Shots Across The Bow

A little hypocrisy between friends
Willie Stern wrote a piece in the Metro Pulse about a little discussed phenomenon in polite society: Bigotry against conservatives.

Actually it was a story about a blind date who said “republicans are assholes”. There are Conservative Democrats and the Neo-con Republican is anything but Conservative in the traditional sense where the Constitution is paramount.

We know it exists; we've seen it in action.

We don’t know any such thing.

“We've seen it in our universities, where conservative professors are afraid to 'come out of the closet', because it could cost them a chance at tenure. As a result, college campuses are becoming increasingly dominated by liberal professors. Conservative professors and students feel they have to hide their convictions, or face repercussions from their liberal peers and professors.”

Academics and intellectuals are often confused with being “anti-conservative” since they tend to favor science over religion and devote their lives to teaching instead of the accumulation of wealth. They tend to prefer intelligent discussion and thought over Limbaughtomized lunacy and the didactic diatribe of Falwell, Robertson, Coulter, Hannity, O’reilly, Horowitz, and Scarborough et al. They are usually tolerant of intellectual conservativism i.e. Buckley or Ayn Rand. I was at the University of Tennessee from 1964 thru 1972 which was a high water mark of liberalism on campus and I never saw any repercussion against conservatives on the campus. The “liberals” however were subjected to arrest – Knoxville 22 and the Billy Graham Republican Nixon Crusade – when legally demonstrating over 400 liberals were arrested and charged with felonies for expressing their opinions. Name me one conservative who was prosecuted for expressing his or her views.

There are plenty of ultra-conservative and religious universities that have absolutely no liberal or radical presence. Far more of these exist than the alternative. And State Universities in this day and time are filled with Conservative and religious organizations.

We've seen it in blogs. I was told by one blogger that ALL conservatives are either misguided fools, or corrupt ideologues. He specifically denied any possibility of rational conservative thought. I challenge anyone to find anything I've written that says the same about liberals.

I think we have ample evidence here as to the depth of your misguided opinion.

What I was trying to get across was that, yes, I understand that bigotry by Democrats against Republicans exists. I really wasn't trying to contradict his point - I believe him when he says it. But what Stern failed to mention was even the possibility of the type of Republican-on-Democrat bigotry that I see much more often on the airwaves and especially from people in this part of the country. If I existed in a more liberal area, maybe I would see it more.

When Stern decries D-on-R bigotry and not admitting that R-on-D bigotry exists however, is to me it's own kind of bigotry.

You see, politicism is an idealogical bigotry of a different stripe than racial and ethnic/religious bigotry (the argument may be made that religious is another form of idealogical, but entire cultures and ethnicity can be religious-based, which takes it to another level. I know of no Democrat states. Except maye Massachusetts.) So I don't believe the Civil Rights workers or Jewish activists were guilty of bigotry - they were fighting for their freedom and their lives. Republicans and Democrats fight for their status and bragging rights.

But I can see what you're saying on one thing you mentioned - liberals are traditionally known for tolerance and understanding. But my main point in my post was that since bigotry happens on both sides - to both sides - it's a failing of human nature and not representative or a condemnation of one idealogy or the other.

Barry B, step up to the plate and answer the challenge. Show me where I've said that ALL liberals are either corrupt or misguided. This statement was made to me, referring to conservatives by a moderate liberal. I won't go into what I've been called by more extreme lefties.

Are you seriously suggesting that there is no bias against conservatives in our universities? That's kind of interesting, since your comment reveals that bias blatantly. According to you, most conservatives are greedy, religious ideologues, with a few token exeptions.

The other Barry, perhaps you can see the point I was making now. Notice that Barry B. completely ignored the link I gave, from a UCLA study showing the increasingly liberal majority of professors on our college campuses. Instead, he chooses to equate liberalism with "science," "teaching," and "intelligent discussion," while conservativism is equated with "religion," the "accumulation of wealth," and "didactic diatribes." (Barry B., I like the alliteration by the way. Catchy!)

