...we've all got something to grind.
As I noted somewhere else, what irks me so much is how the "progressive" blogs are all over denouncing his racists and sexist remarks(gotta protect our womens) and fired off rabidly at him. I'm not making light of Imus's remarks.Do you think that would have happened if Imus said something less direct than what he did, but with the same horrific intent? I can think of all kinds of analogies that would work. You bet they would. Why? Any chance to take down a conservative. So, in that comparison how is what Kos said any different? I know, I know, I'm preaching to the choir.
For real? All I've seen on the "progressive" blogs is people defending Imus and railing against PC and hypersensitivity and chilling speech. I'd say at least a majority if not a supermajority of the his posts I've seen were all for Imus, and primarily because to them Imus ISN'T a conservative. He voted for Kerry, he's on their side, he lets their guys on, he's a good guy by definition so he can say whatever he wants, especially about a constituency that just doesn't matter. Blogs like kos don't aim for conservatives, they aim for anyone to their left.And if Imus said something less direct...it used to be you could be as racist as you wanted to be as long as you didn't use the word. Now even when you use the word it's no big deal, you got carried away, etc.
apparently anonymous we do not read the same "progressive blogs". i hardly think voting for Kerry puts you in the "progressive" category by default, and i would think that it would be a fallacy to call someone who is racist/sexist/homophobic a "progressive"
apparently anonymous we do not read the same "progressive blogs". i hardly think voting for Kerry puts you in the "progressive" category by default, and i would think that it would be a fallacy to call someone who is racist/sexist/homophobic a "progressive"Um, ditto. Not only have I not seen any progressive blogs defending Imus, but I haven't even seen any progressive blogs *mentioning* any progressive blogs who are defending Imus.Plenty of talking heads in the I-Man's corner, tho.(Paul Begala isn't a progressive blogger, right?)
I gather that some of the amen chorus at Kos and some of the other Big Kahunas are whinging, but i can't really say, not having been there. wouldn't totally surprise me though, considering some of the shit i've seen at fdl and so on.
the other problem is, lately a lot of people have co-opted "progressive" to mean something like "partisan Democrat party hack who's way more aggressive than those pansy 'liberals' of yesteryear." which would explain the affinity for shock jocks as long as they're on the "right side" of whatever candidate/issue is deemed Important.
astute observation belle. i kind of always thought that progressive was a split from the impotent democrats, meaning they were committed to doing something about the issues they say they are committed too. possibly it's just been corrupted by a bunch of anti-bush republicans. ahhh, and the cycle continues.
well, the key word there and the common denominator is "impotent," as in "thing what 'progressives' don't wanna be."unfortunately, there are just an awful lot of Big Boys (and some Big Girls) who are a leeeetle too invested in worrying about "impotent" as in "i must be STRONG, like OX"--you know, *butch*--and not so much about "stand by your principles."it gets particularly entertaining when one assumes that those principles are gonna include y'know such fripperies as feminism, civil rights, yadda, and the BIG WHITE BOYS (and some sidekicks) are all like, "nuh uh! get with the program! don't be so Sensitive! eat your spinach, like ME! AIYIYIYIYI"
unfortunately, there are just an awful lot of Big Boys (and some Big Girls) who are a leeeetle too invested in worrying about "impotent" as in "i must be STRONG, like OX"--you know, *butch*--and not so much about "stand by your principles."This is my biggest problem with the Democratic Party establishment - they have a hard time realizing that they never look weaker than when they go along with the Republicans so they can say they're tough on terror. They're not being tough on terror, just weak on Republicans.I think they're getting better, but I still don't trust them yet.
right. but so then what happens with the supposed "rebels?" Kos and so on? they bluster and foam at the Republicans across the aisle (also all very well as most of 'em don't actually have to work with them); but then when it comes to actual ISSUES...it's like they've decided it's all a big football game, really; the important thing is winning for its own sake. yeah, it'd be better for candidates i actually think make any fucking difference to y'know win, but winning for the sake of winning is...not all that helpful really. defeating the most egregious of rightwingers is a goal in its own right i suppose; but as long as it's only ever reactive it's just not gonna get that far.
How is it that "doing the right thing" has never caught on as a winning strategy? Is there really not majority support for it?Jesus Christ himself could not win an election in this country if you spotted him Texas and Florida. (The highlight would be James Dobson declaring that Jesus isn't a real Christian...)
Um, okay. I never said that voting for Kerry makes you a "progressive." I said that's what they think by and large at the progressive blogs, Imus is their guy and they've defended him all the way. Maybe we don't read the same blogs, but if you read the big ones like kos you will see that even Imus' few detractors have commented on how appalling it is to see Imus getting so much support. Not surprising, but appalling."i would think that it would be a fallacy to call someone who is racist/sexist/homophobic a "progressive"'Tell that to kos, the guy who points out constantly that he's not a liberal and considers anyone who's more liberal then he a dangerous radical.
He really only has as much power as we give him, kids.
(kos et al, that is)
Post a Comment