Whose Speech Gets To Be Free?
Whether you like or agree with Colbert is immaterial. If you truly value free speech, you value it for all.
If you read the piece linked in the tweet below, you'll see that his remark was within the required time parameters. The government has no business policing TV speech. If people don't like the content, they can change the channel -- or avoid watching it altogether. How many people who find Colbert offensive actually watched the show?
FCC launches investigation into Stephen Colbert's insults of Trump: https://t.co/8iG7DUSVB8 pic.twitter.com/k8AiTmtKrk
— Peter W. Singer (@peterwsinger) May 5, 2017
via @thehill
WHAT???
Here's an argument:
@Jajngn
@amyalkon @TexasJew Maybe but the lowered standards for TV are too much. If he were truly creative he could've criticized without the homophobia.
My reply:
@amyalkon
Why would it be homophobic? Graphic, vulgar, yes. But it's just a more graphic way of saying kissing ass.
Let's all have our reasoning in the "on" position, please.
Simply mentioning gay sex isn't a form of hate.
I wonder who the complainers are. The FCC doesn't do this on their own. Or at least they never have in the past. But building a stable of professional complainers is a feature of American left wing politics (the perpetually aggrieved). Is the right wing picking up this tactic or has Trump inherited some left wing professional complainers?
Ben at May 6, 2017 6:30 AM
Chillax.
Crid at May 6, 2017 6:32 AM
Back when I was working at individual TV stations, which was long ago but for many years, the rule was that every single piece of viewer mail had to be neatly filed for public inspection in the lobby during business hours.
As often as not, these missives included complaints about the martians who were communicating their intentions for global conquest through Marcia Brady's blouse choices or the songs on that one K-tel commercial... As well as the perennial favorites like "The CIA is watching me through my TV set!"
And after all, how silly is that?
Actually, back in the day, it was pretty silly. Station management would sometimes attach sarcastic interoffice memoranda to the most ludicrous ones, comfortable in their certitude than no member of the public would ever come in and inspect the files.
And in my experience, the public never did.
Crid at May 6, 2017 6:47 AM
Maybe the FCC is outsourcing the nannying from the UK where they banned this ad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK9p7DZcEqk
Sixclaws at May 6, 2017 8:07 AM
I'm sorry, wut?
Fuck no. Make the proggies live by the same rules they inflict on the rest of us. If they don't like that, then maybe they should, oh, stop leading lynch mobs after people they don't like.
I R A Darth Aggie at May 6, 2017 8:59 AM
If they don't like that, then maybe they should, oh, stop leading lynch mobs after people they don't like.
But it's different when they do it!
dee nile at May 6, 2017 9:29 AM
I agree with I R A Darth Aggie. Politicians of the type that Colbert supports have given the FCC the ideology and power that it has today. I think the current commissioners were appointed by President Obama. I'd be in favor of severely restricting the FCC's role and jurisdiction, but in the meantime I'll be happy to see progressives like Colbert "live by the same rules they inflict on the rest of us" as I R A Darth Aggie says.
Ken R at May 6, 2017 9:44 AM
so, the chickens have come home to roost.
I won't be crying anytime soon for Colbert; and it has nothing to do with his being a smug donkey.
charles at May 6, 2017 9:57 AM
"Why would it be homophobic?"
1. If a conservative had said it would it be homophobic? Duh.
2. Why say it as a negative if you do not want it to be considered homophobic by most viewers?
Bob in Texas at May 6, 2017 1:54 PM
I don't think there is anything wrong asking a Federal Agency to investigate some matter that appears well within the domain they normally regulate.
So in the sense the FCC already regulates the public airwaves as a non-free speech zone wrt indeceny and obscenity, asking them to investigate this seems quite reasonable and given the high profile of Steven Colbert their explanation of how they resolve it seems notable and worth study.
It would seem the FCC *not-investigating* this, or any outrage that the FCC would investigate this to be the outlier.
At the same time supposedly free speech supporting conservatives are chided over calling for Colbert's firing, supposedly free speech supporting liberals should be called out for what would seem to be a clear double standard during the Obama administration (for instance (google tells me) the dropdobbs campaign that got Lou Dobbs fired from CNN) and all the other firings of people from Milo to Justine (has Justine landed yet)
I am not calling for Colbert to be fired, but I am interested in hearing what the FCC has to say about it, and I do think it is worthwhile to put liberals over a barrel regarding their own double standards and hypocrisy concerning speech.
That's no call to curtail speech, it's a call for transparent examination of hypocrisy.
jerry at May 6, 2017 2:05 PM
> @amyalkon
> Why would it be homophobic? Graphic, vulgar, yes. But it's just a more graphic way of saying kissing ass.
I ain't no etymologist, but I would say "cock holster" is a worse slur than saying kissing ass, and is both homophobic and misogynistic because of this other definition.
> vagina (n.) "sheath, scabbard, covering".
"Cock holster" was not Colbert saying Trump "merely" kisses Putin's ass. It was Colbert saying Trump sucks Putin's dick. And it was doing so with a homophobic misogynistic slur reducing a vagina to a sheath for a penis.
Better, funnier Stephen Colbert saying much the same thing: http://www.cc.com/video-clips/1gonk2/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-prince-charles-scandal
jerry at May 6, 2017 3:53 PM
Sorry - but how do you take that back once it's been aired?
If you say it's OK for this term to be used by Colbert all the time, then you should have no problem whatsoever when someone springs it on your kids during the afterschool rerun of Saved By The Bell.
You're actually saying it's OK to shout "Fuck!" at your kids. Don't pretend it's just OK after 10PM.
This is a symptom, not the cause of decay, but face it: Show people what to do and they will do it.
Don't be surprised. This is how people learned it is perfectly OK to pee on your fence, to shout on their phones, to have children out of wedlock and be a hero for doing it...
And to squeal obscenities at candidates and their supporters.
With your support.
Radwaste at May 6, 2017 4:29 PM
Ben Says:
"I wonder who the complainers are. The FCC doesn't do this on their own. Or at least they never have in the past. But building a stable of professional complainers is a feature of American left wing politics (the perpetually aggrieved). Is the right wing picking up this tactic or has Trump inherited some left wing professional complainers?"
Yeah Ben... I wonder who the complainers might be... perhaps this thread will give you a clue that it *might* not be coming from the political left.
This tendency to complain in order to censor peoples behavior isn't exactly a unique feature of left wing politics either.
Who is it again who whines and moans about the "war on christmas" every year again?... it certainly hasn't been the left.
Who was it who pushed for the temperance movement throughout the 19th century?... again not the political left.
It would be nice if for once people stopped treating politics as a sport where you have to constantly support your "team" even when they are doing crazy things.
The reality is that both sides of the political spectrum have been agitating and complaining to censor and control other peoples words and behavior for as long as we have records.
Who started it is just a game of evidence free finger pointing that has no merit as it began too far back in history and was too poorly documented to know for sure.
Artemis at May 7, 2017 4:51 AM
"It would be nice if for once people stopped treating politics as a sport where you have to constantly support your "team" even when they are doing crazy things."
But Artemis, that would mean the minions would not truly be acting "miniony". You know. Thinking. Understanding. Deciding for themselves.
Can't have that. Messes up the profitability of what being sold and to whom.
Bob in Texas at May 7, 2017 5:34 AM
I love that Trump's "grab them by the pussy" is harmless "locker talk," while Colbert's late-night joke, long after the kiddies are in bed, has Trump supporters wailing and wringing their hands.
But it does nicely demonstrate the kind of mindless double-think you have to engage in order to defend our Buffoon-in-Chief.
Gail at May 7, 2017 7:03 AM
Radwaste said: "If you say it's OK for this term to be used by Colbert all the time, then you should have no problem whatsoever when someone springs it on your kids during the afterschool rerun of Saved By The Bell.