It seems that many liberals are so convinced of the rightness of their philosophy, they leave no room for principled disagreement.

Barry B, step up to the plate and answer the challenge. Show me where I've said that ALL liberals are either corrupt or misguided. This statement was made to me, referring to conservatives by a moderate liberal. I won't go into what I've been called by more extreme lefties.

Why you think there is some legitimate challenge in finding something you may or may not have said is a mystery to me? I really don’t care to read you that much. And people call each other names all the time. There is no point debating that.

Are you seriously suggesting that there is no bias against conservatives in our universities? That's kind of interesting, since your comment reveals that bias blatantly. According to you, most conservatives are greedy, religious ideologues, with a few token exeptions.

I am seriously suggesting exactly what I stated about our universities. All that anti-conservative bias at Bob Jones, LIBERTY, BYU, the numerous religious institutions and military academies is downright despicable. As someone once stated “ If you are not a liberal when you are young you probably do not have a heart; If you are not a Conservative when you are older you probably do not have a brain.”
Last time I looked young people go to college mostly.
BUT you answer me: How many people do you know that have been arrested for voicing a conservative opinion?
Republican Conservatives control the Presidency, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Military, the banks and the money, the Oil and Weapons Industry, the FBI, Justice, the CIA and the police. Now you want to stifle liberal thought at the Universities that allow it. (Unlike the many listed above that do not)

The other Barry, perhaps you can see the point I was making now. Notice that Barry B. completely ignored the link I gave, from a UCLA study showing the increasingly liberal majority of professors on our college campuses. Instead, he chooses to equate liberalism with "science," "teaching," and "intelligent discussion," while conservativism is equated with "religion," the "accumulation of wealth," and "didactic diatribes." (Barry B., I like the alliteration by the way. Catchy!)

So you deny that the Religious Right is a part of your Republican Conservatism or that the wealthiest Americans tend to be Conservative Republicans?
You are truly a gem of one-sided thought Rich.
You are blessed with agreement with the powers that be yet you cannot stand the idea that someone may disagree with you so you concoct some fear about a threat to Conservatism by a few liberal professors and students.
You are truly a paranoids paranoid Rich.

Barry B, chill. Be good and play nice. You're giving Barry's a bad name :)

Hey BB you have by any definition true tunnel vision.

Barry one says "Barry B, chill. Be good and play nice. You're giving Barry's a bad name :)"

I hope that smile indicates that you are kidding.
I take it that way.
Chilling the whines from Rich and Hobbs is the only chill I be doin Bro.
Hobbs whines about a liberal bias at the Tennessean in 1994 and I wonder what the inside mood was at the WSJ or the Knoxville New-Sentinel But insider Hobbs knows that the medial has a liberl bias.
Rich whines about anti-republican Bigotry and a liberal bias amoung the young and the academics at some of the nations Universities.
Both do so when all of the power in the USA is controlled by the Conservative Republicans even though the majority of Americans did not vote for the current Resident.
I can take a little whining from the disadvantaged But all of this whining from the advocates of the party in power makes me way to hot under the collar to CHILL.

I would whine about this grey on grey color scheme that Rich uses - IT IS KILLING MY EYES. But don't change it on my account. I am not sure I want more people spending thier time reading your blog anyway.

8^)brb

Well, I meant it in a friendly way but I would hope you could be a little more tactful in your comments.

We're here for friendly discussion and exchange of opinions, not insults and name-calling.

A good number of us know each other outside of our blogs, having gotten together socially on more than one occasion. Remember, you can get your point across better if you remember there's a human on the other side of that PC screen.

I am glad you're posting, Barry B. Keep it going.

I'm glad you're posting too. And I'll try and adjust the color scheme to make it easier on your eyes.

Now, to the point:

Barry B., thanks for the reference to the "Knoxville 22." I had no idea we had our own little cottage protest industry here in K-town, complete with vandalism and fire bombings. For those of you who shared my ignorance, Jack Neely wrote a nice piece on the "Knoxville 22" and the Billy Graham rally Barry B referred to.

