of hate the way Coulter has. By and large these things are small compared to the rest of what they’ve done. With Coulter, it’s all that she’s done.Mike (e7e370) — 3/5/2007 @ 3:54 pm
Another, more prominent person who wished that Cheney had died was Bill Maher on his HBO show. He pretty clearly said that, IHO, the world would be better off had the Taliban succeeded.
But did the press report that? Hardly.Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 3/5/2007 @ 4:12 pm
To all the people bringing up the chickenhawk charge (“Funny how none of you will actually go fight to defend your country”), check out the post called “Shape Up, Shut Up, or Ship Out” to discover why it is a bogus argument:
Also: “Dissecting the Chickenhawk Charge: The accusation is less an argument than an insult; it’s also a form of bullying and it rejects the Constitution”:Erik Svane (90ef52) — 3/5/2007 @ 4:17 pm
http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2007/03/well-it-was-only-matter-of-time.htmlblogenfreude (6e03ed) — 3/5/2007 @ 4:18 pm
Maher-Cheney quoteKevin Murphy (0b2493) — 3/5/2007 @ 4:22 pm
Coulter isn’t on any ballots, that I know of. She is an entertainer, like Michael Moore. She’s selling books and TV appearances. In fact, he’s probably the Democrat equivalent of Coulter, Now With More Bullshit™!
But again, this isn’t a post about “They do it too.” This is yet another hearty, thourough, effective dismantling of Glenn(s) Greenwald’s dishonest partisan tripe.Pablo (08e1e8) — 3/5/2007 @ 4:25 pm
this is entertaining but very few of these folks you call leftist are actually leftist. Robert Byrd? Nina Totenberg? Chris Rock? Right, and the NY Times is an example of liberal media bias… give me a breakRuby (ab7099) — 3/5/2007 @ 4:30 pm
I have a pretty high tolerance of political humor/invective, whether from Ann Coulter or Chris Rock. John Kerry is in a league by himself at producing groaners when he botches a joke, most others I can deal with.
For me, there has been only one utterly reprehensible, unforgiveable political slam in the last decade, and that was for Bill Clinton to stand in Tiananmen Square on the ninth anniversary of the killings and to review the very same army units responsible for the massacre. He slammed every one of those young Chinese who put their lives on the line for the possibility of freedom.Charlie (c9618a) — 3/5/2007 @ 4:32 pm
you missed the point, pablo. i’m aware she’s not on any ballots, but 2 guys who spoke on the same stage as her ARE. and this was a political action meeting, not a late night talk show or entertainment magazine.brandon (c256e8) — 3/5/2007 @ 4:33 pm
Oh, so many quotes from the left. One hardly knows where to start. But then, that is the left, and after all, we DO expect that kind of rhetoric from them don’t we? So no shock value when they say something outragous.retire05 (903139) — 3/5/2007 @ 4:39 pm
But we conservatives are the nice guys. We are the ones who hold ourselves to a higher standard. And we eat our own when they misbehave. And like the dimwits that we are, we play right into the hands of the left when they start feigning their indignation over an offhanded comment.
When do we start fighting back? How about “demanding” that the left holds itself to the same standard of civility that they expect for us? Or do we just intend to continue to lose elections?
And Michael Moore sat in the Presidential box at the DNC. So what?Pablo (08e1e8) — 3/5/2007 @ 4:39 pm
“Coulter can be, she’s only ever accused Mao and Stalin of mass murder, and their crimes are accepted facts.”
have you read her column this week? apparently the left are hard at work exterminating the entire human race:
“Liberals have always had a thing about eliminating humans. Stalin wanted to eliminate the kulaks and Ukranians, vegetarian atheist Adolf Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews…”
hitler: vegetarian, atheist, liberal. they glossed over that stuff in my history classes. damn liberal public schools!brandon (c256e8) — 3/5/2007 @ 4:42 pm
See what are the excoration and moralizing got you?
Has any Leftwing blogger come out and said:
“Good job by the Rightwing bloggers in repudiating Coulter. And I agree with them about the offenders on our side, and I want to join them in denouncing the hate speech of those on the Left as well as the Right.”
Didn’t think so.gahrie (d8da01) — 3/5/2007 @ 4:50 pm
I don’t think Nazis were socialists. I think they preety much sent socialists to the concentration camps.judyinnm (ab14d3) — 3/5/2007 @ 4:53 pm
In fairness to Dan Savage, I also thought that he grew up a lot when he and his partner adopted a son.nk (db0112) — 3/5/2007 @ 4:55 pm
so michael moore sat in a box at some conference. did he call anyone a faggot while doing so, to thunderous applause?
for the record, many on the left have distanced themselves from mm for similar reasons the right should ditch coulter. i certainly wouldn’t defend any remarks the man makes.
my point is simply that if the conservative movement wants to have any credibility with the coming generations, they will have to stop aligning themselves with people who spew venomous slurs that denigrate entire classes of people. calling gwb a “ficticious president” (as mm did at the oscars a few years back), however stupid, does not directly insult or alienate 5-10% of the population. if republicans want people to vote for them in the next 5-10 years and beyond, they should really tak a look at the polls: young americans are (thankfully) not nearly as bigotted as their predecesors.
but even more to the point, why would anyone – ANYONE – even try to defend that remark? exactly what does it contribute to legitimate political discourse?
further, if i’m not mistaken, ann herself wrote a bestseller based on the assertion that namecalling and ad hominem attacks were tools employed exclusively by the left when their arguments didn’t have a leg to stand on. by her own logic, if “faggot” is the best thing she can come up with, edwards must have a pretty rock-solid platform.brandon (c256e8) — 3/5/2007 @ 4:56 pm
Here you go. You can shut up now.Moops (8fcb37) — 3/5/2007 @ 5:07 pm
Moops, do you ever tire of victimology? Everyone is a victim except white Christian males.retire05 (903139) — 3/5/2007 @ 5:13 pm
Maybe it is time people stop whining and act like adults.
really, let’s talk like we really should: it is far past the time when the little green football dudes should have gotten out their assualt rifles and started ttaking down us leftie/libs. I’d love to see it, because I think the surprise would come when you found out how many of us can actually take you guys down. The nra doesn’t have our guns in their lists that they share with the FBI. We have them hidden, and we know who you guys are. Let’s have that rumble assholes.Jimbo (aa47c6) — 3/5/2007 @ 5:13 pm
Where are the Snowdens of yesterday?Moops (8fcb37) — 3/5/2007 @ 5:16 pm
Should be yesteryear.Moops (8fcb37) — 3/5/2007 @ 5:18 pm
Halfway there. The author gives a back handed compliment to the Rightwing, but still doesn’t acknowledge and condemn similar behavior on the Left.gahrie (d8da01) — 3/5/2007 @ 5:20 pm
I don’t recall either one of you being in my fighting hole… chickenturds always raise the chickenhawk argument.
I also see a complete lack of evidence to support the claim that no one on this thread has failed to serve this country.
How about it Tom and Ronjazz?
Or was it just a joke?jcrue (4bd535) — 3/5/2007 @ 5:20 pm
You sure had to dig deep for many of those quotes. Many of them are quite old and many of them are from people who most Americans wouldn’t know are “leftists”- hell, many Americans wouldn’t even know some of those D-listers you referenced.
The deal with Coulter is that she routinely makes vile statements and she is a regular feature of CPAC meetings and often appears in the MSM to talk about her “ideas.”
You also might want to try doing some original research for yourself instead of relying on other right-wing sites to provide your “facts.” I also think that you should provide more than just a snippet of what was said. We need to see context. Of course, you wouldn’t really know about that stuff, would you, being trained as an attorney and not trained in the scientific method or in social research.Redleg (b9e7df) — 3/5/2007 @ 5:21 pm
I am afraid that with very few exceptions,the left will refuse to see what it is you are saying. Unfortunately most of them are not shocked by what other lefties say because they believe “their” politicians,commentators,whatever are correct……
Only the right is capable of “hate” speech according to the left.Because they are evil.flicka47 (ec828d) — 3/5/2007 @ 5:22 pm
All those “leftist” comments added together still don’t equal the frequency and consistency of vileness of Ann Coulter’s comments. Jeebus, Coulter has written several books chock full of hateful, stereotyped b.s. about “liberals.” Add to that Limbaugh, Hannity, and the rest and you have a real load of hate speech. Now contrast that with the list from Patterico. Chris Rock? Jeebus.
By the way, you comments suggests a high degree of projection bias on your part. Get a clue, fool.Redleg (b9e7df) — 3/5/2007 @ 5:28 pm
oh dear, time to post again. I, for one, love the speech Coulter gave. I have grown so uded to being called unthinkable names by the left simply because I am alive and a conservative I thought it was natural to retaliate.richard (a90377) — 3/5/2007 @ 5:30 pm
Actually, coulter never called anyone a faggot. She did mention that if she used the word she probably would have to enter rehab, as did the dude who used the n word and several others of the leftist persuati0on. The accusation is completly false, as usual for the left.
“calling gwb a “ficticious president” (as mm did at the oscars a few years back), however stupid, does not directly insult or alienate 5-10% of the population.”
brandon just went and proved the point of my 1st post………
Some how that quote is not insulting or alienating to the 50% of the pop. that VOTED for Pres. Bush because brandon believes that Michael Moore was correct…..
nuff said!flicka47 (ec828d) — 3/5/2007 @ 5:32 pm
Read more carefully:Moops (8fcb37) — 3/5/2007 @ 5:33 pm
I’m betting that while Mitt and Rudy are thankful you noticed, there are a couple of others who are a bit hurt you didn’t notice them…
There were a LOT of people on ballots who attended CPAC.
