Actually, They DO Dare Call It Treason.

September 16, 2001 12:12 PM

Actually, They DO Dare Call It Treason. Criticize Bush and be shouted down as a traitor: "The despicable traitors have made it their mission to undercut the authority of President Bush during America’s darkest hour, proving themselves even more cowardly than the terrorist murderers who are the only beneficiaries of such contemptible conduct." It's a good thing that MeFi would never sink to such levels.
posted by NortonDC (39 comments total)

Via FMH, which, unfortunately, seems to have fallen for the "Palestinian celebration footage is 10 years old" story.
posted by NortonDC at 12:13 PM on September 16, 2001

I was only taking orders from above--Nurenburg trials of nazi officials
posted by Postroad at 12:28 PM on September 16, 2001

I haven't seen anyone in the leftist media *really* criticize Bush. In fact how and in what way could they criticize him yet? Nothing's been done. I just watched Bush give a Q&A on the White House lawn. He distinctly said, "Americans aren't used to this kind of war. There is no beach head. There is no desert to cross. There are no military targets yet." I've paraphrased a bit, yet what is there to criticize with reasonable comments like that?

Seems to me, this is an old battle the right has waged on "leftism" since the beginning of time. That being, there is no room for divergent thought. A want to rid their world of intellectual variety. That they cannot change people's minds, I presume, would naturally make idealogues like that seethe with hate.
posted by crasspastor at 12:49 PM on September 16, 2001

Seems to me, this is an old battle the right has waged on "leftism" since the beginning of time.

You might want to change that to the extreme right, in order to avoid offending all of us moderate rights who fully believe in and fight to protect everyone's freedom of speech.
posted by fooljay at 12:55 PM on September 16, 2001

Nothing official, but the extremes for both sides have been nasty. But then they always are.
posted by owillis at 1:00 PM on September 16, 2001

Agreed, fooljay. I trust little that Newsmax reports...it is as guilty of biased reporting as any of the traditional "liberal" media that it purports to be superior to.
posted by davidmsc at 1:02 PM on September 16, 2001

You're right. . .Extreme right. I agree.
posted by crasspastor at 1:06 PM on September 16, 2001

So what did NewsMax have to say about Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson? Surely what they've said is as treasonous as anything Maureed Dowd did. --In comparison, a writer in the National Review called Falwell and Robertson "vicious bastards" today. My, how times change.
posted by gimonca at 1:23 PM on September 16, 2001

I have to say, I am actually rather befuddled (but again, not surprised) at the accusations coming from the extremist right. I watched CNN (and BBC's coverage via BBC America) for most of the morning on the day of the attack. Most of my follow-up coverage was via WPLN-FM (NPR affiliate in Nashville), which I listened to non-stop while at work.

I thought the coverage was very matter-of-fact, with no particular "spin" that I was able to gauge. And I know that NPR is considered a bastion of left-wing journalism.

OF course, after skimming through NewsMax, a particular maxim came to mind about a certain kettle and a name-calling pot.
posted by tpoh.org at 1:24 PM on September 16, 2001

see what happened to me on the ceoexpress.com bulletin board! Watch out America. Bush was chosen by God!!!!! Oh crikey!!!!
posted by terrymiles at 1:49 PM on September 16, 2001

It appalls me that people still buy into the ridiculous notion that the corporate-controlled mainstream American media is leftist. They are at best weakly liberal and are steering harder to the right with every passing day, and this whole episode is only going to accelerate that process.
posted by briank at 1:55 PM on September 16, 2001

Just because a national tragedy happens, doesn't mean that those who disagree with what is going on must either change their minds or shut up. Even though Bush's approval ratings are up around 90% for the job he is doing thus far in leading the nation through this episode, my associates and I still consider him a horribly inept idiot.

The media is not being critical, as it should be. The death of thousands of Americans does not justify the kind of homogenization of views and values that has taken place in the past days. We are not all speaking with one voice, but the media and the government would have us all believe that we are all saying the same things.
posted by Hammerikaner at 1:57 PM on September 16, 2001

Last I checked this is the free world and citizens no longer have to fear getting beheaded in exchange for voicing dissatisfactions with the government.

As Frisa notes, using that T-word again: "This same treasonous song is, of course, being sung by other leftist media egotists such as Canadian Peter Jennings, democrat Dan Rather, society boy Tom Brokaw, sniveling Howard Fineman of Newsweek, pedantic Brian Williams of MSNBC and too-cute by half Katie Couric, among dozens of others."