Obviously, the arrests subsequent to the Graham crusade( between 40-50 by Neely's article, not 400)were a case of overzealousness by the police, but they weren't arrested for voicing their opinions, but for disrupting a religious service, which was the actual charge. The appropriateness of the charge is muddied by the fact that Richard Nixon gave a mostly secular speech during the rally, a fact which resulted in most charges being dropped altogether, according to Neely's article.

Historical events aside, Barry B. wants me to say whether any conservatives are arrested for voicing their opinion. Using his definition (ie protest actions = voicing opinions) anti-abortion protesters are arrested all the time for voicing their opinions, if they do it in a legally proscribed manner.

I do not deny that the religious right is conservative, any more than you would deny that radical feminists or extreme environmentalists are liberal, but none of these groups represent the mainstream thought of either liberals or conservatives. I don't define liberalism by the extreme views of some of its member groups; however, I very rarely am offered similar courtesy from the left.

You claim I want to stifle liberal thought. Show me where I said anything like that. All I did was agree with an article which stated that bigotry against conservatives exists and point out a few supporting examples.

Barry B., thanks for the reference to the "Knoxville 22." I had no idea we had our own little cottage protest industry here in K-town, complete with vandalism and fire bombings.

There you go again Rich. There was no vandalism and no fire bombings associated with the Knoxville 22

A brief history since I just spent 3 hours at Lawson McGhee Library reading the Jan 1970 News Sentinel on microfiche:

1) a Faculty and Student committee was set up to review candidates for replacement of Andy Holt as UT Pres.
2) That committee reccommended several academics as potential candidate and asked specifically that Edward J. Boling not be selected because he was a fund raiser not an educator.
3) My familiy and I were good friends of the Bolings and I worked for him as head of the Student Alumni Fund Raising Office. I had nothing against Ed Boling.
4) On Jan 15 following revelations that the Board of Trustees had not listened to student faculty committee reccomendations and selected Boling a Rally was called for on the Hill across from Ayers Hall in front of the Adm. Building.
5) Gus Hadorn, Peter Kami, Carol Bible and a few others spoke to a small crowd of about 200. At the end one of them said we should go into the adm building and stand in the "Drop and Add" lines to slow down the administration.
6) Most of the people there thought that idea was boring and started to walk away.
7) Classes were changing and a few 100 more students started crossing the area. At the same time a phalanx of helmeted UT cops with Shields came marching into the area with riot batons and began shoving students back. They galvanized the crowd.
8)Aside from some shoving as they were being pushed and a single broken diamond shaped pane of glass in an admin building window there was no 'violence' of any kind. Students voiced thier opinion of a right to assembly.
9) The UT cops formed a semi-circle in front of the admin entrance.
10) Dean Almond or Burchett announced that anyone who did not leave immediately would be arrested.
11) About 100 City cops poured out of the admin building and began arresting people. They had obviously been in the building from the start.

The incident was precipitated by the UT admin and the city. It was planned as a way to nip any campus protest in the bud. Kami was called a Commie and Rep Duncan (John the Sr.) called for his arrest and deportation back to Brazil. - He was a foreign student.

I had gone to the hill to register and was coming out of the admin building when the assembly was in process. I had been President of the Freshman Class, President of my fraternity, on the student senate, and on the student supreme court. I stopped to talk with 3 fraternity brothers in front of the building and my picture was taken by surveilance cameras and featured on the front page of the News-Sentinel in the foregroung in front of the protesters lookin the other way.

Six weeks after the incident I was arrested for Inciting a Riot on a true bill handed down by the grand jury brought by the REPUBLICAN Attorney General based solely on the picture that appeared in the News Sentinel (it can be seen at the library). My father who had been the Democratic County Judge and candidate for congress against Howard Baker Sr. was to be smeared and discredited by my arrest.

Those events made me into a radical.

My father asked me to plead to the misdemeanor of obstructing the entrance to a public building and I did so on his behalf. He was afraid that in the climate of the day that the Felony of Inciting a Riot (although no riot occurred and I had no part in not inciting it) could lead to five years of imprisonment.