Sadly Ann was one of them, and thankfully McCain was not…Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 3/5/2007 @ 5:38 pm
she didn’t actually call him a faggot, it’s true. she did say that “faggot” was the only thing she could think of to say about him. edwards must be a pretty strong candidate if that is the case!
since when is stooping to the level of your opponent – especially when the person doing the “retaliating” has made millions writing books on the subject [see “slander” for more on this] – something that is defensible? seems pretty spineless to me, regardless of what you think of faggots.brandon (c256e8) — 3/5/2007 @ 5:41 pm
Here’s a couple of examples from the “false charges of racism” category:
It’s not ‘spic’ or ‘n*gger’ anymore. They [Republicans] say, ‘Let’s cut taxes.’ – Rep. Charles Rangel, 1994
And the NAACP’s James Byrd ad in 2000, where Byrd’s daughter says, “So when Gov. George W. Bush refused to sign hate crimes legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again.”
(Two death sentences and one life imprisonment – what could a hate crimes law possibly add to that?)
And here’s three from the “Reductio ad Hitlerum” category, all from one Newsweek article:
On Thursday, Gore delivered a speech in which he said that the “administration works closely with a network of rapid responders, a group of digital brownshirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors and publishers and advertisers, and are quick to accuse them of undermining support for our troops.” George Soros, the Hungarian-born financier who has given millions to MoveOn.org, says his “experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized” him and that he believes a “supremacist ideology” guides the Bush White House. Michael Moore—not a Democrat, although on Wednesday he was the toast of liberal D.C. at the premiere of “Fahrenheit 9/11″—said last October that America under Bush was moving in a Third Reich-like direction.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5298664/site/newsweek/Alan K. Henderson (5ed893) — 3/5/2007 @ 5:44 pm
Of all the delusion, babbling doggerel on this thread, my favorite has to be,
Fascism is one variety of leftism.
Oooohh, isn’t that clever!! See how the crafty little Republican does that? Fascism is leftist, so I guess it can’t be the very definition of rightwing extremism as it’s been understood for nearly 100 years. Or maybe it’s one of those extraordinarily witty “jokes” Ann “the Man” Coulter was telling at the rightwing rally.
There’s no need to discuss on detail the utter speciousness of this allegation, as so many have already ripped its credibility to shreds. It references individuals – such as Farrakhan, for example – whose sole “quatification” for inclusion is that Republicans hate them, and who have absolutely nothing to do with liberalism or the Democratic Party. It includes any number of quotes that are as implausible as they are unsubstantiated (I checked out the first linked site, which, in addition to lacking a single source for any of its alleged citations, refers to reporters as “Feminazis” and “leftwing fascists;” perhaps even more ludicrously, the site refers to Bernard Goldberg – that’s right, BERNARD GOLDBERG – as a “fellow liberal.” It is pure shit.)
It is all redolent of the laughable Republican propaganda about the Democrats being the real party of race hatred, since – as everybody knows – Robert Byrd called someone a nigger during the Hoover administration. No one cares. This latest Coulter incident is a perfect opportunity to expose the Republican Party as the successor to the Klan. Of course, Republicans would like that to be designated hate speech. Bullshit.
There is, of course, one critical difference. The Klan at least had the integrity and self-respect to be entirely up-front about its agenda; they didn’t care if their enemies reviled them for their bigotry and hatred. The same can hardly be said of Republicanism. The simple truth is that the fundamental tenets of liberalism have been so triumphant in American culture, that Republican bigotry is widely deemed to be beyond the bounds of human decency. And with damn good reason. Accordingly, part of the fight against Republican fanaticism is refuting the nonsensical lies that liberals are the racists, and liberals are the enemies of civil rights, and liberals are intolerant, and liberals represent the economic elite against the interests of the poor and middle class.
The screed of Ann the Man makes that all possible.legaleagle (637aba) — 3/5/2007 @ 5:45 pm
at what point did i say i thought moore said was correct? it was a stupid thing to say! i’m not even sure how it’s supposed to be an insult! it’s just a really, really dumb thing to say. gramatically, it doesn’t even make much sense if you think about it. it’s just. dumb.
my point once again: “ficticious” is not a slur, but “faggot” is, and if you people don’t want to completely alienate the next generation of voters, you will stop aligning yourself with people who use them freely.brandon (c256e8) — 3/5/2007 @ 5:46 pm
How about Montgomery County, MD county executive Ike Leggett, head of one of the wealthiest counties in the country?
Not just figuratively, but literally.jsmith (11d22a) — 3/5/2007 @ 5:46 pm
“That was what the Montana Democratic Party did to Mike Taylor, the GOP candidate for the US Senate this year. The Democrats unearthed an ancient TV clip of Taylor, who once owned a string of hair salons, and turned it into an ad that played up every stereotype of the homosexual male hairdresser.”2003Enlightened (af3db1) — 3/5/2007 @ 5:57 pm
Bill Maher is reported to have said something to the effect that a dead Cheney would save lives. I aidn’t see this program, but I’ve read the quote on other blogs.James Fulton (40277c) — 3/5/2007 @ 6:02 pm
To all the lefties commenting here. Believe anything you want but before you personally attack Patterico compare this site and this thread to the leftie echo chambers you are used to visiting.nk (db0112) — 3/5/2007 @ 6:03 pm
It’s obviously ok for the leftwing democrats to insinutate in a campaign a candidate might be unacceptable due to latent homosexuality. They just didn’t call him faggot in public forums.
It’s obviously ok for the leftwing democrats to out closet gays – They just don’t call them faggot in public forums.
So that 5-10% of the population everyone is trying to appease, is ok with homophobic acts by their own.
Got it.Enlightened (af3db1) — 3/5/2007 @ 6:07 pm
[…] Recent Blog Posts How Beneficial Was the (RED) Campaign? … Christy Turlington striking a yoga pose in a New Yorker ad; Bono cruising Chicago’s Michigan Avenue with Oprah Winfrey, eagerly snapping up Red products; Chris Rock appearing in Motorola TV spots (”Use Red, nobody’s dead”); …Comment on No Hate Speech by Prominent Leftists? by Charlie I have a pretty high tolerance of political humor/invective, whether from Ann Coulter or Chris Rock. John Kerry is in a league by himself at producing groaners when he botches a joke, most others I can deal with. …Comment on No Hate Speech by Prominent Leftists? by Ruby this is entertaining but very few of these folks you call leftist are actually leftist. Robert Byrd? Nina Totenberg? Chris Rock? Right, and the NY Times is an example of liberal media bias? give me a break.25 new messages in 20 topics – digest I don’t understand Chris Rock – 1 messages, 1 author http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/browse_thread/thread/2c2708dbbed0c143?hl=en. * A bikinied Kirsten Dunst gets felt up by her female friend (with pic) – 1 …Well, it was only a matter of time… The link, from Patterico, features a list “prominent leftists” such as Chris Rock, Craig Kilborn and “Members of the St. Petersburg Democratic Club” saying lots of mean things. Sigh. Tell ya what, Patterico. … […]Chris Rock Comedy » chris rock March 5, 2007 9:26 pm (80eeac) — 3/5/2007 @ 6:30 pm
What is hate speech? I’ve seen it bandied about a little loosely here. Wikipedia defines it as: “speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on his or her race, gender, age, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height and weight).”
Is this a good definition? Does hate speech include people who ironically say hateful things to mock hateful people (example) ? I think Baldwin’s quote at least fits that definition.
And no, I don’t think it’s hate speech to say you hate someone. If Wikipedia is right, then the hate has to be based on their race or gender, etc.Russell (a32796) — 3/5/2007 @ 6:35 pm
So, given the example’s above, had Ann Coulter merely played a video of actors jokingly refering to faggots, cut and pasted with photos of Edwards – all would be well?
Or, perhaps she produced a video portraying Edwards as an effete hairdresser? All’s well in leftland?
Apparently Ann Coulter just doesn’t have the knack for NUANCE.Enlightened (af3db1) — 3/5/2007 @ 6:47 pm
Not too many years ago, Republican congressman Jess Helms, said of our president at the time that he’d “better have a bodyguard” if he visited his state. Funny that he was re-elected after that! This is an elected official we’re talking about too.
By the way Patterico, your quote in the post regarding Helms was probably due to the fact that Helms’ remarks about AIDS were intended to incite hate and fear of AIDS sufferers:
To his credit, I understand that Helms lived to regret that attitude.
Anyway, you don’t quote many well-known politicians except for Byrd. But calling White people “niggers” just doesn’t concern me anyway. You give some other examples that are lame. …Calling someone a “Fruitcake.” You’ve got to be kidding…Psyberian (de47c4) — 3/5/2007 @ 6:53 pm
Coulter should be in trouble. Linking Edwards to “faggots” was an insult to homosexuals everywhere.jpm100 (851d24) — 3/5/2007 @ 6:56 pm
Typical right-wing lies and misleading.
I looked into one of the quotes,
Huh. And what about the others?The Ace (ea76c3) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:01 pm
Does the current House Ways and Means Chairman count as a “prominent leftist”? Rep. Charlie Rangel once declared the Contract with America, to be worse than Nazism:
“When I compare this to what happened in Germany, I hope that you will see the similarities to what is happening to us. Hitler wasn’t even talking about doing these things.”
Rep. Major Owens (D-NY) also made similar comments of Congressional Republicans: “These are the people who are practicing genocide with a smile: they’re worse than Hitler.”
That quote, along with quite a few others, can be read in this article.NYC 2L (41251e) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:08 pm
“While I’m at it, Liberals seem to desire socialism, Nazi’s were socialists weren’t they?”