You're actually saying it's OK to shout "Fuck!" at your kids. Don't pretend it's just OK after 10PM."
Yeah, no. The FCC has guidelines stating that what's fine on late night won't fly in the afternoon. That's a pretty piss-poor slippery slope argument you've got there, Raddy.
You know what really sends a bad message to our kiddies? Putting a president in office who has boasted about grabbing women by the pussy without so much as asking them first. Are you at all troubled by that?
Gail at May 7, 2017 8:04 AM
Sorry, Amy, you flunk Constitutional Law. This is a Commerce Clause issue; the First Amendment has nothing to do with it.
Colbert is on CBS, which is broadcast. It is the forum used that gives rise to the power to regulate. Because there are limited suitable TV frequencies, they are regulated by being licensed, because public utilities and similar entities are effectively given monopoly powers. That is the basis of the FCC's jurisdiction and power to investigate and sanction CBS.
Colbert can say what he wants in private, or he can rent a hall, or (like you) write a blog, or, like Maher, go on cable, and make homophobic or incest allusions about President Trump, or Ivanka Trump, or, Jewish women (who are public figures) who have large breasts, and neither the FCC nor you can do anything (well, actually, as a private person, you can complain to his employer, something a government agency without regulatory jurisdiction is prohibited from doing). That's because those forums are not regulated under the Interstate Commerce Clause. And, contrary Howard Dean's misinformed statements, there is no "hate speech exception" to the scope of the First Amendment.
So, that's the difference. Because you use unregulated forums, if I don't like your comments, I'm limited to complaining to your employer. However, with Colbert, I can also complain to the FCC. The Interstate Commerce Clause, in such instances, limits the scope of the First Amendment. So, if you don't want government regulation of TV and radio broadcasting, convince Congress to abolish the FCC.
Wfjag at May 7, 2017 9:05 AM
*I love that Trump's "grab them by the pussy" is harmless "locker talk,"*
Considering that he didn't deliver that braggadocio to an audience of millions, I'd say yes, it is harmless.
If someone grabs someone against their will, call the cops, file a complaint. This business of vilifying people for not speaking in the approved manner of THE COLLECTIVE is doubleplusbad groupthink. Doesn't work.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 7, 2017 10:34 AM
I am neither arguing that Trump's pussy-grabbing remarks should be looked into by the FCC (they shouldn't), nor that Colbert's cock joke should not (as Crid noted above, the FCC in fact must look into it if someone complains).
What I am jeering at is Radwaste's faux hand-wringing "oh, what about teh wittle children"? If you vote for a guy who is on record with that pussy-grabbing comment, among many others, you are all that worried about the effect of vulgarity on our children and in our culture generally. Colbert's late-night joke on an adult show is far less likely to permeate their tender skulls and influence their behavior than the remarks made by the man Trump voters put in our highest office.
By the way, as a lawyer, I'm betting the FCC looks into Colbert and lets it slide. The obscene standard that applies to late night TV is actually pretty steep. I wouldn't bet my house that he doesn't get a fine, but that's my guess. He sure as hell won't be fired.
Gail at May 7, 2017 10:54 AM
...you are NOT all that worried about the effect...
damn, where is that editing button?
Gail at May 7, 2017 10:56 AM
Gail,
After Kennedy, LBJ, and Bill Clinton I don't think a conversation is very high up on a scale of 1 to 10.
Of course you can decide that a President abusing an employer-employee relationship is no big deal even it is life-long behavior.
I can decide that locker room talk is just that as well and that much is being made of nothing.
AFA the "joke". It's political speech that was crudely stated. I am surprised that Gays are okay w/their behavior being used in such a negative manner but that's not my problem.
Bob in Texas at May 7, 2017 12:44 PM
To me this is a much bigger problem than the "joke" or Trump's statement but crickets ...
http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/05/judge-catholic-university-can-fire-tenured-prof-supporting-student-stood-catholic-teachings/
Bob in Texas at May 7, 2017 12:49 PM
FYI, heterosexuals also engage in oral sex. Also, the fact that a particular sex act is engaged in by gay people doesn't make it more obscene than if it were engaged in by heterosexual people.
I agree Colbert's statement was political speech, crudely stated.
I don't condone Bill and JFK's bad behavior. I'd prefer my president model his marriage after the Obamas or the Bushes. But I do have a special problem with what Trump said. He wasn't just talking crudely. He was implying -- no, he was bragging -- that he just walks up to women and grabs them without asking, and that he gets away with it because he's famous. That's far worse, IMO, than anything consensual that happens between two adults (which by and large I think is the spouse's concern, not mine). Even if Trump never engaged in such behavior (which frankly, I doubt, especially in light of the fact some women have accused him of it), having our president on video bragging about it like it's something to be proud of is a real problem.
(Bill and JFK also had some impulse control and tact outside of their sexual peccadillos. Trump does not.
See, e.g , his Twitter account. But that's a side issue.) .
I have a real difficulty in understanding why the face of the Republican party currently looks like Trump and not more like Gary Johnson or Evan McMullin -- or Jeb Bush, or Marco Rubio, for that matter. I find it disturbing as fucking hell, and I find Trump dangerous and embarrassing.
Gail at May 7, 2017 1:07 PM
Cute Artemis. Proudly displaying your ignorance to an audience.
Whining about efforts to squash the saying of 'Merry Christmas' is the same as a government investigation? Doesn't seem so. And as for the temperance movement, you had to go back 100 years? Even then it has almost nothing to do with the 'right wing'. The Prohibition Party was heavily allied with the Democrat Party. So yes, the political left. Just because religious groups were involved doesn't make it right wing.
And no, this thread wasn't enlightening. I'm still wondering if the right is picking up more tactics from the left (which is happening) or if Trump just inherited a large number of left wing voters who were kicked out of the Democrat party (a large part of his base). But Crid is right that this is much ado about nothing. It isn't going anywhere and the story is more fake news desperately trying to smear Trump. And failing to do so.
Ben at May 7, 2017 1:32 PM
Who was it who pushed for the temperance movement throughout the 19th century? - Artemis
Feminists in particular, women in general, most of whom lean left
FYI, heterosexuals also engage in oral sex. Also, the fact that a particular sex act is engaged in by gay people doesn't make it more obscene than if it were engaged in by heterosexual people. - Gail
No one is arguing its obscene, people are arguing its a hate crime, particularly hate speech of a homophobic bent because it used a homosexual sex act as an INSULT against a heterosexual man
Try and keep up
lujlp at May 7, 2017 4:05 PM
Sorry, I have trouble keeping up with that much rampant stupidity.
You'll find that what the FCC will apply is the Supreme Court's standard for obscenity.
Gail at May 7, 2017 4:43 PM
Another free course in Legal Ed:
This ain't a "hate crime," for fuck's sake. Here's the FBI on hate crimes: "hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties." https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes
Explain again where the "criminal offense" is here."
Gail at May 7, 2017 5:35 PM
And before you try to claim it's defamation, I'll forestall you. It's not. It's satire.
See, e.g., this: http://kellywarnerlaw.com/satire-v-defamation/
"Defamation is a believable false statement of fact that causes material harm.
Satire is 'the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.'
In other words: defamation is a malicious lie passed off as truth; satire is a humorous skewering of a cultural or political event – regardless of whether or not you agree with the viewpoint."
So. Did Colbert attempt to convince people that Trump was engaged in a homosexual affair with Putin? No. No, he did not. He made a vulgar joke to make a political point.
You'll see that link discusses Falwell v. Hustler magazine, which involved a satirical ad in Hustler implying Falwell had sex with his mother in an outhouse. Guess what? The Supreme Court's held it was satire, not defamation.
Pretty comparable to to Colbert's joke, wouldn't you say?
So the only question, really, is whether the FCC will find it meets the standard of "obscene."
