Can talking heads be civil?

[mattskramer]

Has American politics always been so polarized or is my perspective skewed. It seems as though politicians (or political commentators) are less civil today than they have ever been. Does someone's having a negative opinion about the president's foreign policy make that person "Anti-American"? Does that person hate America? Does someone with even a slightly liberal perspective have a mental disorder? Is that person committing treason if he says that he disagrees with the president?

Final question: Is there such a thing as a political talk show host who is also a moderate?

Comments - please.

 

[Nuc]

Has American politics always been so polarized or is my perspective skewed. It seems as though politicians (or political commentators) are less civil today than they have ever been. Does someone's having a negative opinion about the president's foreign policy make that person "Anti-American"? Does that person hate America? Does someone with even a slightly liberal perspective have a mental disorder? Is that person committing treason if he says that he disagrees with the president?

Final question: Is there such a thing as a political talk show host who is also a moderate?

Comments - please.

Money rules and they have figured out that inflammatory "us vs. them" rhetoric is more profitable than reasonable discourse. Then the people who are easily influenced by the media carry it on in message boards or conversations because they don't realize they've been hoodwinked by a bunch of opportunistic pseudo-journalists and greedy media outlets. In another generation or less Americans won't understand that people who do not agree with them are not necessarily the enemy.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Has American politics always been so polarized or is my perspective skewed. It seems as though politicians (or political commentators) are less civil today than they have ever been. Does someone's having a negative opinion about the president's foreign policy make that person "Anti-American"? Does that person hate America? Does someone with even a slightly liberal perspective have a mental disorder? Is that person committing treason if he says that he disagrees with the president?

Final question: Is there such a thing as a political talk show host who is also a moderate?

Comments - please.

Disagreeing is fine. Putting political correctness above american safety is antiamerican.

 

[Annie]

Daily Kos, Al Franken, Molly Irvins and Laura Flanders are real civil! It's not our problem that there are more successful conservatives than liberals. It's all the message.

 

[pegwinn]

Has American politics always been so polarized or is my perspective skewed. Not at all, in fact, read this. OR this, or this. Each answers your questions from a different angle. Note the quote from scripps in the third link. It seems as though politicians (or political commentators) are less civil today than they have ever been. Does someone's having a negative opinion about the president's foreign policy make that person "Anti-American"? Does that person hate America? Does someone with even a slightly liberal perspective have a mental disorder? Is that person committing treason if he says that he disagrees with the president?

Final question: Is there such a thing as a political talk show host who is also a moderate?

Comments - please.

Commentators are hard left and hard right. In the center you get ran over by the both of them. Remember, the press controls the flow of generalized info, to include the rushes and air americas. If the press is playing to ratings is it any wonder that each press release is as inflammatory as possible.

Disagreement with the president isn't treason.

 

[Annie]

Fits pretty well:

Oh yeah, many links to the 'civil' left:

http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/18700

Saturday, July 23, 2005
Why Rhetoric Matters

From the Times Online (UK):

On his last visit to relatives in Pakistan this year, one of the London bombers, Shehzad Tanweer, boasted of wanting to die in a revenge attack over the way Muslims are treated.

While his family in Leeds had no idea about his suicide mission, Tanweer confessed to his cousin his ambition to become a “holy warrior”. At his father’s home village 30 miles from Faisalabad, Mohammad Saleem described yesterday how Tanweer, 22, hero-worshipped Osama bin Laden.

Mr Saleem supported his cousin’s bombing at Aldgate station which killed seven people, saying: “Whatever he has done, if he has done it, then he has done right.” He recalled how Tanweer argued with family and friends about the need for violent retaliation over US abuse of Muslim prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. [my emphasis]

I hope the next time George Galloway or Ken Livingstone feel compelled to preach about “root causes,’ they’re willing to look at themselves in the mirror. And by themselves I mean themselves—not some symbolic representative of the phantom white and wealthy capitalist /imperialist oppressor class.

The same goes for those Democrats here who have spent months and months decrying and sensationalizing the “torture”at Guantanamo that, it so happens, didn’t take place.