Hahaha . . . Learn your socio-economic theories of government, my friend. The Nazis loathed and spat on the Communists and Socialists (that huge altercation with Russia in WWII?) . . .Fence (254baa) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:14 pm
Bet you won’t be linking to this: Greenwald today –
Good point, Glenn. Wonder why you’ve got salaried position at Salon?JT (979e24) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:14 pm
Here’s what I don’t get…
Comparing Bush/the current administartion to Nazi Germany/any totalitarian regiem…
I mean, THINK for a second…
If what they were saying were even remotely true, wouldn’t they be shot dead (publicly shot dead) far saying it, and for saying bad things about the PotUS?
That’s always struck me as a bit disconnected…Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:18 pm
Savage… The idiot from Savage Nation?
Oh sweet jesus, I thought he’d moved to Cuba or something…
Well, I’d hoped he had…
I love how they take one of the most offensive people in the media, add in a gal who should really shut up (I’msorrybabyIdon’tmeanitpleasecomeback), and toss in the names of some people who haven’t called for a single death, and who jump on top of those who do like freaking monsters, and pretend it’s all the same…
I’m going to go get a TiVo, and record every word out of every liberal’s mouth, and just send him copies of the parts where they use some of the most hateful language ever… MAYBE then he’ll believe it happens…
People like Ann, Moore, Savage and Glen are why politics in this country has hit the shitter and no one bothers to vote.
We don’t want to risk encouraging them. Wish ignoring them would workScott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:24 pm
I love watching the sockpuppet’s fans come here and defend him.
It’s comical and pathetic.
Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Mark Levin, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity and the rest — spew out hate-mongering bile on virtually a daily basis
And of course he or nobody else could ever demonstrate this to be true. Other than redefining the terms that is.The Ace (ea76c3) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:25 pm
including such towering political leaders on the left as Conan O’Brien
Er, it was never suggested O’Brien ever said anything.
Good point, Glenn. Wonder why you’ve got salaried position at Salon?
Obviously he can’t read.The Ace (ea76c3) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:28 pm
Maybe that has something to do with it.
[…] Patterico responds to Glenn Greenwald’s absurd charge that hate speech is the exclusive domain of the right with a lot of examples of Lefty hate speech. […]UrbanGrounds » Blog Archive » John Edwards Responds (d0cee9) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:28 pm
This is a lovely piece by a liberal:
Oh you bastions of tolerance you.The Ace (ea76c3) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:34 pm
“Farrakhan is NOT a man of the left. He pushes a rightwing ideology that espouses hate of gays and others.”
Since when cannot leftists teach hatred for and practice oppression of gays and other minorities? The Soviets did it, the Maoists did it, Castro does it even today, and so on, etc, etc.pst314 (20d3ed) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:38 pm
“Of all the delusion, babbling doggerel on this thread, my favorite has to be, ‘Fascism is one variety of leftism.’ Oooohh, isn’t that clever!!”
Before you start sneering I suggest that you note the many points of congruency between Farrakhan’s ideology and fascism. Then, as I suggested, read Hayek and Kolakowski and others on the historical roots of communism, fascism, and nazism. For instance:
“In both forms of totalitarian socialism–nationalist and internationalist–social control of production for the common good was stressed as essential. The model developed in the Soviet Union, China, and other communist countries proved to be more consistent and more resilient than the fascist or Nazi varieties.”
–from “Totalitarianism and the Virtue of the Lie”, collected in “My Correct Views On Everything”, by Leszek Kolakowski, Senior Research Fellow, All Souls College, Oxford, formerly Professor of Philosophy at the University of Chicago, and the first recipient of the Library of Congress’s Kluge Prize for Human Sciences. Not exactly a deluded babbler.
Of course, as Kolakowski notes, when contemporary lefties call someone a fascist, what they usually mean is “I disagree with him so I shall try to defame him so that others will ostracize him, and bully him so that he will be afraid to speak.” And having endured the not-so-kind attentions of left-wing tyrants, Kolakowski knows what he his talking about.pst314 (20d3ed) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:40 pm
For those challenged with definitions of what a NAZI is and history.
Short term for National Socialist German Workers Party, a right-wing, nationalistic, and antisemitic political party formed in 1919 and headed by Adolf Hitler from 1921 to 1945.”
“Nazism or Naziism, was a version of National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), and refers primarily to the ideology of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers Party, or NSDAP) under Adolf Hitler. It also refers to the policies adopted by the government of Germany (1933–1945), a period in German history known as Nazi Germany (German: Nazizeit, literally “Nazi time”) or the Third Reich (German: Drittes Reich).
On January 5, 1919, the party was founded as the German Workers’ Party (German: Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) by Anton Drexler. Hitler joined the party in September 1919,  and became propaganda boss, renaming the party April 1, 1920, and becoming party leader July 29, 1921.
Nazism is not a precise, theoretically grounded ideology. It consists of a loose collection of ideas and positions: extreme nationalism, racism, eugenics, totalitarianism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-communism, and limits to freedom of religion. ”
I will say again what right does the leftists in this country have calling those with differing views a NAZI when it’s beyond obvious they are the group that identifies with the same practices?!!
Like the fire calling the kettle black eh?
This is indeed a most interesting thread.TC (b48fdd) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:43 pm
“Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes’ destination of California — these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!”
— Michael Moore, 14Sep2001Dr. Laszlo (5d9a11) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:44 pm
What Would We Do Without Ann Coulter?…
If we didn’t have our collective butt cheeks in such a clinch, we’d recognize this as a joke. And a finely crafted joke, at that….jaceonline (59ce3a) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:45 pm
pst314 – You left out the National Socialists.Dr. Laszlo (5d9a11) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:45 pm
Good point, Glenn. Wonder why you’ve got salaried position at Salon?
Good grief — if this isn’t Greenwald himself under an alias, it has to be one of the most sycophantic suck-ups I have ever seen online. One worries for what will happen to poor “JT” once he realizes that Greenwald does not know or care who JT is, and never will.
I didn’t even realize that leftists being able to say something loathesome and stupid was under debate. Some people really need to learn to pick their battles.E. Nough (def0e5) — 3/5/2007 @ 7:51 pm
This is a very impressive post containing lots of great quotes and quite a few revelations. Who knew, for example, that Craig Kilborn was a liberal. And as Mr. Johnson notes, he apparently is in the Democratic Party leadership. The important thing of course, and what makes this post all the more poignant, is that each and every one of these quotes was taken from the liberal equivalent of CPAC, in front of hundreds of Democrats who wildly applauded. It is totally the same thing. And, wow, THREE whole bloggers. Here, add these quotes free of charge:Cody (efcd4c) — 3/5/2007 @ 8:10 pm
“King Kong’s got nothing on me” – Denzel Washington obviously referring to James Dobson.
“Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria” – Bill Murray in reference to Ronald Reagan’s fiscal policy.
“Sadly no” – That guy who writes SadlyNo.com.
Each of these is just as inflammatory as the quotes you listed above and each were delivered in front of crowds of cheering liberals. You remember that whenever someone tries to convince you to have some sense of decency.
You have to be kidding!
Dan Savage talking about licking Gary Bauer’s doorknobs? That’s your hate speech? If I say I think you’re a major weenie, is that hate speech too? “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for?” Come on!!!
Farrakhan’s a black nationalist who gets booed off liberal campuses and shunned by Democratic leaders. Byrd’s a fossil who apologized. Jesse Jackson is 20 years ago. Chris Rock is a apolitical shock comic. Cockburn is — uh, who is Cockburn? Who’s Malveaux? They’re nobodies. Who’s the Saint Petersburg Democratic Whatever?
Baldwin’s joke was, “Hey, look how crazy I sound when I say this crazy-sounding shit.” Coulter’s joke was that she pretended she couldn’t say the word faggot and then she said it anyway, not that she doesn’t think Edwards is a faggot. She does, and her audience does, and that’s why they laughed. Not all jokes are equivalent. Your Kilborn “joke”, for example, is legitimately offensive. You totally busted the left on Craig Kilborn the has-been late nite comedian. Or something.
If you reduced your list to:
1) verifiable statements from
2) influential figures on the
5) within the last five years
6) who weren’t making harmless (with emphasis) jokes
7) and were engaging in hate speech (vs. criticism)
… you’d have a mighty short list. A lot of criteria? Sure, but you used a lot of gimmicks to pad your list. Use the same criteria on the right and compare. Ann Coulter alone would beat out the whole American left, and you know it.
And I know that you know it, because after 5 years of their blogging you’re still recycling the same Kos remark and trying to bust Atrios for a Douglas Adams quote. Is quoting Monty Python hate speech too? Where should we draw the line?Matt (61028e) — 3/5/2007 @ 8:15 pm
Someone earlier mentioned George Carlin. He may say some ridiculous stuff sometimes and lean a little left, but he is definitely not a democratic activist:
“Forget the politicians…politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you.”Russell (a32796) — 3/5/2007 @ 8:29 pm
Your links to Newsmax don’t carry much weight. I’ve listened to A LOT of Nina Totenburg. I’d be willing to bet my next months paycheck that she didn’t say that about Jesse Helms, or if she did it was in the context of her paraphrasing some one else.
[You got a deal. Or, you would, if I thought you really had the guts to do it, and the intellectual honesty to admit when you’re wrong. But I think neither. You’re another leftist looking to nitpick my facts in any stupid, unconvincing way you can. A hack who loves the hack Greenwald.