Gail at May 7, 2017 5:45 PM
"I love that Trump's "grab them by the pussy" is harmless "locker talk," while Colbert's late-night joke, long after the kiddies are in bed, has Trump supporters wailing and wringing their hands."
"If you vote for a guy who is on record with that pussy-grabbing comment"
I've seen this argument in several places. not the same...
Trump's comment was caught on tape after he and the radio host were told the mikes were shut off. They thought they were speaking privately. Trump had no intention to say it publicly.
Tape of Trump's remark ( that someone saved for 11 years...think about that for a minute..) was released by someone to damage him. He did not willingly make the remark in public, nor release the tape himself.
The interviewer in the Trump incident was fired from his job 11 years after the fact (!!) for his comments with Trump.
Colbert used the word 'cockholster' live on national TV to describe the President. Why should he not suffer the same fate as everyone set upon by offended liberals? Fire him now, make him unemployable, replay his remarks constantly on Facebook, make a hundred memes out of it, fill YouTube with it. Tit for tat and all that...or are there freer standards of speech for liberals?
crella at May 7, 2017 5:49 PM
...and the FCC will probably rule that it does NOT meet the definition of obsvene. To be obscene, speech must meet the classic test from the Suoreme court case Miller v. California, requiring that the average person find the speech appeals to the prurient interest, describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Colbert’s comment does not appeal to the prurient interest -- it is not sexually arousing to the average person (gay or straight)
And while you might not like Colbert's monologue, IMO it's hard to argue that “taken as a whole”, it lacks serious “political value.”
It's vulgar, yes (though not more so than Trump). But that's not the standard the FCC is going to apply.
Gail at May 7, 2017 5:54 PM
...for christ's sake, if you're going to be humorless and shrill, at least be RIGHT. And if you're going to talk out of your ass, at least be funny.
Is that so much to ask?
Gail at May 7, 2017 6:25 PM
'In a 2005 recording obtained by The Washington Post, Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, talks about women in vulgar terms to Billy Bush'
Over a decade ago. A tape from 2005.
'NBC News fired "Today" show host Billy Bush after he was caught on tape in a vulgar conversation about women with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump before an "Access Hollywood" appearance, the network announced Monday in a note to staffers.
Bush had been suspended at the morning show two days after the 2005 tape was reported on Oct. 7. NBC and Bush's representatives had since been negotiating terms of his exit before the announcement.'
He was fired. On October 18, 2016.
The 2005 tape was released before the election, 11 years later.
Colbert made his remarks on TV, as part of a rant while hosting a program.
What am I wrong about?
Why not treat him the same? Head would roll were Obama called a cockholseter and we all know it.
I don't think 'shrill' means what you think it does.
Here's a summary of the whole thing in much greater detail.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/10/10/nobody-cares-but-nbc-has-been-wildly-unethical-in-the-trump-bush-video-affair/
crella at May 7, 2017 7:07 PM
"That's a pretty piss-poor slippery slope argument you've got there, Raddy."
Feel free, with all the legal might and reasoning you can muster, to explain why you can count on savagery everywhere you go today.
It didn't appear from outer space.
Radwaste at May 8, 2017 2:29 AM
Ben Says:
"And as for the temperance movement, you had to go back 100 years?"
And:
"I'm still wondering if the right is picking up more tactics from the left
So which is it Ben... is the right picking up a new tactic invented recently by the left... or has this kind of thing been going on for over 100 years?
You can't have it both ways.
The entire reason I picked something that old as an example was to demonstrate that none of what we are seeing is new... this has been going on as long as we have historical records. The political left and the political right have been engaging in campaigns to control/censor peoples behavior since they came into being.
Trying to act as if "your side" is innocent in all of this is patently ridiculous.
"Even then it has almost nothing to do with the 'right wing'. The Prohibition Party was heavily allied with the Democrat Party. So yes, the political left. Just because religious groups were involved doesn't make it right wing."
What are you even talking about Ben?
You do realize that at one point in history the Republican party was on the political left, right???
The entire anti-slavery movement within the Republican party was a progressive one, NOT a conservative one.
Similarly, the Democratic party hasn't always been associated with progressives.
Party politics shifts over time. Using the snapshot from today and expecting it to apply all the way back in history shows a serious lack of understanding about how right and left wing politics actually evolves over time.
Also, the temperance movement itself was a coalition movement that involved folks from conservative evangelical groups... those weren't liberals.
It ALSO included folks from the political left at the time in that coalition.
However since the people on the left engaging in this type of controlling behavior isn't in dispute it isn't important to my argument. All I am proving to you is that the political right has been doing this kind of thing for a VERY long time. They aren't just picking up tricks from the left as you keep saying. These tricks have been in their tactical set practically forever.
Artemis at May 8, 2017 5:03 AM
Lujlp Says:
"Feminists in particular, women in general, most of whom lean left"
Sure Lujlp... the feminists and women in general were the ones who made the temperance movement happen... all the way back in the 1820's.
I am sure we are all familiar with the powerful feminist lobby back in the 1820's aren't we?
You know a full 100 years before women even had the right to vote in the United States.
What wave of feminism was it again back in the 1820's?... like the negative third wave or something?
You sure have some revisionist history going on Lujlp.
Also, since you seem to know very little about this. The American Temperance Society was started in 1826 by Lyman Beecher and Justin Edwards... both men and both preachers.
The Catholic temperance movement was started by an Irish priest named Theobald Mathew and was further pushed in Britain by the Chartism movement... which was a movement for universal male suffrage... this wasn't exactly a movement driven by women or feminists. The call for universal male suffrage was primarily driven by men.
In other words... it was a movement started by highly religious men and supported early on by groups primarily composed of men... not a bunch of liberal women.
Artemis at May 8, 2017 5:19 AM
Ben,
The following link is for you so you can educate yourself on how the democratic and republican parties have shifted over time:
http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/stories/3613/republicans-democrats-switch-platform
You may find it interesting to learn that at one point in history the democratic party was the conservative party and the republican party was the liberal one.
That is why nothing you say makes sense when you talk about something being supported by the democrats over 100 years ago as if that made it a liberal movement... back then they were the conservatives.
Artemis at May 8, 2017 5:30 AM
Not only ignorant but having difficulties with reading today Artemis?
Ben at May 8, 2017 6:05 AM
Ben,
What the fuck are you talking about?
Here is what you said:
"Even then it has almost nothing to do with the 'right wing'. The Prohibition Party was heavily allied with the Democrat Party. So yes, the political left."
But apparently you are too stupid to comprehend that 100 years ago the democrat party was the 'right wing'.
Not to mention that you don't seem to understand that the temperance movement of the 19th century isn't the same as the prohibition movement of the 20th century.
The only one here who is ignorant and having reading difficulties is you.
You are a know nothing prancing around as an expert on a subject you clearly have no knowledge of.
Artemis at May 8, 2017 6:23 AM
"Because there are limited suitable TV frequencies, they are regulated by being licensed, because public utilities and similar entities are effectively given monopoly powers. "
Nah. Dirty little secret: The FCC has never in its history denied a license to a TV station because there was no frequency available to broadcast on. Not even in the early days, when stations had to be kept several channels apart due to limitations of the technology of the time. There have been times when a TV station decided not to go on the air because it couldn't get the channel that it preferred to be on, but that's not the same thing. Vast tracts of the UHF broadcast band were never used, and since about 1990, the FCC has been taking it away, bit by bit. The number of broadcast stations has dropped over the last two decades, and tuners are a lot better now. There is no shortage of channels.
The "public utility" aspect of broadcasting has always been a ruse, one that the courts should probably never have honored, and the FCC would still like to use it as a nose-under-the-tent-flap principle to justify regulation of cable and the Internet, where the limited-bandwidth excuse clearly doesn't apply. There is nothing in the First Amendment that says it doesn't apply to electronic communication.
Cousin Dave at May 8, 2017 8:06 AM
Artie's in the right forest, but he's gotten lost yelling at the trees.