Eventually no one was tried for the felony and all misdemeanor fines were dropped. It was merely the Conservative Republican way to stifle dissent in East Tennessee.

It is in your casual way of stating that the Knoxville 22 was "our own little cottage protest industry here in K-town, complete with vandalism and fire bombings" you make a point about yourself.

The right of assembly to exercise freedom of speech in a non-violent way was the point of both the Knoxville 22 Protest and the Billy Graham Protest. There was no violence associated with either event. Yet you are willing to state that the Knoxville 22 was Knoxvilles own little cottage protest industry complete with vandalism and fire bombing. I was there and I know what happened. Were you? NO but you would still label us vandals and fire bombers.

By the way I still believe that 400 individuals were earmarked for arrest and identified at the Graham Crusade. Whether or not that many were finally arrested I do not know. I know this because I telephoned Dr. Charles Trentham of the First Baptist Church of Knoxville the day after the event and asked that he interceed on thier behalf.

Read Garry Wills article "How Nixon used the Media and Billy Graham to Rap to the Students at Tennessee U. subtitled Jesus Wept in the September 1970 issue of ESQUIRE MAGAZINE. There is a copy in the periodicals room at the library. Wills is a Putlitzer Prize winning author of Lincoln at Gettysburg, Nixon Agonistes and many other great books and a Yale Grad now holding a Chair in Literature at Northwestern University.

When there is a protest on the left against the party in power (be it Democratic or Republican), it is alway a protest by the powerless against the powerful. It became our way to oppose the Vietnam War during both Johnson and Nixon administrations. There is simply no comparison on the right side of the spectrum. Nobody arrests anti-abortion protestor who protest according to the law. No one would think of arresting 400 anti-abortion protesters at a Billy Graham crusade. Anti-abortion protesters are arrested when they physically attempt to block entry to abortion clinics. Do you see the difference?

Anti-abortion forces have ample political power and funding and they advocate government interference in the decision of a woman and her God and doctor about remaining pregnant. Anti war forces want government to cease interference in the affairs of another nation. Can you see the difference?

Rich
Your writings on intolerance and bigotry along with those of Hobbs and Barry have given me pause to reflect and to write. So here it is in a nutshell.

I do give a great deal of thought when I am challenged on my tolerance and tact. I do not wish to be counter-productive.

Perhaps a couple of maxims (pour moi) apply.
1) THE LIBERALS AND THE LEFT BY VIRTUE OF THEIR POLITICS TEND TO BE TOO TOLERANT. Does the LEFT have an equivalent of Rush, Hannity, Coulter, O’reilly, Savage, Robertson, Falwell, Liddy, North, and Carlson? Who? Carville or Begala might come to mind but they are closer to Matalin and Novak in temperment. If you flush out the list of likely RIGHT leaning pundits to include Sununu, Schafley, Buckley, Buchanan, Kilpatrick, Scarborough and their ilk you might counter with Mike Kinsley or Bill Press but where does it go from there? The tone of debate is set by the obvious debators and these by in large are the ones who set the tone of debate. In the press we have Dowd V. Safire and Dionne V. Will but these are more tolerant examples of debate. Unless you can show me a pit bull of some stature on the left who uses the language of Limbaugh and Liddy or the vituperation and invective of Coulter and O’reilly I would say that any intolerance I show is somewhat warranted.
2) THE PARTY IN POWER IS ALLOWED LESS TOLERANCE THAN THE PARTY THAT IS OUT OF POWER. In other word the powerful have less need of intolerance and strong language. They have the power politically to effect the changes they wish to see made. The powerless have little to use to get their point across and to effect change except their words.

It is because of these maxims that I can loudly decry the whining of Hobbs and Rich when Hobbs (see Hobbs online in the RTB to the left) moans about a liberal bias at the Tennessean in 1994 or Rich (see Rich Hailey in the RTB to the left) wails about the bigotry against Republicans. Both seem to be saying: “Oh whoa is me. I’m rich, white, powerful, on top politically, own the Presidency, the congress, the Supreme Court, the FBI, Justice, the CIA, the oil, the weapons, the gun lobby, the banks, most of the money, and much of the airwaves but I can’t catch a break from these nasty bigoted liberals and their liberal media.”