Jesus, you people disgust me. — P]Randy (ca83a9) — 3/5/2007 @ 8:36 pm
Scroll down to the 3rd entry – Nine Totenberg on Inside Washington, July 8, 1995.DRJ (0c4ef8) — 3/5/2007 @ 9:00 pm
Sorry, make that the second entry. The third entry is Julianne Malveaux and the first entry, of course, is Keith Olbermann. The liberal trifecta.DRJ (0c4ef8) — 3/5/2007 @ 9:03 pm
Well, Matt, the criteria wasn’t hate speech, it was “profane and reprehenisble sentiments” (an exact quote of Greenwald.) I’m sure the lefties will all disagree, but I consider Senator Dick Durbin to be a prominent figure (perhaps you don’t), and he compared US troops to “Nazis” members of “the Soviet gulag” and followers of “Pol Pot”. That’s recent. That’s utterly reprehensible.
John Murtha, less than a year ago, called Marines “murderers”. I consider that reprehensible as well.
And for all you bozos calling for “us” to go to Iraq, some of us served in previous wars and find your “chickenhawk” arguments hilarious.
Oh, and Brendon, if you want “us” to change our minds about bigotry, you might start by not calling “us” “you people”.
Frankly, I think this entire exercise is useless. People on the left are not interested in discourse.antimedia (074535) — 3/5/2007 @ 9:41 pm
Does anyone even try and think anymore?
Do we all just feeeel something, open our mouths (or move our fingers) and remove all doubt that we are idiots?
Can no one open their minds enough, stop just feeeeling for a second, and think?
Ann Coulter is a very staunch Conservative thinker, speaker and writer. She knows the Constitution inside and out and also knows there is no such law forbidding her speech, no matter how offensive it may be to your sensitive ears. I thought you libs believe that dissent and free speech are the only two freedoms we have left (the evil Bushman has taken everything else away…bet you can’t name one legitimate right or freedom Bush has stolen from you, though)
Back to my point, Coulter knew exactly what she was doing and you libs and weak-kneed, lilly-livered Republicans are helping her. The great thing is that she knew she could not accomplish her goal without you…the radical raging left and the so-called compassionate conservatives (Conservatism is Compassion…doesn’t need a definer before or after it…only takes an honest look at it’s values to understand) who have wrecked the great party Reagan built.
Her goal, since you still don’t get it, was to sully the three men who the left in the media is telling us all, are our only choices. She cares not what you libs say about her. She has proven that time and time again. You have all thrown everything at her, literally, and yet she still accomplishes her goal every time (could be making money, angering the left, unmasking the left’s utter hipocracy, showing the stupidity of political correctness and that libs don’t really believe in it, etc.)
And here we are again. Ann sets out to bring the liberal Republicans down a few notches from the pedestals the liberals in the media have set them upon.
What I hate seeing is how many Republicans fall for this media trick time and time again. The media hypes who they want us to vote on and who they believe would lose to their Democrat choice, or someone liberal enough that they could live with if their Democrat implodes and loses. That way, the libs get what they want either way.
No more, and thanks to Ann for firing the first shot at the liberal Republicans. Direct hit and I love it.
By the way, John Edwards IS a little faggotty, so why is everyone so upset. A little bit of “truth hurts” huh?
Since that’s not actually a word, is it “hate speech”? Come on all you thought police and speech monitors. Whip out your little book of Mao and tell us the rules we must follow in regards to speech in America.
Too late. I’ll say what I want, when I want, and if you think yourself big enough to shut me up, then by all means step up.
Until then, I’ll say this, John Edwards does look and act like a faggot. No tsaying he is one, just that he looks acts and sounds like one. Not that there’s anything wrong with that…
I’ll close with one of my favorite quotes of all time…
“It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”
~~ Theodore Roosevelt
We have encouraged coldness and timidness and it has infected too many souls. A little warming is in order. Maybe that’s what mother nature has in store for us all. In that case, I’m out to jump in my SUV abd drive around for hours for no apparent reason other than to listen to my entire collection of Bob Marley.
If most of what I have read here is the result of government education, then we do need a revolution. One that overturns the shadow government the libs have set up in the form of teachers unions. There has been no example of true thought so far. Let’s see if we can up the ante.
Again, Coulter used you all to help her bring the three liberal media annointed liberal Republicans back down to earth some. Mission accomplished. And no harm done to the Conservative movement either. You all hate us anyway, you cannot be reasoned with due to your closed minds, so why should we care what you say about us at this point. It will never be good, so why again do I care?luckydog (b70f61) — 3/5/2007 @ 10:09 pm
Explain please how John Edwards is “a little faggotty” or “looks and acts like a faggot.” I’m curious.
[Oh, just ignore that idiot. — P]Russell (a32796) — 3/5/2007 @ 10:48 pm
“People on the left are not interested in discourse.”
Quite so. Their only interest is in telling themselves how morally superior they are, and woe to any who point out that the Emperor is indeed quite naked.Mr. Snitch (b1865a) — 3/5/2007 @ 11:03 pm
Patterico, instead of focusing on ridding the ugliness streaking through the conservative movement, you’d rather waste time trying to form an equivelance on the liberal side. You could have mentioned a few examples and moved on toward promoting further steps in fighting bigotry, but you’ve shown your true colors (and your audience) by not understanding the severity of her remarks. If you’re still wondering why Independents have abandoned the Republican party, why would we want to be in a party that feels comfortable in the language of hate. A party that finds it acceptable to denigrate fellow Americans.
[Jeepers, let me say with all tact and respect that you are flapping your gums about something that you have absolutely no idea about. None. I don’t understand the severity of her remarks?!?!?!?!?! Go back to the post and follow the links where I have criticized her in the past. See how severe the criticism is. Then come back and apologize.
To the regulars here who have actually read my criticism of Coulter, I regret to say that you come off looking like an idiot. But it’s a common mistake when people criticize people they don’t read regularly. I’ll give you a chance. Follow the links. Come back and apologize. Then we’ll talk. — P]Jeepers (b27ad0) — 3/5/2007 @ 11:46 pm
Patterico, I commend you for consistently giving Coulter the bashing she so richly deserves. She is clearly willing to say absolutely anything to get attention.
Do you have any thoughts as to the definition of hate speech I gave above?
By the way, let me also say that do believe that Greenwald makes a good point quite often, as do you, as does Radley Balko, Pete Guither, and Andrew Sullivan (partial list). I don’t really consider myself a liberal, but I bet most people on this comments page would think I am. I sure as hell ain’t a conservative, but I still read your blog because you seem like a generally reasonable guy. But when you and Greenwald get into these catfights, it’s just obnoxious for everyone.
Is Greenwald a preening, self-righteous sockpuppeteer? I don’t know, and really, I could give a shit. You make yourself look bad by constantly insulting him. I mean, if you must post about what you see as blatant hypocrisy and so forth, go ahead by all means. But there’s a bigger world out there and in the end, these mud fights convince no one and are just a waste of time.Russell (874da3) — 3/6/2007 @ 2:48 am
The Nazis were indeed socialist collectivists. Though their policies were offensive, the Nazi’s view of collectivist government is little different than that of American liberals.
The Nazis were anti-gun, anti-capitalists, and anti-Jewish and if Israel was a country at that time would have been thoroughly anti-Zionist (which is really Islamofascist and liberal code for “anti-Jewish”). In the Nazi view there weren’t any worst vermin than capitalists and being a child of Abraham and the Jew was both. The Nazis constantly connected being Jewish with being one of those “eviiiiil” capitalists.
As to the hatred of the Nazis for Communists isn’t too hard to understand. Being ideological brothers it wasn’t a big step for Nazis to villify and then commit fratricide with respect to Communists since being fellow collectivist socialist the Nazis were completely aware of the mutual competition Communists posed – they were simply two peas in the same pod and one pea wanted to eliminate the closest competition.
We’ve been lied to by our professors in our universities since World War II as to the true nature of Nazism because being of socialist bent themselves (secular humanists and now secular “progressives) they needed a “right-wing” example to counter-balance what is generally acknowledged to be left-wing, Soviet and Chinese Communism. Altogether, secular collectivist systems (and that’s what Nazism and Communism are) are responsible for something like the deaths of 200 million innocents in less than one century, according to R.J. Rummel’s documentary work, “Death By Government.”Hankmeister (4b484f) — 3/6/2007 @ 3:29 am
BTW, didn’t any number of lefty bloggers and Democrats embrace the idea that Jeff Gannon was a faggot?
Also, there were some bloggers who referred to Karl Rove as a faggot and that refrain was picked up by the general population of liberals … though they would laughingly deny it today since we don’t have audiotape of them snickering about this with their lefty buddies.
I lost a previous post which made this exact point, but according to liberals it is the nature of conservatives to be insensitive Neanderthals who are racist/homophobic/bigots ad nauseam. It’s our nature just as it is the nature of some to be homosexuals … according to liberals, right? So then why do leftists condemn such misguided slubs like us when we’re only doing what comes natural to us? What is the liberal’s excuse for name calling and calling for the murder of people (quickly nuanced with “I’m just joking” … yeah right) who don’t bend the knee to their world view, particularly when they describe themselves as being “enlightened”, “sensitive”, “compassionate”, “people of peace”? There is no excuse and they prove themselves to be extraordinary world-class hypocrites every time they do engage in their carefully cloaked hate-speech and ad hom name calling since they’re the ones always counselling others to not engage in such things! What hubris!Hankmeister (4b484f) — 3/6/2007 @ 3:40 am
Patterico, you sure hit a nerve here! You prove Greenwald wrong by showing a handful of examples of hateful quotes by left-wingers. The response has been one or more of the following:
Those quotes don’t count because…
1. They’re not really lefties.
2. They’re not prominent enough.
3. They’re not really examples of hate speech.
4. They’re too old.
5. Right wingers do it, too.
One thing I’ve noticed is that right-wingers are a lot quicker to denounce stupidity from their own. Left-wingers not only don’t denounce similar stupidity, they defend it.Steverino (d27168) — 3/6/2007 @ 8:21 am
Short term for National Socialist German Workers Party, a right wing, nationalistic, and antisemitic political party formed in 1919 and headed by Adolf Hitler from 1921 to 1945.””