He(?) is spending more time insulting people who disagree with his proposal than he is in making the case for the proposal.
The Republican Party was founded in 1854. It supported abolition of slavery, high tariffs, high wages, and hard money (gold standard). The party was in favor of a strong federal government and was the party of the industrial interests.
The support for high tariffs and abolition put the party in direct opposition to the Southern states, who were heavily dependent upon cheap labor and international trade.
The party's base was in the industrial Northeast and the upper Midwest. Being based in the Northeast led the Party to support the Puritan-inspired Prohibition movement. Even today, the Party generally supports drug prohibition.
The Democratic Party, on the other hand, was founded in 1828. The Dems were populists by nature, leading to support for unions against management, soft money ("Cross of Gold"), low tariffs, and segregation/slavery. The Democrats favored local rule and opposed a strong federal government (states' rights). This was the party of the agrarian interests.
Reconstruction was a major issue for both parties in the 1868 election. The Democrats vowed to end it. while the Republican were split. Grant Republicans wanted to continue it (tolerating the corruption with which Reconstruction was rife) and Greeley Republicans wanted to end it (and put an end to the corruption).
William Jennings Bryan embraced Democratic Party populism with his "Cross of Gold" speech, advocating soft money.
Theodore Roosevelt turned the Republican Party on its ear with his populist-driven trust busting and support for small business.
TR's cousin, Franklin brought leftist economic thinkers into his administration, turning the Democratic Party further left (despite FDR being an ardent anti-communist). FDR destroyed Republican isolationism and support for high tariffs. After FDR, the Democrats became strongly associated with the social welfare state. Even so, the Democratic Party still had a conservative (fiscal and social) wing.
In the 1948 election, civil rights was the big issue. Both Harry Truman (D) and Thomas Dewey (R) supported the passage of a civil rights bill. The Southern Democrats (mostly social conservatives), favoring segregation and ran a third party candidate, South Carolina governor, Strom Thurmond. Truman won and, in revenge, began the process of riding the Democratic Party of its Southern wing. Thurmond would finally bolt the Democratic Party in 1964. Sam Nunn and Zell Miller, both of Georgia, would be the last of the old blue dog Democrats.
Jimmy Carter alarmed evangelicals, ironic since Carter was himself an evangelical, by saying there was no place for religion in politics or social policy. Evangelicals were encouraged by influential evangelical leaders to get more active in politics. Jerry Falwell founded The Moral Majority to unify the personal and the political and show that moral issues and family values were important to a large segment of the electorate. Looking for a political home, the evangelical movement gravitated away from Carter and toward the Republican Party.
Eisenhower, a Republican, desegregated schools in the South - a policy in keeping with longtime Republican support for abolition and strong federal control, but opposed by many who had defected the Democrats after 1948. Nixon, a liberal Republican, took the country off the gold standard - ending longtime Republican support for hard money and founded the EPA in response to populist-driven environmental concerns (much like TR establishing the National Park Service).
Kennedy was a Democrat because, back then, the Republicans were a WASP party and Catholics were Democrats. That, and his father wielded power in the Democratic Party. Nonetheless, JFK supported many things that Republicans favored: strong defense, anti-communism, and lower taxes.
Ronald Reagan formed a three-way coalition of fiscal conservatives (Goldwater Republicans), pro-business liberals (Rockefeller Republicans), and evangelicals within the Republican Party to win the nomination and the election in 1980. Throughout Reagan's two terms, the evangelicals believed they wielded more power and influence than they actually did, demanding Reagan hew closely to their agenda and threatening to withdraw support when he deviated from what they felt was the moral policy. Nonetheless, evangelicals became a political force to be dealt with. Goldwater had warned against giving the social conservatives too much power.
Emulating Reagan's coaltion, Bill Clinton tried to reconcile the various factions remaining in the Democratic Party with support for welfare reform, Affirmative Action reform, and free-trade, while also supporting higher taxes, housing activists, and other liberal causes. Al Gore was unable to translate that triangulation into an electoral victory at the polls after Clinton's personal demons overshadowed his political skills.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid completed the work of turning the Democratic Party entirely to the Left, banishing all who did not follow their Leftist orthodoxy (bye bye, Joe Lieberman). The Democrat Party's populism still makes itself felt through things like the Occupy movement, the environmentalist movement, and support for a higher minimum wage.
The Republicans are still at war with themselves, no one having been able to duplicate and maintain Reagan's three-way coalition. Trump's populism and support for high tariffs may be bringing the Republicans the blue collar vote, a vote that had been traditionally Democratic through that party's support for labor unions.
Parties are always in transition as situations change. Saying Lincoln would be a Democrat today or Kennedy would be a Republican is pure conjecture. The situations in their times were different, as were the cultures. Then, if your father voted Democrat, you voted Democrat. FDR was considered a traitor to his class by many - mostly for being a Democrat. Trump is hardly a standard bearer for any of the three wings of the modern Republican Party.
Populism today is different. A populist in the 1900s, like William Jennings Bryan railed against the gold standard, business monopolies, and Eastern industrialists. Today's populists, depending upon the party affiliation, rail against Wall Street, climate change, political correctness, free trade, and immigration.
The country is different today, too. In Lincoln's time, the economy was primarily agrarian with a growing industrial base. The West was unsettled and in the hands of a people hostile to US settlement. In Kennedy's time, the majority of voters remembered fighting the Nazis and considered the Soviet Union to be an equivalent evil and were, thus, willing to "bear any burden" to defeat it. Top tax rates in Kennedy's time were also much higher than they are today, so tax cuts then were an easier sell. There was no income tax in Lincoln's time, so one of the few ways the federal government could raise money was through tariffs.
[Apologies for the long-winded post.]
Conan the Grammarian at May 8, 2017 9:47 AM
"It would be nice if for once people stopped treating politics as a sport where you have to constantly support your "team" even when they are doing crazy things."
The people that try to do this are ignoring the reality on the ground.
Politics *is* a team sport as enshrined in the constitution, federal statues, and state laws governing elections, as surely as the NFL is governed by their rule book.
Recognizing that politics is more like baseball or football than singles tennis, should, for intelligent people, take the focus off the individual players and put it on the teams where the focus belongs.
Doesn't mean you don't have the right and the obligation to criticize, but in the end, as our government and elections are currently structured, you only have two real choices at the national level.
Either work within one of the parties to shift the consesnsus to a direction more to your liking, or stomp your feet and hold your breath till you turn blue,
It's a free contry, for now, and either works for me.
Back to the original topic. i see no reason to censor Colbert. He is performing a public service by exposing himself as a unfunny partisan shill. I hope his network stands by him.
Isab at May 8, 2017 11:19 AM
"Grant Republicans wanted to continue it (tolerating the corruption with which Reconstruction was rife) and Greeley Republicans wanted to end it (and put an end to the corruption)."
Conan, that was a good summary. On this bit: If the GOP had gotten on top of the corruption that infested the Reconstruction project, America's history would probably be a lot different. It was the collapse of Reconstruction, and the subsequent economic depredation of the region, that gave the Southern Democrats the opening to establish the power in the South that they held for the next century.
Cousin Dave at May 8, 2017 11:26 AM
I'd agree with that. Colbert is a comic; and a buffoon. If he violated an FCC rule on profanity, fine him or censure him. If not, let it go. Trump is president, and that means Americans have a right to insult him publicly, even Americans with a television show. Colbert didn't advocate violence against the president.
Colbert's whole "Disgrace the Nation" and BLOTUS schtick is tired and cheap, and entirely dependent upon having an audience that agrees with him and hates Trump. It's not clever or funny; and it's not going to make anyone who is not a Trump-hater laugh or even chuckle. The entire gamut of anti-Trump comedy routines seems to be based on cheap laughs and a compliant audience.