That is the view of it from this end of the spectrum. I wish I could see you point of view but alas I am who I am. Because of my politics and my preferences I have to tolerate alot of abuse and I don't have the benefit of being on the side that is winning.

I hope that clears up my position.
Thank you for hosting this
I wish my blog would.

brb8^)

My pleasure Barry. I like a good debate, and the exchange of ideas.

Now then, to cases.

first, I was ambiguous in my earlier comment. The Knoxville 22 did not engage in any violence. I was referring to the general air of protest in Knoxville, which, according to the Neely article, did involve vandalism and a few fire bombs.

I apologize for the confusion.

Your differentiation between left protests (anti-war)and right protests (anti-abortion) brings us right back the the doctrine of ends justifying means, a subject I commented on at some length here:

http://64.21.37.2/~rhailey/archives/001677.html#001677

In short, if civil disobedience is justified to correct a greater wrong, who decides where the line is drawn? To use an extreme example, Eric Rudolph believed that he had a moral obligation to do anything to prevent abortions. Disrupting an assembly, or daily operations at a university is a long way from taking a life, but the reasoning behind each action is identical, only the scale changes. Let me stress this; I'm not saying that you or other liberal protesters are the same as Rudolph; just that the logic used is the same, and it is a logic that I reject. (However, I have to admit that as a tactic, it is a highly effective way for a minority to make their voice heard. I just question the ethical consequences.)

Unless you can show me a pit bull of some stature on the left who uses the language of Limbaugh and Liddy or the vituperation and invective of Coulter and O’reilly I would say that any intolerance I show is somewhat warranted.

Molly Ivins and Tip O'Neill spring to mind.

Just out of curiousity, if libs win the presidency in 2004, according to your second maxim, will I be allowed to "whine" then? (oddly, I don't recall whining now, but hey, I'll spot you that one.)

BTW, the only thing rich about me is my name, but I do have a lottery ticket in my wallet, so you never can tell...*grin*

I'm sure it's difficult being a liberal in East TN, probably as hard as it was for my son, being one of 2 conservatives on campus at college in Massachusetts this year.

More Cases:

In short, if civil disobedience is justified to correct a greater wrong, who decides where the line is drawn? ....... Disrupting an assembly, or daily operations at a university is a long way from taking a life, but the reasoning behind each action is identical.

Actually both the Knoxville 22 protest and the Nixon Graham Protest were both designed NOT to disrupt. As organizer of the Graham protest I had 100's of 8 x 10 signs with the words "Thou Shalt Not Kill" printed on them and the plan was that we would sit in silent protest holding our signs while NIXON spoke. That plan was thwarted by the police who seized our small signs on paper as we entered the Stadium leaving us no choice but to be vocal during Nixons speech. No one said anything during the Graham sermon.
After one of the speakers called for students to enter the admin building to "gum up the works" by standing in the drop and add lines he was shouted down by the other protesters and the croud was leaving from boredom until the UT riot squad showed up. Peter Kami challenged Boling to a pie fight or an arm wrestle. No disruption was planned or anticipated. It was simply an assembly to voice our displeasure at the decision. We did no want to deny any student their right to go to class and deal with the administration. That is quite unlike an anti abortion protest that seeks to stop a woman from entering an abortion clinic.

Unless you can show me a pit bull of some stature on the left who uses the language of Limbaugh and Liddy or the vituperation and invective of Coulter and O’reilly I would say that any intolerance I show is somewhat warranted.

Molly Ivins and Tip O'Neill spring to mind.