Way to use the definition of Naziism to shed light on its left wing roots, dumbass.Leviticus (35fbde) — 3/6/2007 @ 8:35 am
Do you have any idea how stupid you are?r4d20 (40abcc) — 3/6/2007 @ 9:00 am
No, enlighten me.Leviticus (35fbde) — 3/6/2007 @ 9:25 am
Could you please provide the dates of the quotes?seriousone (d79e25) — 3/6/2007 @ 11:03 am
reading through these comments has been an extremely informative excercise. even though my stomach is doing cartwheels right now, i’m glad i did it!
i officially take back everything i said before: if you think flagrant use of the word “faggot” (or “raghead” for that matter) is acceptable, you should not distance yourself from ann coulter. i had made that suggestion under the assumption that everyone, regardless of political affiliation, would be best served by not reducing political discourse to the schoolyard level. but it would be intellectually dishonest to denounce her if you honestly think what she said was fair play. this could very well cost the modern conservative movement politically in the future, but you are far better off being true to yourself than forsaking your ideals to appease your opponents.
at the end of the day, the faggots and faggot apologists don’t pay your bills, feed your children, or mow your lawns. just take care of yourself and forget what anyone else thinks.brandon (c256e8) — 3/6/2007 @ 11:03 am
Holy moly — you people need serious help.Thom (3373e4) — 3/6/2007 @ 11:13 am
Patterico – I know it’s already been pointed out, but as I was going along reading your post, when you said that Farrakhan is a man of the left really jumped out at me. I don’t agree with the argument you’re making in the post, but everything seemed more or less well presented and researched up until you hit that factual pothole.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that Farrakhan might not be an easy figure to categorize on the traditional political spectrum that we all learned in high school civics. I actually don’t think he is that hard to pin down (he’s a religious social conservative, extremist black nationalist etc), but I can see how people can get confused with where to put him.
But I’m surprised to see you make such a mistake. You really should revise your post and just lose the Farrakhan reference. It makes you look silly. Farrakhan just isn’t a leftist. Look at the history of the NOI and their philosophy. Saying so makes you look as silly as the right wing crazies who say that Hitler and the Nazis were liberals.
[I anticipated this objection, and provided evidence in the post. I showed connections between him and a former Democrat presidential candidate. I showed connections between him and the Congressional Black Caucus. I linked to him calling for Bush’s impeachment. Looking at this all together, he seems like a man of the left far more than one of the right. — P]Justin (dc3309) — 3/6/2007 @ 11:38 am
Fancy that. An article bemoaning “intellectual fraud” cites Earl Hilliard (who?) as a prominent liberal.
When you’re intellectually honest enough to delete (or at least strike thru) the quotes made by people I’ve never heard of, then maybe I’ll take you seriously. Until then, I’ll just assume you went on a truffle dig with Google, and posted any darn thing you could find.
[He was a Congressman. One of a select group of people chosen to run our federal government. I said this in the post. Did you miss it?
Greenwald said you get hate speech from the left only if you did deep in comment sections ad e-mails from anonymous people. This guy was neither. He was a *Congressman*, for Christ’s sake.
A Congressman is not as prominent as an anonymous commenter called “secretmojo” to be sure . . . but he’ll do. — P]secretmojo (61cb8b) — 3/6/2007 @ 12:03 pm
First off, if you don’t mind, please don’t edit my posts by appending your commentary. Maybe I’m overly sensitive, but I find it annoying.
As far as Farrakhan’s “connections” go… fine. So he knows a lot of prominent black leaders, most of whom tend to be Democrats and who tend to fall pretty far to the left. So what? You could just easily say that those Democrats are really “men of the right” because they associate with the known far right extremist Louis Farrakhan.
No, the only correct approach to identifying Farrakhan’s political identity is to look at his beliefs and see where they fall on the traditional political spectrum that we all learned in high school civics. And when you look at Farrakhan’s and the Nation of Islam’s stated beliefs, philosophy and programme and whatnot you’ll see that they’re all extremely socially conservative.
Take my advice, you should just gracefully back away from the Farrakhan thing. I don’t agree with your post, but at least the rest of it is sort of well researched.Justin (dc3309) — 3/6/2007 @ 1:11 pm
So, if you’re socially conservative, you’re really a conservative?
The USSR, Mao’s China, and most Communist societies actually had rather puritanical views on sex, discouraged divorce, and oppressed gays.
Therefore, a Communist government is actually a right-wing government.
Paging Mr. Orwell.
I’ve never had much truck w/ those who argue that Hitler was of the Left. Yes, he borrowed from socialist language and programs, but not all of his philosophies were socialist (and fascism, as opposed to Nazism, tended to be far from socialism). Mussolini, it’s worth remembering, was also originally of the Left, before migrating.
But Justin’s argument is simply nonsensical. Focusing on Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam’s views on homosexuality to conclude that they are “conservative” or “of the Right” is every bit as valid as suggesting that the National Socialist German Worker’s Party was of the Left.Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 3/6/2007 @ 1:27 pm
When John Conyers went to Farrakan’s “retirement” party, did he say anything “nice” about ol’ racist Louis? If he did, a certain GOP Senator/ex-cheerleader from Mississippi (Trent Lott if you are from Yorba Linda) wants to know “where’s the fallout?”Mike (800d48) — 3/6/2007 @ 1:38 pm
You’re joking again, right? You don’t think there would ACTUALLY be fallout, do you?Scott Jacobs (90eabe) — 3/6/2007 @ 2:14 pm
“A Congressman is not as prominent as an anonymous commenter called “secretmojo” to be sure . . . but he’ll do. — P”
Perhaps we differ on what “prominent” means. Merriam-Webster says “widely and popularly known.” I agree with them. You must be widely and popularly known to qualify. Earl is not widely known (sorry, Earl). Coulter is.
Therefore, I’m curious to know where you draw the “widely known” line. Mayor? Town council? Barry Corbin? 😉secretmojo (61cb8b) — 3/6/2007 @ 2:21 pm
I’d tend to include in the catagory of “prominet” someone who has (or had) a direct hand in law-making that affects an entire country…
That puts every congressman/woman and every Senator in there, to be sure.Scott Jacobs (90eabe) — 3/6/2007 @ 2:24 pm
Not that I have any right to request how you run your site Patterico but I very much like reading your embedded retorts/clarifications/rebuttals. I’m always mildly annoyed when I have to continually scroll through a tread just to keep abreast of what each person is replying to. And even if I’m mildly annoyed, I certainly wouldn’t display such arrogance by presuming you give a damn how I think you should run your blog.bains (dd1157) — 3/6/2007 @ 2:29 pm
Who IS this Ann Coulter that everyone keeps writing about? If I am not familiar with this Coulter person, what is the basis for assuming that she’s prominent?
For that matter, who is this David Duke person? After all, he was only a congressman, and not a very successful one, either.
Yes, I shall be the arbiter of fame. It’s a tough job, but someone needs to do it.Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 3/6/2007 @ 2:30 pm
So prominence has become an issue…I should have noted in my post (#179) that Ike Leggett, in addition to being the county executive of one of the wealthiest counties in the country, was the Chairman of the Maryland Democratic Party. Not an anonymous blogger. Oh, and it wasn’t ten years ago–it was about four months ago.jsmith (11d22a) — 3/6/2007 @ 2:50 pm
There really should be some sort of prize for the one individual who contributes most to the foul stench emanating from the filthy sewer that is this thread. That would have to be awarded to some genius named Hankmeister, who illustrates how the human brain turns to a soggy lump of shit from sitting around the house in your pajamas and listening to Rush all day.
Simply from the standpoint of natural selection, it’s just not easy to fathom how someone that delusional and mind-numbingly ignorant manages to feed himself and wipe his own ass everyday. And while the sheer stupidity of his quote pretty much speaks for itself, my favorite part is the claim that is the specialty of Jewish dittoheads, i.e., that liberals are anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist. Hey great point! But it must be just the tiniest bit tough to reconcile that claim with the fact that EIGHTY-SEVEN PERCENT of American Jews voted for the Democratic Party in the last election. Happily, there is no group in the United States that is more passionate about its utter contempt for the Snarling Savage and the Imbecile-in-Chief and.legaleagle (637aba) — 3/6/2007 @ 2:51 pm
Jeff Jacoby wrote an annual “hate speech from the left” column for the Boston Globe from 1994 through 2005 (with two for 1998’s bumper crop).
Here’s an excerpt from Jacoby’s 2005 column:
And a little from 2004:
How about Jacoby’s 2003 column?
So, you self-righteous left-wingers: Any questions?Paul in NJ (723a18) — 3/6/2007 @ 3:08 pm
Sorry legaleagle, your ad hominems don’t qualify as an intelligent rebuttal … but you already know that, I hope. You also need to get some professional help for that anti-Bush Derangement Syndrome with which you’re clearly afflicted.
Your blatant ad hominems are about par for the course for leftist lightweights like yourself. Of course you’ll probably claim my reference to you as a leftist lightweight (your own words condemn you as such) is equivalent to how my brain “has turned to a soggy lump of shit.” Projecting are we?