Conan the Grammarian at May 8, 2017 1:39 PM
Whether you find Colbert funny or not depends on where you are politically and how you feel about Trump. I am a small "l" libertarian, for the most part, who thinks both parties suck overall (some candidates sucking more than others, of course), and I despise Trump -- have hated him since he was a liberal Democrat. He's a fucking dangerous narcissistic lying blowhard, and I can't believe anyone voted for him. So, I think Colbert is generally funny (though that particular joke was a bit over the top for my taste). A lot of us who loathe Trump think Colbert is funny, which is why his ratings are skyrocketing. But yeah, if you like Trump and what his administration is doing, you're going to hate Colbert. That's how political humor tends to roll.
By the way, the joke was bleeped out, and they even blurred Colbert's mouth. You want to know what will happen to Colbert? Nada. Zippo. Nothing. I'll be astonished if they even fine him. So y'all may as well take Crid's excellent advice and chillax.
Gail at May 8, 2017 3:14 PM
I don't care about Trump. I found Colbert's diatribe unfunny because it didn't take any creativity to come up with. Like Letterman's barrage of fat jokes about Chris Christie, it relied on cheap shots and a compliant audience. We get it, Christie's fat. Now be funny. Make a joke that took something more than "hey, Christie's fat" to come up with.
Same reason I despise bullshit. It's a lie that tries to pass itself off as truth by brute force. Colbert's diatribe was a barrage of staid jokes that tried to pass themselves off as humor by sheer force of will, because they were at Trump's expense.
In political philosophy, I'm a fiscal conservative (we're $20 trillion in debt) and a social libertarian. So, I fall slightly on the right side of the political aisle. I've laughed at jokes about politicians I (sort of) liked when the jokes were funny and sounded like they took some thought to come up with.
Trump should be a comedian's goldmine. Instead, anti-Trump humor seems to be coming from the shallow end of the pool.
I'll admit, I don't loathe Trump, but I do have concerns about him as president. I agree with some of his actions. I thought his SCOTUS pick was solid and agree with dismantling the oversized federal regulatory machine. His foreign policy is a little to brinksmanship for comfort.
That said, what I miss most in modern political humor is wit, which seems to be in short supply these days.
Conan the Grammarian at May 8, 2017 3:49 PM
Re: Political Humor
Gerald Ford was featured on television at a roast several years back. Chevy Chase spoke, thanking Ford for showing up, recalling the jokes Chase had made at Ford's expense, and closed his speech looking at Ford and saying "I hope you'll pardon me." Ford caught the joke a beat ahead of the rest of the audience and broke out laughing.
Later, at the same event, Art Buchwald told stories of growing up with Ford and the two of them as kids telling each other their dreams. Buchwald said his dream then was to play professional baseball, while Ford told him his dream was to be president. "But Jerry," Buchwald related his reaction, "that's an elected office." Again, Ford caught the joke first.
Wit vs. bullshit. Subtlety vs. brute force.
Conan the Grammarian at May 8, 2017 4:00 PM
"He's a fucking dangerous narcissistic lying blowhard, and I can't believe anyone voted for him."
And I can't believe anyone, especially anyone who knew anything about Hillary, or had ever held a government security clearance would vote for her.
The difference between the two is Hillary is a coniving dangerous narcissistic alcoholic blowhard funded by foreign kleptocracies and crony capitalists with government insider favoritism as the enforcement arm of the giant ponzi scheme the Clintons have been running since White Water.
Perhaps there might someday be an option for *none of the above*.
If that choice gets a majority in the electoral college we get a do over, with new candidates, but until that day arrives, I'm voting a straight Republican ticket in opposition to the democratic party's all out war on the First and Second amendments and the worst botch of a healthcare bill and of foreign policy that has ever come down the pipes in my lifetime.
AND I think substantial numbers of GOP congressmen and senators need to be primaried to get them out of office, and out of the business of colluding with the democrats to build power in Washington at the expense of their constituents.
I think Glenn Reynolds called this election correctly from the git go.
Isab at May 8, 2017 4:10 PM
There were two qualified "none of the above" choices -- Gary Johnson and Evan McMullin -- both of whom were way better than Trump.
And while I've got all kinds of problems with Hillary, there actually isn't one issue I have with her where I don't think Trump is as bad or worse. And that is really saying something. He's corrupt, he's dishonest, he's ignorant, he has zero grasp on policy, history or our system of government, he's made direct threats to the first amendment, he's infesting his own swamp with his own cronies, and the only principle he stands by is his wallet. Not to mention his fucking batshit tweets. For God's sake, he discusses security issues in front of Mar-a-lago busboys and you think Hillary is a bigger security risk? oh, and let's not forget the ludicrous amount of taxpayer money he squanders on Florida golfing trips and lodging his family in Manhattan. And his several bankruptcies, his hiring of illegal workers, his failure to pay workers, his failure to release his taxes, his Trump university scam...I could go on all day. He's corrupt to the fucking bone and utterly irresponsible.
Granted, Hillary isn't good. Granted, it was a shitty year with shitty choices. But to my mind, Trump was the worst possible choice on just about every front. Just about anyone on the Republican slate would have been preferable.
The one thing he's done so far that I approve is selecting Gorsuch, whom I think will be an excellent justice. (Not better than Garland -- I think what the Republicans did there was unjustifiable -- but that wasn't Trump's look-out.) I give Trump full marks for that choice, but that's it so far. Pretty much everything else disgusts me, and I am not optimistic the outlook will improve.
Gail at May 8, 2017 7:14 PM
Sorry for the rant. It's just that as a New Yorker, I've seen more than enough of Trump and then some. My loathing and distrust of him as a human being goes well beyond politics -- as I noted above, I also couldn't stand him when he was a democrat hobnobbing with the Clintons, which was not so long ago. I actually don't believe he has any real political principles beyond what works at the moment for his ego and his wallet. Hence why one minute he's pro-choice, the next pro-life; one minute advocating single-payer healthcare, the next decrying it...
Gail at May 8, 2017 7:40 PM
According to Reason, in most of his decisions, Garland comes down on the side of government power, not on the side of civil liberties. Whereas Gorsuch tends more often to come down on the side of civil liberties than on the government's side.
I'll take Gorsuch.
Conan the Grammarian at May 8, 2017 7:47 PM
That was one of my major concerns, too. He seems to have no political philosophy. No philosophy on what the proper role of government is and should be. No little inner red line beyond which the government should not be allowed to cross.
Although his roll-back of the federal regulatory state is welcome, I'm worried it's only a political expediency to abandoned when it becomes inconvenient.
The thing is, as a New Yorker, you had the luxury of voting for a no-chance third party candidate as NOTA since Hillary was guaranteed to win New York. Californians also had that luxury. Texans could also risk throwing away a vote, as Trump had a strong lead there.
Those of us who live in swing states had to decide if the risk of the "other one" winning (whichever the "other one" was) was worse than throwing away one's vote on a third-party candidate who would probably not win a single state. We had to commit to a candidate from one of the two major parties.
Gary Johnson was the best candidate the Libertarians have ever run and he could only garner 3.27% of the popular vote and not a single electoral vote. And this was against Trump and Clinton, two of the most unpopular candidate ever!
Evan McMullin was not even on the ballot in some states and could only garner 0.53% of the nation-wide popular vote.
Conan the Grammarian at May 8, 2017 8:11 PM
"There were two qualified "none of the above" choices -- Gary Johnson and Evan McMullin -- both of whom were way better than Trump."
Neither of these people was going to be elected. Voting for them in sufficient numbers would throw the election to Hillary (al la Ross Perot) so this is a unicorn argument.
One thing I have noticed about my fellow women. When you develop a deep personal animosity towards an individual, you will overlook your own best interests to see them brought down.
(Personal animosity is the Jr High girls criteria for picking the head cheerleader).
Fortunately Hillary was unable to turn out the spiteful bitch vote in sufficient numbers in the states where she needed to.