I love the way the terms Canadian and democrat are on par with words like sniveling, pedantic, and society boy. Really objective, NewsMax.
posted by lisel at 2:18 PM on September 16, 2001

I rarely chime in on the left-right politics issue, but as a New Yorker, this what I'm hearing from the far right:

"Is New York the head of the 'Great Satan'? All that is evil in the world can be found in New York: MTV, the United Nations, the U.N. abortion programs, the Council on Foreign Relations, New Age Church of St. John the Divine, Wall Street greed, Madison Avenue manipulation and of course more confirmed AIDS cases than the rest of America combined. Let's remember the filthy sodomite gay parade last summer in New York. Let's remember all the New York politicians falling all over themselves to praise this sick spectacle.

"And let's not forget that New Yorkers elected – by a landslide – the openly Marxist, treasonous and abortion-mongering, occultic Hillary to a Senate seat. All while fully knowing what she was all about."

The byline of the above author says he is "an international correspondent." That better mean he's in hiding.

My response to the far right: Fuck you. I live in New York. I'm authorized to criticize anyone I like, any day of the year, and no more so than right now. I think George Bush is a witless hand-puppet with the long arm of rich conservatives shoved up his backside. And I think he's proven over the last six days to be a pathetic little monkey, only interested in looking good while he rewrites Tuesday's history to make himself look better.

I'm angry and upset and as of now the far right no longer gets mercy from me. Now I call them the enemy. No breaks, no allowances, no pathetic quoting of John Stuart Mill. I will attack them and their slimy schemes on every vantage point, on every front, from every tower, from every wall. Prepare.
posted by Mo Nickels at 2:23 PM on September 16, 2001

By the way, Conwebwatch belittling Newsmax is about as meaningful as the Socialist Worker's Daily belittling The Spotlight.
posted by aaron at 2:23 PM on September 16, 2001

<SOAPBOX>
my associates and I still consider him a horribly inept idiot.

I have to tell ya, and please don't take offense, I find this sort of thing really hilarious. I know it's a bit off topic, but I just got my button pushed. The following you's are not directed at you, Hammer, but instead everyone who makes it a habit to write this at least once a day on Mefi...

How often have you been able to talk to the man? Do you know people who know him well? Then what are you basing your thoughts on?

The media? The snippets of soudbites the media has chosen? The opinion of the people around you? What people on the elect-al-gore mailing list said?

Come on people.

You have to have some level of intelligence or political ability to get to be Governor of the second largest state in the Union and then President. Just because you don't agree with his politics, or have become accustomed to very polished politicians or perhaps because you may have a unconcious bias regarding Southern/Texan drawls, let's really inspect the evidence upon which we rely to call someone a "horribly inept idiot".

I can't say that I've said that about anyone too often in my life and really meant it. Perhaps you use slurs more freely.
</SOAPBOX>
posted by fooljay at 2:29 PM on September 16, 2001

I will say little here except to point to Phil Agre's incredible essay Imagining the Next War, and using his words:

The almost inherent crisis of democracy, and the actual nature of conservatism, become clearest in conditions of war. The conditions of war are almost identical with the social vision of conservatism, and it is no surprise that conservatives are so eloquent when the possibility of war arises. Conservatism has always been profoundly opposed to the popular exercise of reason, supposing it to lead inevitably to tyranny, and wartime is ideally suited for the absolute, polarized, us-and-them forms of thinking that are the opposite of rational thought. In this sense, democracy as such is profoundly threatened by an absolute evil such as Stalin's regime in the Soviet Union or the attack on the World Trade Center -- not because of the military danger it poses, real as that may be, but because of the danger that it poses to the collective reason of a democratic polity. Indeed, the depth of the danger was already clear before the attack, for example in Rush Limbaugh's astonishing argument that the leader of the democratic opposition, Tom Daschle, resembled Satan simply because he opposed all of George W. Bush's policies. And it has become clearer since the attack in the argument by many prominent conservatives that the coming wartime condition will require a diminution of civil liberties.

And I think it's high time that liberals started loudly and passionately repeating with relish a shibboleth of the right these last few years:

Those who would give up essential liberty in order to achieve a little temporary safety deserve neither.

It won't shut them up, but it sure will make them mad.

I'm getting awfully sick of the meme that disagreeing with the President on policy, or believing he may, perhaps, not be the Most Perfect Man Who Has Ever Occupied the White House, are "Bush hating". It's disgusting demagoguery, particularly given the outrageous lies told about Clinton (with Hillary's sexuality and Chelsea's ancestry being fair game). It's only slightly better than calling those who disagree with you "traitors", but I expect to see a lot more of that in coming weeks. Gird yourselves. The right wing does not want the left wing to be in government at all. They consider them fifth columnists in times of war.