If 87% of American Jews (and I would probably agree with that number though my own Jewish father-in-law, mother-in-law and wife are conservatives) are liberal Democrats, then they are merely sowing the seeds for their own future destruction. When ensconsed in positions of absolute power, secular collectivists invariably demonstrate they’re virulently anti-Jewish. I can’t explain it but history has proven this axiom to be true since it happened in the USSR, Nazi Germany, and now even in Belgium, France, new Germany and other so-called “enlightened” Democratic-socialist nations in Eurabia. Of course the latter might be the result of virulently anti-Jewish Muslims who are presently turning Europe into Eurabia. But the net effect is the same.
But it seems you’re in good company and I’m willing to bet (though I’ll be accused of arguing by fortune cookie) when the New World Socialist Global Order comes online in the next generation or so, given your own deep-seated hatreds you’ll be one of those in the frontline with your pitchfork hoping to kill off your share of the conservatives, Christians and Jews who won’t bend the knee to your new socialist abomination.
Rail all you want, but if America goes liberal-socialist, its the beginning of the end for this country.Hankmesiter (4b484f) — 3/6/2007 @ 3:30 pm
… oh, and I applaud your other leftist tactic which follows: When confronted with arguments you can’t disprove, invoke Rush Limbaugh’s name to discredit the argument.
None of my arguments are sourced in Limbaugh. There are quite independent sources for such cogent arguments. I was making these same arguments before Rush had a radio show. Not hard to do when one majored in history as I have done and have accumulated documented sources over the last four decades.Hankmesiter (4b484f) — 3/6/2007 @ 3:37 pm
Wow… Most of you folks really have shit for brains.
Thanx for the hypocrisy, dullwittedness and laughter!
~agivemeabreak (ecf7e5) — 3/6/2007 @ 3:45 pm
Wow. Your country is going to hell in a handbasket (figuratively speaking, not literally). It’s just a shame that you’re going to end up taking the rest of the world with you.
As an idle curiosity, when should I start selling tickets to the Second American Civil War?Skeeve (21bd49) — 3/6/2007 @ 3:59 pm
Nazi is short for National Socialism.ken mcmaster (6c5e8f) — 3/6/2007 @ 4:09 pm
All of democrat denials of lefty “hate speech” reminds me of the democrat’s icon. No it’s not a donkey, it’s a JACKASS. Just plain ornery for the sake of being ornery.TheEnigma47 (e20e89) — 3/6/2007 @ 4:17 pm
The Nazis believed nationalism exerted a stronger pull on the working class than proletarian brotherhood. This is the error most people make, assuming a strong sense of nationalism makes a movement “right-wing” when in fact even the Soviet socialists had a similar sense of patriotic nationalism.
Hitler openly acknowledged a New German Faith was arising, a faith in the socialist collectivist policies of the Nazi party and that the enemies of this new socialism were the capitalist Jews, the bourgeoisie and the plutocrats. Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler hunted down and exterminated rival leftist facts such as Communists and like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler waged war against small business. Unlike the Communists, the Nazis allowed large businesses necessary to rearm and rebirth the Fatherland to be privately owned but the state would still exercise dictatorial control over the economy and the production output of said factories.
Joseph Goebbels describe the NAZI Party in this manner:
We are socialist, because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the olny chance to maintain our inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state. Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class.
… We are socialist because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people. … It is a matter of forming a new state consciousness that includes every productive citizen.
We are against the political bourgeois and for genuine nationalism. We are against Marxism but for true socialism. We are the first German national state of a socialist nature. We are the the National Socialist German Workers Party! (cue kool-aid drinking leftists’ thunderous applause)
Communism and Nazism are merely two facets of “progressive” socialist theory.Hankmesiter (4b484f) — 3/6/2007 @ 4:34 pm
So, what’s wrong with being a faggot?killbuzz (826ca7) — 3/6/2007 @ 4:35 pm
[…] My god man — is this guy is a complete idiot? You knows that he knows that Air America is a 24/7 Leftist outlet of hate rhetoric, and with the likes of Jeanine Garofalo, Al Franken, Randi Rhodes there, (Al was there until recently) and with Michael Moore, Bill Maher and then there’s Amanda Marcotte on the blogs, it’s obvious that many on the Left have made a “cottage industry” out of spewing hate. The only difference is that all the other good little Leftists just love their haters — in fact, they love them sooooooooo very much that they don’t see their little tirades as anything hateful! Patrick Frey has it all laid out for us in this post: A certain intellectual fraud who goes by the name of Glenn Greenwald (as well as a few other names) recently said that leftist hate speech is not uttered by prominent leftist figures, but rather only by anonymous blog comments and e-mailers: [I]t is undeniably true that there are people of every ideological stripe who express profane and reprehensible sentiments. The difference is that right-wing authors, talk radio hosts and bloggers — read and listened to by millions of people — traffic in such sentiments regularly . . . . But to find such sentiments outside of right-wing circles, one must go where right-wing bloggers went today — digging into anonymous blog comments (or e-mails allegedly received). That difference is so obvious — and so meaningful — that it all ought to go without saying. […]“Okie” on the Lam » Liberals’ Take On Coulter’s Edwards Slur (e2cef7) — 3/6/2007 @ 4:37 pm
Hevesi apologizes for remark about President Bush
State Comptroller Alan Hevesi publicly apologized Thursday for what he now calls a “beyond dumb” remark about a fellow Democrat maybe “putting a bullet between the president’s eyes.”
Hevesi hastily called a press conference just hours after he put his foot in his mouth during a commencement speech at Queens College. and said his comments were only meant to convey how much strength Sen. Charles Schumer has and how he has the courage to stand up to the president.
“I apologize to the president of the United States” as well as to Schumer, said Hevesi. “I am not a person of violence. I am apologizing as abjectly as I can. There is no excuse for it. It was beyond dumb.”
Hevesi said he hadn’t been in touch with the White House but he hoped his apology would get to President Bush.
Hevesi, a longtime professor of government and politics at Queens College, also called his comments during the speech “remarkably stupid” and “incredibly moronic.”
“I do speak extemporaneously,” he said. “And I’ve never said anything like this.”cnredd (a8fff6) — 3/6/2007 @ 5:15 pm
Hey Patterico, why don’t you make-up footnotes for these quotes like Coulter does?Robert (6e8424) — 3/6/2007 @ 6:19 pm
For both sides misusing fascism (which is an extreme rightwing philosophy that contains elements of leftism) you do need to hit the history and political philosophy books.
The Nazis were socialists. Yes, they locked up COMMUNISTS, but still called themselves National Socialists, did they not? Hitler purchased the consent of the German people with a massive welfare program – this is called (for those of you ignorant) “socialism”. Also, the Nazis controlled the economy of Germany through corporations, top-down economics are what, class? Correct! Socialism.
Comparing modern conservatives or liberals to Nazis is the height of retardation. And makes you all look like ignorant fools and children.Shawn (2b8ff3) — 3/6/2007 @ 6:46 pm
OT — what a delight to hear you mentioned on Mark Levin! Deservedly so.Claire (222d9a) — 3/6/2007 @ 10:25 pm
Hey Robert, why don’t you gobble a knob like Paris Hilton does?
Just as relevant…Pablo (08e1e8) — 3/7/2007 @ 3:23 am
It would seem I disagree with everyone who has commented here in as much that I totally disagree with anything being defined as being a ‘hate’ crime or ‘hate’ speech. This nonsense was the brain child of the left, the whole purpose of which was to disrupt the social fabric of the nation by suffocating speech. It has worked very well: “Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.”
The real issue is freedom of speech. I don’t care what terms Coulter, Farrakhan, Byrd, or anyone else uses as long as they do not openly advocate harm to anyone or the overthrow of our government or Constitution: “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
At one time or another I, like many I would think, have been the recipient of more and varied derogatory insults than I can keep score of and guess what? I don’t care. What difference does it make if someone insults me using what could be judged as a racial insult, or if my cousin calls me a red haired SOB? A verbal insult is a verbal insult and means nothing – sticks and stones, people. And if you have so little self-esteem that you can’t take it, you need to do something about it, and I don’t mean pass a law.
I don’t expect any commentators here to agree for as Voltaire also said: “It is lamentable, that to be a good patriot one must become the enemy of the rest of mankind..” But then he had so many good sayings, such as: “It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere.”, or, “It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”, and last but not least: “A witty saying proves nothing.” So, (really this is the last one, trust me, honest! 🙂 “Let us read and let us dance – two amusements that will never do any harm to the world.”H. Short (816368) — 3/7/2007 @ 3:49 am
I know I’m going to get it again for belaboring the “prominence” issue, but I’d like to thank you for proving Greenwald right.
It truly is hard work to find professional bigots on the left. You have to dig up British pundits, congressmen who aren’t in office*, comedians who are paid to tell jokes, then pepper in an a couple of qualified prominent people whose statements are more gaffes than ideology. This dishonest technique increases the size of your list favorably, and makes up for all the quotes you couldn’t find.
But with the right, I only have to wait for Coulter to open her mouth. Alternatively, I can turn on my radio. Alternatively, I can watch the news. They are truly prominent, reach millions of people, have supporters who keep them on top, get cover stories in Time Magazine, and have built their careers off of brutish speech.
There is no example of anybody like this on the left. NONE. Jesse Jackson is not an example. Neither is Earl or Charles whomever or Craig Kilborn or Rock or Spike Lee or almost anybody that you quoted. Now, if your point is that the left has its haters, you’ve proven that fairly well.
But Greenwald’s point is that it’s slim pickin’s on the left. That you’d have to dig deep to find it. Clearly, you’ve proved that fairly well.