Whatever my personal opinion of Trump. I get more happy everyday that it isnt the Clinton cash machine back in charge, with a boozed up incompetent harpy selling favors out of the oval office six hours a day, and drinking and sleeping the other 18.
I've seen a lot more stuff I like than stuff I don't so far in the Trump administration. Doesn't mean I wouldn't have rather seen Ted Cruz. But he lost in the playoffs.
Isab at May 8, 2017 8:45 PM
Disliking her policies and thinking her corrupt, fine. But the "she's a drunk" and "she sleeps 18 hours a day"? That's eye-roll-worthy tabloid fake news at its finest.
The fact that we now have a president who finds time to travel every fucking weekend to golf in Florida, spends his morning tweeting silly unsubstantiated shit he sees on cable TV, and has the temperament of a spoiled toddler? That's reality.
Conan, you have a point on the swing state thing. There is a certain luxury in living in a state where your vote isn't likely to sway the election. Still, I would have stayed home before voting Trump. No way could I pull a lever for the guy. And I think civil libertarians and fiscal conservatives who did so will rue it before his term ends. This is going to be one expensive president, and he has pretty much zippo respect for the Constitution. We are very lucky to get Gorsuch out of him -- I think he's more prone to taking knowledgeable advice on that particular front, which is a mercy.
Gail at May 8, 2017 10:38 PM
Conan Says:
"He(?) is spending more time insulting people who disagree with his proposal than he is in making the case for the proposal."
Conan, while I certainly appreciate that for once you actually seem to know what you are talking about here with regard to the history of the democrat and republican parties... and more than that that we actually seem to agree for once... your criticism here is patently ridiculous.
I am more than happy to spend pages making the case for any proposition I put forth if I have even the slightest bit of evidence that the person I am talking to will listen to reason or absorb factual information.
When someones response to factual information is to say the following twice I lose all faith that that person is a functional rational being:
"Cute Artemis. Proudly displaying your ignorance to an audience."
And
"Not only ignorant but having difficulties with reading today Artemis?"
Such a person isn't interested in listening to reason or talking about facts.
As I have mentioned before, this blog is littered with people like this... people who are convinced they know everything about topics they actually know nothing about.
In this instance you seem very well educated on political history... and lo and behold you and I agree.
You will probably find that I am generally aligned with people who actually know what they are talking about. Furthermore I will acknowledge when they seem well versed in the subject.
I for one really enjoyed your "long winded" post and hope to see more like those in the future.
Artemis at May 9, 2017 5:04 AM
Isab Says:
"The people that try to do this are ignoring the reality on the ground.
Politics *is* a team sport as enshrined in the constitution, federal statues, and state laws governing elections, as surely as the NFL is governed by their rule book."
What are you talking about Isab?
The people who try to be above following their "team" no matter what and criticizing all sides for poor behavior regardless of personal political leanings are "ignoring reality"???
Look Isab, if in your opinion you will follow your party uncritically to the ends of the earth that is an extremely frightening proposition.
Everyone has to draw the line somewhere and I choose to draw it at the point where I maintain internal consistency on policy points and where I hold everyone to the same standard.
If your line is to give Trump a pass for a consistent history of vulgarity while wanting to toss a television show comedian off the air for violating your sensitivities with a joke then something is VERY wrong with how you are operating.
Also... where exactly in the constitution is it "enshrined" that people should follow political parties uncritically and be subservient fans unconcerned with rule violations so long as it is their team?
Because that is what I am talking about here.
When people approach party politics in the same way they approach cheering for their own team even when they know they just got away with a foul while the refs weren't watching... that is when things get quite frightening.
Artemis at May 9, 2017 5:14 AM
Gail Says:
"We are very lucky to get Gorsuch out of him -- I think he's more prone to taking knowledgeable advice on that particular front, which is a mercy."
For a while I had some concerns that he might even try to put his sister on the court... he certainly isn't above nepotism as he has apparently put his daughter and son-in-law in charge of an entire host of important issues when the guy has no relevant experience.
I don't understand why this isn't drawing additional criticism from the political right. I am quite sure they would have lost their minds if Hillary was elected and she put Chelsea in charge of restructuring the government.
Again... this is just about being internally consistent and logical, but too many folks seem quite content with unjustifiable behavior so long as it is coming from their side of the political aisle.
Artemis at May 9, 2017 5:29 AM
You may be right, Gail. The issue I had with Hillary was not that she is a drunk who sleeps 18 hours a day, but the types of people and government overreach that would have been empowered by her ascendence to the Oval Office.
With Hillary we'd get more federal agencies like the CFPB, an agency that has way too much power and far too little oversight. We'd get political correctness run amok. We'd get more federal agencies reinterpreting statutes and sending out "Dear Colleague" letters that arbitrarily expand their reach. We'd get the mainstreaming of BLM and the Occupy movement, two movements we're better off having as fringe protest groups than as mainstream influencers.
No, Trump may be bad, terrible even, but the circus that came to town with him is, at this time, preferable to another 4 years of the circus we've been watching for the last 8 years. Now, the time may come when we need that other circus to come back to town and displace this circus. The American people seem to prefer something between the two. That's why we have political parties ... and elections.
Conan the Grammarian at May 9, 2017 6:34 AM
Perhaps. The heavy-handed approach during the Reconstruction (even calling it the Reconstruction) did a lot to foster resentment and corruption. The Radical Republicans were very vindictive at the and of the war, considering the Southern rebels to be traitors. Lincoln proposed a soft reconciliation between the two sides, a sort of prodigal son approach. Andrew Johnson echoed that and was impeached for it.
Generals Grant and Sherman gave generous terms to their vanquished foes. In fact, Sherman's overly-generous terms were rejected by Congress and he was forced to renegotiate Johnston's surrender. Granted, the then-recent assassination of Abraham Lincoln inflamed passions and complicated Johnston's surrender as did the fact that Sherman originally overstepped his authority and granted amnesty to Jefferson Davis.
Retribution was sought by those in the US government who had not fought on the ground in the war and that approach helped to make the occupation of the South a corrupt enterprise that Southerners came to resent.
Southern culture did not help matters. There was never going to be a perfect solution. Southern whites would not readily have accepted a world in which African-Americans were afforded equal status. But the corruption the carpet baggers brought with them made matters worse.
Conan the Grammarian at May 9, 2017 7:01 AM
"Disliking her policies and thinking her corrupt, fine. But the "she's a drunk" and "she sleeps 18 hours a day"? That's eye-roll-worthy tabloid fake news at its finest."
I happen to know some people who know Hillary. And I have been on this earth long enough to have a adult persective on the corrupt antics of the first Clinton administration.
I could take an honest drunk.
BUT
We were promised a continuation of the constitution eroding and crony capitalist policies of Obama administration.
I believed her. You didnt?
Personally Hillary is an unacountable classified document slinging disaster who was having her maid print off classified materials at home. She is unfit to be president in every respect.
I had a bianary choice. I voted against that mess of a candidate, and mess of a political party.
Pretending that we have something other than a two party system, and a bianary choice is what is crazy.
You work within the party or you join another one.
The Democratic party has put themselves firmly on a socialist path that is antithical to American values, and in direct opposition to the first and second amendments. That may change within my lifetime, but it may not.
Until then, you can argue individuals all you want, and pretend that they are all free thinkers, while you avert you eyes to the spectacle of the dems marching in lock step to pass Obamacare over the objections of the majority of their constituents who even got desperate enough to send a Republican to the Senate in Ted Kennedy's old seat in order to try and stop it.
Side note, I am really glad that Trump is spending time entertaining foriegn visitors at Mar Lago,( an easily secured compound, where it doesnt snarl traffic for miles going back and forth from the White house to Andrews AFB with a motorcade). And I bet the Secret Service appreciates it to.
You should be pleased that he spends so little time in New York for the same reasons.