Both Limbaugh and Liddy - Coulter and O'Reilly are often seen on television. Liddy and Limbaugh are daily on nationally syndicated talk radio. Ivins column is syndicated but she is a print columnist like Dowd, Will, Dionne, etc. I have never seen her on Television.
Unlike Coulter I have never heard her say that any conservative is guilty of Slander, That Katie Couric is the Eva Braun of morning TV, or that all muslim countries should be invaded - their leaders shot and converted to Christianity. (or words very nearly to that effect) She has certainly never stooped to showing a picture of Jena or Barbara Bush like Limbaugh did of Chelsea Clinton after showing a pic of Boots the cat and saying that CC was a picture of Clinton's Dog.

Tip O'neil was Speaker of the House as far as I know so what has he got to do with it unless you want to bring Gingrich Barr DeLay et al into the discussion - I would be happy to compare tolerance levels.

Ivins can be sarcastic - but SHRUB can take it if he can understand it. It is a far cry from being called dimwitted to being called a rapist.
Coulter on Clinton. I don't think Ivins ever said Bush should be shot or hanged or jailed.
Although I think he should be jailed.

Just out of curiousity, if libs win the presidency in 2004, according to your second maxim, will I be allowed to "whine" then?

Well of course you are allowed to do whatever you want but I would be a bit more magnanimous to my opposition if my party held the White House, both Houses of Congress, and a majority of the Supreme Court. I would also be happy if liberals controlled 90% of America's wealth and the oil and weapons industries.

(oddly, I don't recall whining now, but hey, I'll spot you that one.)

Your post on the Stern BIGOTRY AGAINST REPUBLICANS was the particular whine I targeted. It was not your whine but you did join in. Again it is MHO that bringing that up as a slam against liberals in a time when you and yours control the political power, military power, financial power, and media power is a WHINE.
"Why don't they like us?" It says.
"Poor Poor Pitiful me" It says.

Hey why not just say I may be a Republican Asshole but I am a rich white powerful armed and dangerous Republican Asshole.

I am going to provide most of the text of this IVINS VS LIMBAUGH column because it is so totally to the point you made. Remember you brought Ivins into this as a counter to Limbaugh. I think this proves my point.