Perhaps now that their irresponsible rhetoric has resulted in actual loss of life, Teddy, Carl, Dick, Howard, et al—along with their mouthpieces in the mainstream press who, until recently, have been too busy questioning every Bush administration motive to investigate Gitmo on their own, relying instead on misleading press releases from Amnesty International—will tone down the rhetoric and try to substantiate their accusations before launching them so frequently, forcefully, and publicly—where, it turns out, Muslims, including westernized Muslims, are actually listening. But I doubt it.

The saddest part? Nobody will hold these power-hungry hyperpartisans and their ulterior motives to account—because to do so would be to commit the cardinal sin of “questioning their patriotism.”

Well, let me be the first to break that particular taboo: “THE LEFT LIED AND LONDONERS DIED!”

Somebody should make a frickin’ t-shirt.

****
(h/t SondraK, via quiggs)

****
update: meanwhile, Antelope Valley, California is hosting a Muslim anti-terror rally, and mainstream media coverage is, predictably, scant. And Bill INDC notes (via IM) that “the Times Online piece will get play as PROOF that US Guantanamo abuse causes terror.”

Posted by Jeff Goldstein @ 02:13 PM

 

[Gem]

I think where you have gotten off on the wrong foot, Matt, is in the fact that you beginning statement seems to imply that the right wing is to blame for the negative tone of politics today. You give examples of people who disagree with the Bush Administration being labled as anti-American...yet give no examples of people who support the Bush Adminstration being labled as fundamental Christian Conservative brown-shirts. The knife cuts both ways.

For every Rush Limbaugh there is a Michael Moore. Limbaugh is known to be an ardent right-winger, but you didn't see him sitting in a place of honor at the Republican National Convention...Moore however, who has stated publically that Americans are the stupidest people on earth, that if the airplanes that were crashed on 9/11 had been full of black people the attack never would have been successful, and who likes to use footage of US soldiers funerals in his films without family permission...was seated next to a former US president at the Democratic National Convention.

I think that there are negative people and positive people on both sides of the political spectrum. In my opinion, the negative people on the left get a pass on their idiocy far more frequently than those on the right...but that is just my opinion.

As to your questions. No, true liberalism is not a mental disorder...however I do wonder about women who proudly write articles about aborting their babies because they don't want to buy big jars of mayonaise or people who say they are going to throw up or blackout because a man had the audacity to suggest that there might be biological reasons why women don't reach the same levels of success in the areas of math and sciences.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1173730/posts
[QUOTE]now I'm going to have to m...lreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200501190846.asp

"When he started talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn't breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill,"

Is a person committing treason if they disagree with the President? No, of course not. One of the most wonderful things about this nation is that we are allowed to criticize the President, the country, our senators, etc, without having to worry that our children will be picked up in the middle of the night and stung with wasps until we comply...like Saddam liked to do.

However when someone says publically that throwing grenades into officers tents in Iraq is patriotic...youre getting pretty damn close to treason. You are encouraging and supporting violence directed at our troops...that is aid and comfort to our enemies.

As far as political commentators that are moderate? I don't think you'd know one if you saw one...and that isn't a bust on you. For example...you would probably list Bill O'Reilly as horribly right-wing...however he has busted on Bush ardently for his border policies and if you watched his coverage of the Swift Boat Veterans against John Kerry you would know that he never gave an impression of believing a word they said. He gets mail frequently that accuses him of being too right-wing, too left wing, too anti-Bush, too pro-Bush...all about the same evenings show...

I consider myself a moderate...but many people would disagree with me...I think that any moderate commentators are immediately pegged either by the network they are on or because they once said that they supported or were against one issue or person...thats enough now to label someone as a liberal or conservative for ever.

 

[Nuc]

For every Rush Limbaugh there is a Michael Moore. Limbaugh is known to be an ardent right-winger, but you didn't see him sitting in a place of honor at the Republican National Convention...

The difference here is that Moore seems to be a true believer whereas Limbaugh is more of an entertainer/comedian type.