Isab at May 9, 2017 7:20 AM
Isab, I happen to be pretty well-connected politically. I know numerous people of both parties (I have friends working in the Trump administration, and had several in the Obama administration, and fairly high up) who know Clinton and have worked with her extensively. (I've met her myself more than once.) Not all of them like or agree with her, but they all think that particular allegation is ridiculous.
We're on she said/she said territory here on that front. There is no reason you should believe me, nor will I give my real name and list the people I know. I will note that a google search turns up zero evidence or reputable, reliable sources on the drunk allegation. Bob Gates had his criticisms of her, but certainly seemed to think she was hard working, and his autobiography gives nary a hint that she's a lush.
I do not think, for many reasons, that she was a good presidential choice. I was frankly disgusted and angry at this election year. But I am absolutely confident she is not a falling-down drunk; I am also certain she puts in the hours. That's not the same thing as liking her. I must say, though, that as many criticisms as I have of her, I think Trump is a worse choice -- he scares me. The things Hillary might do would largely be blocked by Republicans in Congress and could be undone in four years. Trump - yeah, I'm pretty worried he'll do some damage we can't undo in another election. I can only hope his better, saner advisors can keep a lid on him.
Gail at May 9, 2017 11:56 AM
Except that on election day, no one could know definitively if the Congress would be predominantly Republican or Democrat, so voters couldn't rely on a Republican Congress to thwart Hillary's overreach, nor a Democratic one to thwart Trump's. The presidential vote had to on the merits of each candidate alone.
And Obama had already managed to use presidential memos, executive orders, and executive agencies to implement an agenda without consulting Congress. In addition, the Republican Congress had shown itself to be mostly ineffective in blocking executive overreach.
As for being undone in 4 years, when have you known a bureaucracy to reduce its power or size? More unsupervised agencies like the CFPB and the overreaching executive bureaucracy would have been firmly cemented in place.
As it is, one of the things Trump has done right is to appoint agency chiefs who are skeptical of the need for their own agencies.
Conan the Grammarian at May 9, 2017 1:53 PM
"It's just that as a New Yorker, I've seen more than enough of Trump and then some."
And we've all seen enough of New York's former senator and her family of Arkansas grifters.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 9, 2017 3:24 PM
Artie,
It's nice to see you flailing so poorly. Look at what I originally said. I asked if this situation was an example of demographic change or tactical change. You responded by declaiming people playing political football. And then proceeded to play political football. Nice bit of tone deaf hypocrisy. And to answer your earlier question
"So which is it Ben... is the right picking up a new tactic invented recently by the left... or has this kind of thing been going on for over 100 years?
You can't have it both ways."
It is neither. This is a case where the news story is the real story and not what it purports to report. A good example of fake news. Also, I could have it both ways. The two options you presented are not opposed. But in this case it is neither.
Honestly I find it odd you think the two are mutually exclusive. Though I would object that current left wing tactics are not new. These are well tested and well applied tactics. After losing to them for decades it is small wonder that right wing groups are increasingly using them. After all they are clearly effective. Though if you ment by "this kind of thing been going on" that the right wing has been using those tactics for 100 years it would clear things up for me. You would clearly be wrong. But at least what you wrote would make more sense.
Ben at May 9, 2017 4:20 PM
"Not all of them like or agree with her, but they all think that particular allegation is ridiculous."
Which allegation is that? The one that says that she knocks back a lot of booze in private, and gets into screaming rages where she throws things at Bill and others, withnessed by the secret service?
Or the proven allegation on mishandling classified information? And being AWOL the night of Bengazi?
The fact that you don't seem to realize how the media has been covering for these grifters for over twenty five years seems to be the real story here.
Isab at May 9, 2017 4:41 PM
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-had-drunken-meltdown-after-losing-the-election/
Gail at May 9, 2017 5:58 PM
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-had-drunken-meltdown-after-losing-the-election/
Get your news at Breitbart if you like. I'll pass, thanks.
Gail at May 9, 2017 6:01 PM
@Conan, I respect the points you're making and don't disagree generally. Had the Republican candidate horrified me less, I would have pulled the GOP lever. But I just couldn't for Trump. I hope your hopes turn out to be right and my fears wrong in the long run.
Gail at May 9, 2017 6:10 PM
Get your news at Breitbart if you like. I'll pass, thanks.
Gail at May 9, 2017 6:01 PM
If that were the ONLY reported incident. But there is a 25 year history of reports of Hillary being a heavy drinker.
Snopes is a lefty web site. They have no independent verifiable evidence of what Hillary did or did not do on election night. We only know that apparently she was in no shape to address her supporters in the Javits center after the results came in.
So, she either has the worst manners in the world (believable) or she was drunk on her ass (also believable)
Add a third speculation here. Possibly she was so distraught by losing she couldn't even get up and give a thirty second thank you? And you want this woman in control of our nuclear arsenal?
This screams unfit.
Nothing that any of Hillary's bootlickers say about what she did or did not do has any credibility.
They are paid lackys.
But since you are so stuck on this, let me repeat, I wouldnt care if she was a drunk, if she was actually a nice honest competent person. She isn't. She is a criminal incompetent who mishandeled classified information, and has been lying her ass off and/or running pay for play since she worked on the Watergate investigation.
Doing what she did when I was in control of nuclear weapons would have gotten me five to ten in Leavenworth, no questions asked.
Most of the former military I know who handled classified information think that Hillary deserved to be president less than any candidate in history.
Trump didnt deserve it either. He was a total fluke who got the Republican nomination only because the Republicans are too incompetent politically to control their own party nomination process.
But once that process played out, those of us in flyover country had to go with a vote against the status quo.
Isab at May 9, 2017 7:26 PM
This ain't a "hate crime," for fuck's sake. Here's the FBI on hate crimes: - Gail
Gail, sweetheart, with all due respect, blow me
How many colleges have had fucking riots becuase leftists scream 'hate speech' and set shit on fire becuase they dont want to hear facts spoken which disprove the delusional world those little shits live in?
Remember Tim Hunt? The guy made a self deprecating joke. Some woman who lied about her work history and credentials also lied about his comments and managed to get him fired from half a dozen positions before he got off the plane back home for 'hate speech'
You knew damn well I was not referring to criminal standard but rather the bullshit 'my subjective feelings are more important than objective reality' standard all leftist employ when talking about hate speech
So again, blow me
lujlp at May 9, 2017 9:38 PM
Benji Says:
"Look at what I originally said. I asked if this situation was an example of demographic change or tactical change."
Yes... let's examine what you originally said here:
"building a stable of professional complainers is a feature of American left wing politics... Is the right wing picking up this tactic or has Trump inherited some left wing professional complainers?"
You were decidedly NOR simply asking if there was a demographic or tactical change.
You were speculating on all of possible ways you can pin this on this political left and exonerate the political right.
At no point do you even acknowledge that whining and complaining about the behavior of others has ALSO been a feature of the political right for as far back in history as we have records.
You are like a parent who stumbled upon a stash of illicit drugs in their precious widdle babies room and instead of even admitting the mere possibility that maybe just maybe they have a drug problem you instead start to speculate on all of the external bad influences they have... anything to avoid putting the blame on your own child and holding them personally accountable.
"You responded by declaiming people playing political football. And then proceeded to play political football."
I responded that way because of your demonstrated inability to see the failures in the political right and trying to blame everything on the other side.
I have in no way been playing favorites as you have.
I acknowledge the existence of this controlling behavior on both sides.
Artemis at May 10, 2017 4:44 AM
Isab Says:
"So, she either has the worst manners in the world (believable) or she was drunk on her ass (also believable)"
You are setting up a false dilemma here Isab.
These are not the only two options here.