Or maybe they just like wars, because they get to accuse liberals of being fifth columnists.
posted by dhartung at 2:52 PM on September 16, 2001

aaron: Last I heard, the 700 Club was placed on the air by Fox Family, same owners of the Fox Network. I presume it was part of a deal for the sale, but it must receive decent ratings all the same for it to still be on. Pat and Jerry both have growing educational programs and universities. Pat used his clout to help Bush win in South Carolina, and used his services throughout the campaign. The National Review says Pat and Jerry are in decline, but that souded like an awfully convenient statement to make, given that as late as 2000, the same publication were listed as giving Bush key religious endorsements.

The same writer who said they're in decline in the NR, actually, wrote this last year: John McCain’s attack on Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson flopped. Among New Yorkers and Ohioans who said the attack had an effect on their vote — about 40 percent in each state — Bush won large margins over McCain (3 to 1 in New York, 4 to 1 in Ohio). Moreover, it was not just self-proclaimed members of the religious right who were dismayed by the attack.

Dismayed?
posted by raysmj at 3:07 PM on September 16, 2001

Great quote, dhartung. This concerns me more every day.

Clearly, there are idiots and fools of every stripe. Republicans and Democrats (even independents!); Muslims, Christians and atheists; Americans and Afghans; gays and straights; men and women; old and young. This is SELF-EVIDENT--can we get past it and move on now, rather than devolving back into a culture of tongue-sticking-out with hands-over-ears? It seems to me that our purpose--and our duty--is to separate ourselves as far from idiocy and foolishness as we can, regardless of our various affiliations/memberships.
posted by rushmc at 3:23 PM on September 16, 2001

Crucial, rushmc. It would be much more difficult to separate the world into those who are "idiots and fools" and those who aren't but it would be a darn sight more useful and positive than the old, exhausted dichotomies that keep all the non-idiots and non-fools stupidly apart.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:15 PM on September 16, 2001

aaron: Good to hear you don't care for the 700 Club. I only turn to it every now and then and watch in very small doses some of the most curiously biased news ever presented. Then there's the convention of having the reporters and fellow clubsters ask Pat their opinion of a story. "So, Pat, what do you think of the NASDAQ's decline?" Then they all remain quiet, in E.F. Hutton commercial-like fashion, until Pat finishes. I've watched that enough to be able to do a wicked Pat impression.

That said, plenty of conservatives have taken him seriously over the years, and did in the past election. So the reaction against him is not just a left thing. It's angered people who I didn't know would be offended.
posted by raysmj at 4:42 PM on September 16, 2001

You have to have some level of intelligence or political ability to get to be Governor of the second largest state in the Union and then President. Just because you don't agree with his politics, or have become accustomed to very polished politicians or perhaps because you may have a unconcious bias regarding Southern/Texan drawls, let's really inspect the evidence upon which we rely to call someone a "horribly inept idiot".

Rubbish. Did you see the man perform in New York City? I did. I saw him stand next to a man I have never voted for, and before now would never have voted for, Rudy Giuliani, and I saw George W. Bush come up short. He's an inch of a man compared with Rudy Giuliani. The evidence is there and clear. I've witnessed it. George W. Bush has been a feeble leader to New Yorkers, and I won't forget it.

As long as you're incapable of blasting the so-called "far right" without including such lines as "George Bush is a witless hand-puppet with the long arm of rich conservatives shoved up his backside," at best your readers are going to think of you as an eqivalent "far left." At worst, they're going to think you're really just out to attack everyone to the right of Ralph Nader.

I might just do that. There will be balance. Centrist politics have turned into a trap in which a far right composed of nut jobs, racists, bigots, war-mongers, irrational zealots, cronyists, cheaters, liars and greedy bastards have skewed our national center too far to the right. Those are your allies. Those are the people under whose flag you stand. Those are the people espousing your politics.

There will be balance. Perhaps it will come from supporting the far left.
posted by Mo Nickels at 5:35 PM on September 16, 2001

Balance won't come from supporting extremists, it will come from opposing extremism.
posted by NortonDC at 5:56 PM on September 16, 2001

Mo Nickels is right. I consider myself a conservative here in Europe but, when I look into U.S. politics, I nearly always agree with the so-called liberals there.
In Europe Ralph Nader would be a slightly left-of-centre liberal. So-called conservatives like Falwell and Robertson would be simply illegal, given the laws against hate-mongering.
U.S. politics are skewed to the right and the best example - impossible to understand by euro-trash like myself - is how The New York Times, a centrist stalwart if ever there was one(and also the most reliable newspaper in the world)is routinely considered to be "leftist".
So get a perspective, please.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:57 PM on September 16, 2001

You have to have some level of intelligence or political ability to get to be Governor of the second largest state in the Union and then President.