Lyin' Bully
Instead of picking on someone his own size, Rush consistently targets dead people, little girls, and the homeless--none of whom can fight back.
by Molly Ivins
One of the things that concerns a lot of Americans lately is the increase in plain old nastiness in our political discussion. It comes from a number of sources, but Rush Limbaugh is a major carrier.
I should explain that I am not without bias in this matter. I have been attacked by Rush Limbaugh on the air, an experience somewhat akin to being gummed by a newt. It doesn't actually hurt, but it leaves you with slimy stuff on your ankle.
The kind of humor Limbaugh uses troubles me deeply, because I have spent much of my professional life making fun of politicians. I believe it is a great American tradition and should be encouraged. We should all laugh more at our elected officials--it's good for us and good for them. So what right do I have to object because Limbaugh makes fun of different pols than I do?
I object because he consistently targets dead people, little girls, and the homeless--none of whom are in a particularly good position to answer back. Satire is a weapon, and it can be quite cruel. It has historically been the weapon of powerless people aimed at the powerful. When you use satire against powerless people, as Limbaugh does, it is not only cruel, it's profoundly vulgar. It is like kicking a cripple.
On his TV show, early in the Clinton administration, Limbaugh put up a picture of Socks, the White House cat, and asked, "Did you know there's a White House dog?" Then he put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who was 13 years old at the time and as far as I know had never done any harm to anyone. When viewers objected, he claimed, in typical Limbaugh fashion, that the gag was an accident and that without his permission some technician had put up the picture of Chelsea--which I found as disgusting as his original attempt at humor.
On another occasion, Limbaugh put up a picture of Labor Secretary Robert Reich that showed him from the forehead up, as though that were all the camera could get. Reich is indeed a very short man as a result of a bone disease he had as a child. Somehow the effect of bone disease in children has never struck me as an appropriate topic for humor.
The reason I take Rush Limbaugh seriously is not because he's offensive or right-wing, but because he is one of the few people addressing a large group of disaffected people in this country. And despite his frequent denials, Limbaugh does indeed have a somewhat cultlike effect on his dittoheads. They can listen to him for three and a half hours a day, five days a week, on radio and television. I can assure you that David Koresh did not harangue the Branch Davidians so long nor so often. But that is precisely what most cult leaders do--talk to their followers hour after hour after hour.
A large segment of Limbaugh's audience consists of white males, 18 to 34 years old, without college education. Basically, a guy I know and grew up with named Bubba.
Bubba listens to Limbaugh because Limbaugh gives him someone to blame for the fact that Bubba is getting screwed. He's working harder, getting paid less in constant dollars and falling further and further behind. Not only is Bubba never gonna be able to buy a house, he can barely afford a trailer. Hell, he can barely afford the payments on the pickup.
And because Bubba understands he's being shafted, even if he doesn't know why or how or by whom, he listens to Limbaugh. Limbaugh offers him scapegoats. It's the "feminazis." It's the minorities. It's the limousine liberals. It's all these people with all these wacky social programs to help some silly, self-proclaimed bunch of victims. Bubba feels like a victim himself--and he is--but he never got any sympathy from liberals.
Psychologists often tell us there is a great deal of displaced anger in our emotional lives--your dad wallops you, but he's too big to hit back, so you go clobber your little brother. Displaced anger is also common in our political life. We see it in this generation of young white men without much education and very little future. This economy no longer has a place for them. The corporations have moved their jobs to Singapore. Unfortunately, it is Limbaugh and the Republicans who are addressing the resentments of these folks, and aiming their anger in the wrong direction.
In my state, I have not seen so much hatred in politics since the heyday of the John Birch Society in the early 1960s. Used to be you couldn't talk politics with a conservative without his getting all red in the face, arteries standing out in his neck, wattles aquiver with indignation--just like a pissed-off turkey gobbler. And now we're seeing the same kind of anger again.
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, the organization that provided the absurd Limbaughisms that you see to the right, has a sweet, gentle faith that truth will triumph in the end, and thinks it is sufficient to point out that Limbaugh is wrong. I say it's important to point out that he's not just wrong but that he's ridiculous, one of the silliest people in America. Sure, it takes your breath away when he spreads some false and vicious rumor, such as the story that Vincent Foster's body was actually discovered in an apartment owned by Hillary Clinton. Or when he destroys an important lobby-control bill by falsely claiming that it would make the average citizen subject to lobbying laws. Yes, that's sick and perverse.
But it's important to show people that there is much more wrong with Limbaugh's thinking than just his facts. Limbaugh specializes in ad hominem arguments, which are themselves ridiculously easy to expose. Ted Kennedy says, "America needs health care reform." Limbaugh replies, "Ted Kennedy is fat."
Rush Limbaugh's pathetic abuse of logic, his absurd pomposity, his relentless self-promotion, his ridiculous ego--now those, friends, are appropriate targets for satire.
- Barry, 7:34 PM

You stay up later than I do!

It's hard to argue with some of what Ivins says, since Limbaugh frequently steps over the line in his attempts at satire. However, Ms. Ivins is guilty of equally incendiary rhetoric herself.

Speaking of making fun of the dead, how about this from her Sunday May 18 column:
"(The price of gasoline has gotten so high that women who want to run over their husbands have to car-pool now.)"

Or distortion of fact (from Sun May 25):
"President Bush's announcement that we had broken up the organization seems to have been a trifle premature."

As has been well documented in the blogosphere and print, President Bush never said or implied that; only Ivins' ellision made it appear that way. But a good columnist never lets the truth get in the way of a good story.

Faulty logic (from the same column)
"Ariel Sharon, so memorably described by Bush as "a man of peace," wasted no time undercutting that proposal. The always-unhelpful Palestinian terrorists attacked, and Sharon counterattacked and then canceled his trip here to discuss the peace plan."

Doesn't this paragraph suggest that it was actually Palestinian terrorists who undercut the proposal? And the point is moot anyway, as the 3 way meeting (Bush Sharon Abbas) is back on the schedule. Last time I checked, Sharon aggreed in principle to the removal of West Bank and Gaza settlements, accepted a two-state solution, and characterized Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza as occupation. Yep, he's doing everything he can to prevent peace.