 

[Avatar4321]

Has American politics always been so polarized or is my perspective skewed. It seems as though politicians (or political commentators) are less civil today than they have ever been. Does someone's having a negative opinion about the president's foreign policy make that person "Anti-American"? Does that person hate America? Does someone with even a slightly liberal perspective have a mental disorder? Is that person committing treason if he says that he disagrees with the president?

No it hasnt always been this polarized. And yes politicians are less civilized today. So how about you start complaining to Teddy Kennedy and other Democrats to stop with the BS.

Undermining America during a time of War would make you anti american. Always speaking out against what the American people do would make you anti American. When your rhetoric helps America's enemies there is a pretty good chance that you hate America. America is not the enemy of the world. At this point of time its one of the best hopes for the world.

Final question: Is there such a thing as a political talk show host who is also a moderate?

Hell no. How on earth can you be a political talk show host if you dont take positions and dont have core values? How on earth can you be a political talk show host if you cant articulate your points? or are inconsistant with your view? let's be reasonable here. you either on one side of the road or the other. If you try to play the middle youll get squashed.

 

[Avatar4321]

The difference here is that Moore seems to be a true believer whereas Limbaugh is more of an entertainer/comedian type.

Please. The difference is Moore has a stick up his butt and uses nothing but propaganda while Rush uses comedy and logic. Rush tries to make people think. Moore uses sensationalism.

I suppose Reagan wasnt a true believer because he tried to make people laugh. However, I dont think Moore believes in anything but Hambugers.

 

[Nuc]

Please. The difference is Moore has a stick up his butt and uses nothing but propaganda while Rush uses comedy and logic. Rush tries to make people think. Moore uses sensationalism.

I suppose Reagan wasnt a true believer because he tried to make people laugh. However, I dont think Moore believes in anything but Hambugers.

Moore is what he is and Limbaugh is laughing at his listeners all the way to the bank.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The difference here is that Moore seems to be a true believer whereas Limbaugh is more of an entertainer/comedian type.

You obviously don't listen to the show.

 

[Nuc]

You obviously don't listen to the show.

You obviously do. And repeat....and repeat.....and repeat......and repeat......and repeat......the difference is Rush gets paid!

Half of the stuff Rush says is practical jokes on his listeners. He comes up with a nonsensical non sequitor catch phrase and when it catches on he knows that's more money for him. The experiment worked.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You obviously do. And repeat....and repeat.....and repeat......and repeat......and repeat......the difference is Rush gets paid!

Half of the stuff Rush says is practical jokes on his listeners. He comes up with a nonsensical non sequitor catch phrase and when it catches on he knows that's more money for him. The experiment worked.

So you admit you don't listen? Then stfu.

 

[Nuc]

So you admit you don't listen? Then stfu.

Not that it matters, but yes I have listened to it. That's how I know he has those meaningless code phrases he uses to test the intelligence of his listeners. He makes a lot of money by keeping the show just a few percentage points more intelligent than his listeners. Which is easy.

So you stfu!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Not that it matters, but yes I have listened to it. That's how I know he has those meaningless code phrases he uses to test the intelligence of his listeners. He makes a lot of money by keeping the show just a few percentage points more intelligent than his listeners. Which is easy.

So you stfu!

Name one "meaningless code phrase". Do this and you will be allowed to speak.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Maybe the "meaningless code phrases" are just big words and ideas you can't get your meager brain around? Did you consider this?

 

[Nuc]

Name one "meaningless code phrase". Do this and you will be allowed to speak.

"Allowed to speak"? Wow, you have some serious delusions of grandeur.


How do you intend to stop me from speaking? You are really out of it. Give us all a break and stick to the topics.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

"Allowed to speak"? Wow, you have some serious delusions of grandeur.


How do you intend to stop me from speaking? You are really out of it. Give us all a break and stick to the topics.

You're not going to name one because you can't. You don't listen to the show, don't know what you're talking about, and are just regurgitating some talking points you heard somewhere else. You're a punk.

 

[Nuc]

You're not going to name one because you can't. You don't listen to the show, don't know what you're talking about, and are just regurgitating some talking points you heard somewhere else. You're a punk.

OK here's one. "Special Rights".