Artemis at May 10, 2017 5:29 AM
Last one and I'm done with you Arty. No I wasn't trying to pin things on the left. I actually took the report at face value. All I did ask was is this a demographic or a tactical change. Because both are happening with the Republican party and I was curious which one people thought this was. What you read into it is all in your head. As for the whining, yes the right loves to whine and bitch and moan. It is part of the human condition. But there is a difference between that and those who are trained to fill out complaint forms designed to bring government force. I doubt most people even know how to fill out a FCC complaint form.
But good luck on that reading comprehension and emotional control.
Ben at May 10, 2017 6:43 AM
Benji,
Words have meanings... when you string them together into a sentence they also have meanings... and when those sentences are linked together there is an overall context to the statement.
You say not that you weren't trying to pin things on the left. However no person without at least minimal intelligence would read your statement that way.
When you say things like this:
"But building a stable of professional complainers is a feature of American left wing politics (the perpetually aggrieved). Is the right wing picking up this tactic or has Trump inherited some left wing professional complainers?"
It can only mean 1 thing.
It means that based upon your analysis of the events you have concluded that we only have 2 options:
1 - The political right is copying the long held tactics of the political left... suggesting that if not but for the left the right would never behave this way.
2 - That the political left is doing this all on their own without outside influence.
Those are the options you present.
Either it is the left doing it directly, or the right doing it because of the lefts bad influence.
If that isn't what you meant then fine... simply admit you did a poor job in communicating what you actually meant.
This isn't about my reading comprehension, it is either that you are a liar or a poor writer.
Artemis at May 11, 2017 7:03 AM
Well I thought I was done but I'm wrong. Yes it is about your reading comprehension. I was quite clear that both tactical and demographic changes are happening in the Republican party right now. A large part of Trump's victory was due to traditionally democrat voters who were largely kicked out of that party due to identity politics. Mainly white blue collar workers. This is a demographic shift and how it will change the Republican party is quite interesting. In addition to that demographic shift traditional far right groups have started to pick up tactics left wing groups have mainly employed since around the 1950s. Tactics mainly popularized as Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. This is a tactical change independent of the demographic change.
"1 - The political right is copying the long held tactics of the political left... suggesting that if not but for the left the right would never behave this way."
Actually yes but the concept is asinine. If there is a right then there is a left or the word right has no meaning. If there are no opponents there is no reason for tactics. As for what I think you were trying to say (If the left didn't act this way then the right wouldn't) I don't know. There is a certain level of monkey see monkey do going on. Would the right be creative enough to come up with these tactics all on their own? I can't say. A large part of the appeal to these tactics among right wing groups is their historically demonstrated success.
"2 - That the political left is doing this all on their own without outside influence."
And there is the reading comprehension problem. No that is not related to anything I said. It's all in your head.
Ben at May 11, 2017 7:30 AM
I do need to add an addendum. Your option two is where I ended up later. I'm suspicious it was pro-gay activists who mainly complained. Can't prove it and I doubt you can either but that is where my suspicions lie.
Ben at May 11, 2017 11:13 AM
anecdotal: None of my gay acquaintances thought the remark was homophobic or anti-gay. (Because yes, I've been asking them.) One thought it was vulgar, but not homophobic, and the rest (yes, all Trump-dislikers) thought it was funny. All considered it a satiric reference to Trump kissing up to Putin, not a slur against gay people -- essentially, the equivalent of this mural in Vilnius, only a bit more vulgarly expressed. http://time.com/4336396/lithuania-mural-donald-trump-vladimir-putin-kiss/
not-so-anecdotal: I have yet to hear of a single gay/lesbian/queer organization objecting to Colbert's joke as homophobic or anti-gay. But hey, maybe that's just me. Can anyone cite one? Every single screech I've heard about it being homophobic and hateful against gays has come from a self-identified straight Trump supporter. I'm sure there are some gay people somewhere who feel that way, but that doesn't seem to be where the objections are coming from, by and large.
The concern about "but what of teh poor persecuted gays" is feeling pretty manufactured to me (much like the faux hand-wringing about "but what of teh poor wittle kids?"), but I stand ready to read the articles about the millions of gay activists who are hurt and outraged by Colbert's joke.
Finding Colbert's vulgar and unfunny, I understand perfectly. Calling for his head, trying to get him fired, and screeching that it's hate speech against gays, on the other hand, makes me roll my eyes. Saying it will hurt our children gives me a hearty laugh, given the vulgarity of Trump's own remarks, at least if you voted for Trump.
I must also ask -- if your real problem is that "oh, teh liberals are always complaining about poor Milo whathisface," do explain to me how you are better than the liberals on the whole free speech thing.
(If you are not going for either Colbert's head or Milo's, I have no beef with you, for the record. That's being consistent. Essentially, I think Amy has it right here. I absolutely do not fault you for finding the joke unfunny.)
Gail at May 11, 2017 1:33 PM
...I wonder, too, whether such gay activists as are outraged about this aren't Republicans angry on partisan grounds rather than people sincerely feeling Colbert was being homophobic.
I stand ready to be proved wrong, but from where I'm standing, the outrage about this is pretty much entirely split by party/political sympathies.
Gail at May 11, 2017 2:42 PM
Out of curiosity Gail, do you (or anyone else) know how many people complained? How many complaints does the FCC need before they are required to open an investigation? I'm equally willing to believe it was a bunch of tree humping, glue sniffing, paramilitary loonies living in some rural Montana town. Or even people who work for Colbert trying to generate some publicity. Like you I would be shocked if the FCC actually did anything. And yep, the outrage is pretty party based.
In related news the GOP clearly has a manpower shortage. Some rightwing group has been using a robot to spam anti-net neut comments at the FCC.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/05/net-neutrality-comments-are-being-spammed-with-anti-obama-boilerplate/
Ben at May 11, 2017 6:46 PM
I believe the FCC's standard procedure is to investigate when they get *any* complaints. Crid posted a link towards the beginning of this thread -- the investigation doesn't mean the FCC thinks Colbert did anything wrong in their opinion, necessarily -- it only means someone complained.
No idea how many actually did complain. I think it's amusing they did, given the words were bleeped out. They probably had to wait to read an articke to even know what Colbert said. I'd be willing to bet that few, if any, of the complainers actually even watch the show.
Really seems like much ado about nothing to me. It's a vulgar political joke on late night TV. Some will think it's funny, some not. Yawn.
Gail at May 11, 2017 8:35 PM
So not knowing how many complained and not knowing what they complained about how do we know they weren't complaining that Colbert's mosaiced face was forcing messages from planet X into their brain? As Crid pointed out every show has a book of complaints from crazy people.
That is why I settled on that someone wrote a story about this is the real news and not that there is a pointless FCC investigation going on. It certainly got Amy riled up over something that happens all the time and has zero effect.
Ben at May 12, 2017 6:51 AM
Ben Says:
"I was quite clear that both tactical and demographic changes are happening in the Republican party right now."
What are you talking about Ben?
Your original statement was a very short paragraph and now you are saying how it was apparently chock full of nuance and sophistication regarding demographic shifts and tactical changes.
There simply wasn't enough content to have that kind of detail.
I can only respond to what you wrote, and your original statement was extremely short on detail and extremely long on unjustified conclusions.
If you want to elaborate now that is fine... but my criticism of your statements was both fair and justified given what you actually wrote.
Artemis at May 12, 2017 1:32 PM
Ben Says:
"As for what I think you were trying to say (If the left didn't act this way then the right wouldn't) I don't know. There is a certain level of monkey see monkey do going on. Would the right be creative enough to come up with these tactics all on their own? I can't say."
Alright... so I did interpret you correctly.
Your assertion is that this tactic originated from the political left and is now being copied by the political right.
The entire point of my original response to you was to show you that the political right has been bitching and moaning in an effort to control and censor others for 100s of years.
None of this is new for the right.
It isn't new for the left either.
You keep trying to assert that the source of this behavior is from the left, but there is no evidence to support that claim.
Artemis at May 12, 2017 1:36 PM
Leave a comment