*Earl Hilliard has been out of office — and the news — for five years. No wonder I didn’t know who he was.secretmojo (61cb8b) — 3/7/2007 @ 4:56 am
Jane Smiley said that Vice President Cheney should be shot and killed. (She also has a long history of saying really nasty things about Christians.)pst314 (672ba2) — 3/7/2007 @ 11:43 am
You’re officially, actively doing everything you can to avoid admitting GG’s assertation that only the Right uses “hate speech” (I don’t like that term either). He has been proven time and again to be wrong, but by the letter of his statement, and the spirit of his statement.
But thanks for re-inforcing my opinion of Lefties as unwilling to accept facts as facts, and only relying on feelings and hearsay.Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 3/7/2007 @ 12:46 pm
Nonsense. Randi Rhodes is exactly like that. Except she’s not funny and she’s not trying to be. She’s simply tapped into her audience.Pablo (08e1e8) — 3/7/2007 @ 1:19 pm
Very interesting discussion and yes its true there is plenty of nasty speech on both sides. I do feel, however, that most hate speech comes from the right though the left is not without sin. I think that the difference it that the right has an orchestrated campaign of hate directed toward their opponents and I know it sounds trite but I also do think that the right was the side that introduced this hate speech into the discourse as a matter of policy and is now reaping the reaction. Remember it was Newt Gingrich, high level member of the GOP that conducted courses advising candidates to speak of the Democrats as ‘sick and pathetic” and no one sells more hate books than Annie Coulter. Nor is anyone a bigger liar. I applaud Pats criticism of her but still she is on Fox and dozens of shows and has dozens of articles published by her.Last I heard she was worth 30 million dollars.
Yes others on the left have been nasty but the widespread embrace and promotion of hateful remarks by Coulter and Hannity, Limbaugh, Ingram, Falwell, Robertson and from practically every talk radio in the country tell me these are not isolated comments from a few fringe members of the Republican party but comments that reflect the true nature of the crew that took over the party. Who so blatently attacks vets and even the 9/11 widows in such a nasty manner as Coulter and is so widely revered among the rank and file?
Hatespeech has always been with us but now for the first time in my memory it has become a widespread instrument of one major national party and is not confined to the fringes. I know many will disagree but I do think that any liberal or democratic use of such speech is a reaction to the years of hate and vile that were the staple of the Republican party during the Clinton years.
Question for the group.. when is something hatemongering and when it is legitimate opinion or description? I can only refer to the people I mentioned as hatemongers, liars, and outright fascists and I include Bush and Cheney in that group as well adding that they are criminals in that the lied to us and have killed thousands as a result..Thats what I think the record shows. Does that make me guilty of being a hatemonger or name caller myself when I believe that such words as these are an apt description? When does it change from legitimate expression of opinion concerning someone to outright hatemongering? Comments?Charlie (55cd2b) — 3/7/2007 @ 2:08 pm
When was Rhodes on the cover of a major newsweekly? How many bestselling books has she written? How many times has she been on MSNBC, Fox, or CNN? Rhodes is a nobody compared to Coulter.Moops (8fcb37) — 3/7/2007 @ 2:13 pm
Well, we can agree that she’s a nobody…except to the left, which it turns out, can’t afford to keep their kooks on the air. Now if she was actually funny, she might not be careening toward actual obscurity. That said, she’s still on the air in a whole lot of places.
She is what she is: a full blown hater. Your point, Moops?Pablo (08e1e8) — 3/7/2007 @ 2:37 pm
Rhodes is not prominent. Coulter is. That was secretmojo’s point. Simple enough for you, Pablo?Moops (8fcb37) — 3/7/2007 @ 3:08 pm
Rhodes is the preeminent personality on th3e preeminent liberal radio network. She is, in fact, the most prominent liberal on radio today.
Is that simple enough for you, Moops? Does the fact that she’s still a loser tell you anything else?Pablo (08e1e8) — 3/7/2007 @ 3:55 pm
Well, this certainly has been instructive. Pretty much all I’ve learned is that its almost impossible for those on the Left to recognize hate speech when their folks engage in it. Calling Christians fascists, bigots, homophobes, nope, that’s not hate speech. Howard Dean, Chairman of the DNC, former governor and past presidential candidate, not prominent. James Carville, architecht of Clinton’s 1992 victory, co-host of CNN’s Crossfire, author of multiple books and subject of an Oscar nominated documentary, not prominent. Craig Kilborn, who’s spent more time on network television alone than all of Ann Coulter’s media time combined, “not prominent.”
As a certain very wise rabbit frequently says, “what a bunch of maroons.”CruisingTroll (50646d) — 3/7/2007 @ 4:18 pm
And I’m sure you’re the pre-eminent personality in your local bar. Doesn’t mean anybody else knows or cares. Similarly, just because you care a lot about Randi Rhodes doesn’t mean anyone else does.
By admitting she’s a loser, you apparently agree that Randi Rhodes is nowhere near as prominent as Ann Coulter, and your analogy is therefore faulty for purposes of this discussion.Moops (8fcb37) — 3/7/2007 @ 4:59 pm
“Jane Smiley said that Vice President Cheney should be shot and killed.”
It appears that I mis-remembered her words. What she really said was “In a just world, these people [Bush, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Feith and their underlings]would be taken out and shot.” –Jane Smiley, in an October 11, 2005 letter published in Salon.pst314 (20d3ed) — 3/7/2007 @ 5:08 pm
Inflammatory Things Said by the Left…
Patterico generated a list of “bad” things said by the left. Does anyone remember the left censoring these people like the right has condemned Coulter? Here is Patterico’s list of leftist bigotry and anti-Americanism that goes unchallenged in lib…The Virtuous Republic (59ce3a) — 3/7/2007 @ 5:17 pm
“You’re officially, actively doing everything you can to avoid admitting GG’s assertation that only the Right uses “hate speech” ”
Greenwald asserted no such thing. He said that you had to dig down into blog comments (in an update to a post about people quoting blog comments as representative) to find the kind of remarks that major figures in the right were making. Patterico proved him wrong, on a literal level – you can find these kind of remarks on the left outside of blog comments, especially if you’re willing to go back over two decades and include a British tv columnist (who no-one in the States has ever heard of) and Louis Farrakhan as “prominent lefties”. Patterico continues to act as if this little tussle with Greenwald is the real issue, even as we all try to tell him – yes, of course, there are assholes on the left, but Ann Coulter by herself in the last few years has said more – and worse – than everyone on this list put together, and she gets rewarded and invited to speak at CPAC year after year.
Pablo: “Well, we can agree that [Randi Rhodes]’ a nobody…except to the left, which it turns out, can’t afford to keep their kooks on the air”
Actually, this is an interesting point. Air America’s been an attempt to replicate right-wing talk radio – and in general, despite an enormous level of outrage on the left, and a national rejection of Bush and the GOP, it’s doing miserably. Various explanations have been offered, but one interesting possibility is that most of the left doesn’t want to keep its kooks on the air. I know I stopped listening to Air America within a week – who needs that kind of stuff?
IN 2006 Newsmax did a “25 Most Influential Radio Hosts” list (based on I don’t know) – results: (with [main affiliation(s)] tacked on by me)
1. Rush Limbaugh [conservative]
2. Bill O’Reilly [conservative]
3. Don Imus [shock jock, autism/vaccine crank]*
4. Michael Savage [homophobe, conservative]
5. Sean Hannity [conservative]
6. Laura Ingraham [conservative
7. Glenn Beck [conservative]
8. Dr. Laura Schlessinger [conservative]
9. Neal Boortz [libertarian]
10. Al Franken [liberal!] *
11. Mike Gallagher [conservative]
12. Mancow [shock]
13. Howard Stern [shock]
14. Bill Bennett [conservative]
15. Opie and Anthony [shock]
16. Ed Schultz [liberal] *
17. Michael Medved [conservative]
18. Randi Rhodes [liberal] *
After Rhodes comes Jim Bohannon – description: “A soft-edged liberal, Bohannon’s nighttime show features calm, sometimes narcoleptic conversation with a wide range of topics, guests, and points of view. He is radio’s longstanding late-night alternative to paranormal talk shows about UFOs.”
* Don Imus’ description: “slightly liberal, his sharp tongue slashes Republican and Democratic politicians alike. In 2000, he supported Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush; in 2004, Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry. He angrily denounces Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as “Satan.””
Cruising Troll (truth in advertising?) writes: “Calling Christians fascists, bigots, homophobes, nope, that’s not hate speech.
Actually, Crusing, you have a point here. Us liberals have been making a big mistake here, although it’s not what you’re saying here. We’ve been calling fascists, bigots, and homophobes Christian. Yeah, it’s what they call themselves, but validating them like this only insults real Christians. Enough with labels like “Christian Fascist”! From now on, we should reserve the term for people who seek to actually follow the teachings of Jesus. Those who cloak their hatred in a thin and superficial shell of religiousity, who worship a God that is merely a mirror of their fear and rage, we should call them actually what they are: merely fascists, bigots, and homophobes.Dan S. (ce5c13) — 3/7/2007 @ 5:53 pm
Perhaps I should clarify: “From now on, we should reserve the term Christian for people who seek to actually follow the teachings of Jesus. “Dan S. (ce5c13) — 3/7/2007 @ 6:20 pm
Just as long as you get to tell us what Jesus was really teaching, huh Dan.bains (dd1157) — 3/7/2007 @ 9:30 pm
Just so you know about Faggoty-Ass Faggotlibmeister (4b484f) — 3/8/2007 @ 5:27 am
No bains, you’re completely free to see for yourself what Jesus said. Bibles and other works are all over the place.