No, you have to be rich and connected.

I go now fill up the page, but I'll hold off.

But...

GWB proves how shallow and empty he is everytime he tries to look and sound important.

Daddy Bush was the same way, but I never considered him to be stupid like his son obviously is.

It's always amazing when people swear otherwise when it's painfully obvious.

All of these general statements about "whip Terrorism" and "rid the world of evil-doers" will come back to haunt him, mark my words.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 6:04 PM on September 16, 2001

There will be balance. Perhaps it will come from supporting the far left.

You mean the same ones who are basically saying America deserved this, and that anyone with the nerve to display the American flag is definitely a war mongerer - never mind what the flag really stands for.

The far left can be as despicable as the far right.
posted by owillis at 6:12 PM on September 16, 2001

Right, right. I am against extremism and zealotry in any form, for any cause. But how do we move the center to the left?

When my European friends and I talk politics, I am alway reminded that the American Right and the American Left are separate by a perhaps a hand's width, while in Europe, the Right and the Left are separated by miles. This is reflected in our "Republicrats," a term I detest, but which applies here.

Of course, this all goes toward that old discussion of why there's an organized Far Right and a disorganized Far Left.
posted by Mo Nickels at 6:47 PM on September 16, 2001

*sigh*

I won't try to convince anyone about GWB's intelligence, because I am no more qualified to judge it than any of you. All I would ask is that you really inspect your own biases and make sure that your assumptions and allegations are accurate before you spread them to the people who don't seem to want to think for themselves.

I will, of course, do the same.

With that said, I have a feeling that in the next three and a half years, Bush will surprise us all. Through maturity in the job and through our recognition of his leadership style (which is decidedly different from every president I can think of in my lifetime) we will come to understand how the man works and how his influence affects the country.

Like all of you, I can only hope that that effect is a positive one and that the divisiveness in this country is healed. All of you, that is, except for the most partisan who want him to fall on his face to the detriment of this country and the betterment of your party's next election results

Mo wrote:
But how do we move the center to the left?

My physics education says that displacement of mass from right of center to left of center should do the trick. :-)
posted by fooljay at 6:56 PM on September 16, 2001

Serious question: why we should think that the US needs to change it's idea of left and right instead of Europe? Does Europe benefit from having significant numbers of politically engaged Marxists?

That seems like it would be a tough position to defend.
posted by NortonDC at 7:37 PM on September 16, 2001

Everything is relative... The U.S. is at the extreme left, if you consider Islamic fundamentalists to be at the center...
posted by fooljay at 7:53 PM on September 16, 2001

"But wishing Bush well is not the same thing as thinking he is doing well. Running through Democratic circles last week was a steady current of dismissive commentary -- nearly all of it spoken with an insistence on anonymity -- questioning whether Bush has the political and policy skills to heal the nation and rally an effective response."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/A41232-2001Sep16.html
posted by NortonDC at 9:13 PM on September 16, 2001

Darn, Barney beat me to my comment. Grrrrr.... :-)

I definitely have to say that Rudy has looked a HELL of a lot more presidential than Shrubya the past week. Personally, I think it has to do a lot with seeing Rudy on the tube, being accessible, answering questions, etc. Shrub, in contrast, looks to me to be hiding. But maybe that just my own particular analysis.

Criticize Bush and be shouted down as a traitor

To get back to the original point....actually being able to criticize Shrubya is what makes this country - and any free-market, free-speech democracy for that matter - great. Hey, if it was some third-rate terrorist-supporting country, we'd all have had our heads lopped off by now. So damnit, I'll criticize as necessary, it's the American way!

Sorry for the rant....
posted by PeteyStock at 11:01 PM on September 16, 2001

I'm no fan of GW, but I'm not convinced that the live performance of a president is a good indicator of how effective they are. Reagan and Clinton were great performers partly because they were such great liars (to themselves, of course, most of all).
posted by gspira at 11:09 PM on September 16, 2001

I am not shocked that thinking people see problems with Bush's performance. Like the article says, wishing that Bush succeeds in protecting the nation is not the same thing as approving of his performance. Congress has a role in this, and they would be derelict in their duty to just hand it all over to any president.
posted by NortonDC at 5:39 AM on September 18, 2001