You don’t see Christian denominations murdering each other like the Sunnis and Shias over their special interpretation of Holy Writ the last three hundred years. But we have witnessed socialists murdering each other over the interpretation of their irreligious religion of secular humanism … i.e. Nazis vs SovCommies within the last sixty years.
Get off your lazy ass and read for yourself what Jesus said and you can figure out what he meant, if there’s an ounce of intellectual honesty left in you that is.libmeister (4b484f) — 3/8/2007 @ 5:32 am
“Enough with labels like “Christian Fascist”!”
Yes, especially since “fascist” usually means little more than “somebody liberals disagree with”.pst314 (20d3ed) — 3/8/2007 @ 7:26 pm
[…] Conservative: Nonsense. You leftists do it too. Here’s proof. […]Patterico Working Again « Something should go here, maybe later. (1b0ec8) — 3/8/2007 @ 10:36 pm
This has got to be one of your most embarrassing posts yet, weak P, very weak. LOL.Frederick (ae8bf8) — 3/10/2007 @ 11:55 am
I have to laugh when someone says the right has censored its right wing hate speech practioners like Ann Coulter. This bitch has made millions of dollars for year after year denouncing Democrats as the party of treason and ridiculing the 9/11 widows as harpies that are taking advantage of their spouces deaths and insisting that the assasination of John Kerry and the fragging of Johnm Murtah would be a good thing, and that Clinton masturbates in the sink, and that its too bad that the bombers didnt target the NY Times, that liberals hate America and on and on.and now finally that she has called someone a faggot.. and there is finally and outrage…after twenty years of this crap. To tell me the right censors their members while the left does not, is a lie equalled only by the statements that G Bush cares about the troops, that he is a decent man and that fighting in Iraq really does have something to do with WMds, connections to Al Quida and not fighting the terrorists and fighting for Iraqi freedom! Is there anything else these two could use to justify their failed and lying policies? How many of their kids are over there ane while calling for sacrifice they help theselves to big tax breaks!
Bush is a lying, conniving, ignorant moron living in a fantasy world practing his best bullshit and lie and sending tens of thousands of soldierers into a war HE created for his own glory and praise.,.,not a single one of his family has gone however. He is a coward and a liar without the brains or the desire to do anything except help the superwealthy and Cheney is a fascist who thinks the American people are just stupid pawns that can be lead and manipulated for his oil contracts.
Both ought to be given guns and allowed the priviledge of fighting this nobel war themselves..and anyone who cant see throught is is either stupid or or a secret fascist.
How is this for hate speech??Charlie (55cd2b) — 3/13/2007 @ 2:02 pm
Have you considered using a thesaurus to diversify your word choice?DRJ (8b9d41) — 3/13/2007 @ 2:28 pm
Charlie is right. It’s not a question of hate speech. It’s a matter of why do right-wingers hate America?Brent Mack (ca66f3) — 3/13/2007 @ 5:42 pm
DRJ.. Bullshit fascist and liar have really no other words to take their place but if you can think of some others to describe this most corrupt and criminal administation in history I will be glad to learn them. Right wingers really do hate American principles but I need someone to explain to me how in hell a man who launched a war for false reasons either by choice or incompetence, can have even the support of 1% of the people.
Is it just as easy as repeating a lie over and over again so that it becomes accepted as truth or is it just a matter of creating such hate for your opponents that people will believe anything, or is it just that most people dont read or think or even care? How in hell does Bush get away with such a blatant attack on American principles and claim to be defending us against terrorism when over and over it has been shown that Al Quida and Iraq were enemies?
Why does anyone have any respect or desire to support this man?
Perhaps deep down most citizens never really believed American principles and secretly prefer a “strong man” rule to protect them.
When you look at the history of the treatment of blacks, and Indians and the killing in the Philipines and Vietnam you realize we have a deeply violent streak in us that fakers like Bush and Cheney exploit..Charlie (55cd2b) — 3/13/2007 @ 6:16 pm
I feel I need to correct a very widely held/propogated misconception regarding the Randi Rhodes “Assassinate the President” broadcast. (This is the first time I have decided to address this issue, but hopefully others can pick it up so that it can spread much wider beyond these initial confines.)
I had listened to that specific broadcast in question when it had first aired live (via internet stream), then heard it again at work later that same night when it was broadcast over our local airwaves (pre-recorded). A day or so later, when she began getting flak about it & was being questioned/investigated by the Secret Service because of it (which is only fair & to be expected), she explained/reiterated that she “personally” had nothing to do with it.
What this all centered on was one of the post-stationbreak “skits” which routinely preceed her returning to her studio from cigarette or potty break or what-have-you. She was just getting back in from one such break while one such skit– about an organization called the ”AAARP” (”American Association of ARMED Retired Persons” — hence a satirical amalgamation of the “AARP” and the “NRA” or “National Rifle Association”) was playing. This skit (as with most comedy bits on her program) was intended to call certain policies of the Bush administration into question — in this particular instance, the huge issue over the ongoing debate of ‘preserving’ 2nd Amendment ‘gun ownership’ rights and the then worrisome concern that Administration policies were about to threaten Social Security retirement benefits, etc. In the skit– performed as a mock “PSA” (“Public Service Announcement”) –the “spokesman” (apparently meant to invoke the image of an elderly gentleman), after expressing his dissatisfaction with the president’s plan to tamper with Social Security, ends his remarks by saying, ”…Just TRY it, you little whipper-snapper!” — which is immediately followed by what is apparently supposed to be the sound of a rifle being fired. The “spokesman” then closes out the “PSA” by announcing the name of their organization as the “AAARP” followed by a short descriptive ending slogan.
The “implication” was clear as tapwater, no question about it… which is why when Ms. Rhodes returned to the microphone and went back on-air the VERY FIRST THING out of her mouth was, ”What’s with all the killing?” She found this particular skit neither funny nor appropriate, and said as much. She also had to explain later that, essentially, she handles the ‘on-air personality’ angle of the program and her ‘writers’ produce the ‘comedy bits’ independent of her input.
After the official investigations into that particular broadcast were complete, it was determined that no threats (direct or veiled) against the president or his life had been either made or intended; as a result, any possible charges or other sorts of reprimands were not pursued and the entire case was effectively dropped.Tempest K. (549645) — 3/13/2007 @ 11:27 pm
*Tempest K. (549645) — 3/14/2007 @ 2:25 am
I located the audio file of the Randi Rhodes Show in question. I got just a few of the small details incorrect, so rather than taking all my words and going with them checked, I’ve decided to post the audio at my secondary webpage address so that anyone who wishes can listen for themselves.
[…] But are they? I figured Google would know. I did several searches and came up near empty. I found this example by a conservative leaning blogger intended on exposing leftist hate speech. After reading it I wasn’t satisfied. One of the comments left on this post explains the same thing I noticed when I read an example quote on the site by Jesse Jackson. I thought, “hey, that was a long time ago.” The comment sums things up with this: I can’t help noticing that some of them are as much as 23 years old. In fact, of these 24 quotes, barely a third were spoken in this century (counting from 2001) – only two within the last year. On average, these quotes are almost 8 years old. […]Traveling Hypothesis » I really shouldn’t write this (a5f7bd) — 3/16/2007 @ 2:31 pm
Wow, I can tell that lots of work went into to putting together that list. Still, when reading it what strikes me is the humor in many of those statements, most of which I would not interpret as hateful. Also, someone please help out the guy who confused facism with socialism. I am scared by his ignorance.Krissy (d0da83) — 4/10/2007 @ 4:30 pm
[…] Patterico’s Pontifications: No Hate Speech by Prominent Leftists? […]Wikipedia’s leftist bias keeps deleting information on Glenn Sockpuppet Greenwald’s perfidy « docweaselblog (5cb034) — 11/30/2007 @ 8:40 pm
Gay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex…
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…Gay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex (08fc82) — 1/11/2008 @ 9:06 am
has noleyu ijoplage
air http://iceltmal.az5jwq4.in/sitemap3.html [url=http://iceltmal.tf7drf5.net/sitemap16.html ]don’t[/url]iceltmal (30b2b5) — 1/19/2008 @ 9:32 pm
Hello! Do you know me?…….
….I’m a liberal. I believe that all men are created equal, but I don’t buy the part about being endowed by the Creator and I don’t buy the “created” before equal either. I think that religious belief is an individual decision that the State sh…Media Lies (fa8fba) — 2/3/2008 @ 3:19 pm
[…] https://patterico.com/2007/03/05/leftist-hate-speech/ […]Hate Speech by the Left « John Hargrove’s Weblog (a25818) — 1/9/2011 @ 7:35 am
[…] Spike Lee – Director: Shoot him [Charleton Heston] with a .44 caliber Bulldog. […]The Arizona Shooting: Liberal Hate Speech Capitol Commentary (83cdcc) — 1/11/2011 @ 1:03 am
[…] https://patterico.com/2007/03/05/leftist-hate-speech/ I would like to bring everyone’s attention to the date that Patterico’s article was published; 2007/03/05. This predates Sarah Palin, Glenn beck and a host of others. This list also depicts the level of sickness in the liberal mind. Not only are they content calling for the death of conservatives but gladly include the deaths of wives, children and grand children. […]In the Crosshairs of the Dupnik’s « A Gunslinger Looks At The World (32c23e) — 1/16/2011 @ 8:06 pm
[…] Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker but he was just so strung out on Oxycontin he missed his flight. Spike Lee – Director: Shoot him [Charleton Heston] with a .44 caliber Bulldog. Robert Byrd – Former KKK […]Cryptcl: Liberal Hate Speech Quotes « cryptcl_idiot_savants (f11ad6) — 8/1/2011 @ 2:44 am