I could continue, but the point is made. Every sin Ivins lays at the feet of Limbaugh can also be attributed to her.

Other Barry here.

Rich, I am a bit flabbergasted. Do you really equate each of the Molly Ivins statements to be as childish and mean-spirited as Limbaugh's?

The price of gasoline joke sounds like something from Jay Leno's monologue, and is directed at no one person in particular. The made up quote is, as you say, something columnists do from time to time but is not actually aimed at anyone. And the Sharon quote is not an insult or actually an inaccurate statement at all - it's an opinion of his motives. An opinion we're all entitled to have.

But Rush insults and denigrates Chelsea Clinton, Robert Reich, Ted Kennedy, Vince Foster and Hillary Clinton in Barry B.'s examples.

And the examples from Ivins are the best rebuttals you can come up with?

Ms. Ivins is guilty of equally incendiary rhetoric herself.:
Speaking of making fun of the dead, how about this from her Sunday May 18 column:
"(The price of gasoline has gotten so high that women who want to run over their husbands have to car-pool now.)"

O Come now Rich. Who is the object of this satire? Women who wish to run over their husbands ? This obviously alluded to the Mercedes killer who was in the news at the time but had no real object except as comment on the price of gasoline.

Or distortion of fact (from Sun May 25):
"President Bush's announcement that we had broken up the organization seems to have been a trifle premature."
As has been well documented in the blogosphere and print, President Bush never said or implied that; only Ivins' ellision made it appear that way. But a good columnist never lets the truth get in the way of a good story.

I cannot imagine that you find that to be unfair commentary. Bush had clearly opined that the effort has done great damage to Al Queda and that Al Queda was “on the run” and unlike Maureen Dowd who erred by omitting qualifying words in her column, IVINS simply equates “broken up” with “half of the hierarchy dead or arrested” and “severely damaged”. Not much of a stretch and nothing close to Coulter, Limbaugh, Liddy et al in hyperbole.

Faulty logic (from the same column)
"Ariel Sharon, so memorably described by Bush as "a man of peace," wasted no time undercutting that proposal. The always-unhelpful Palestinian terrorists attacked, and Sharon counterattacked and then canceled his trip here to discuss the peace plan."
Doesn't this paragraph suggest that it was actually Palestinian terrorists who undercut the proposal?

NO on both counts: Sharon did counter attack and did make all sorts of ‘unpeaceful’ noises in the run up to the current détente. IVINS did totally qualify her remarks by laying the root cause of the blame to the ‘always-unhelpful Palestinian Terrorists’ And you are guilty of what you claim IVINS does by including: “ Last time I checked, Sharon aggreed in principle to the removal of West Bank and Gaza settlements, accepted a two-state solution, and characterized Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza as occupation” --- when those developments occurred after the column in question. Why you would scuttle your own argument with that obvious error I do not know.

I think it is fair to say on this case-by-case basis that you have failed to tar IVINS with the broad brush that can easily be applied to Limbaugh, Coulter, and Liddy. If this is the best of the worst of Molly Ivins we are talking about a Chihuahua in a dog fight with pit bulls.

Every sin Ivins lays at the feet of Limbaugh can also be attributed to her.

If you truly believe that you have not listened to enough Limbaugh or read enough IVINS and I show by the examples above that IVINS was certainly within the bounds of civility and propriety with the honest views she expressed. There is nothing in them that is blatantly cruel or inaccurate.

And to use her maxim: Sarcasm pointed at the powerful is a useful and time honored tradition. It is the use of sarcasm as a cruel tool against the powerless that is like kicking a cripple. IVINS has a rapier wit and pen but it is pointed in the right place - At the people in power. It is anything but INCENDIARY !!!

Here's my last take on this, after which you gentlemen are welcome to the last word.

Using a murder to make a point about gasoline prices is as callous and insensitive as anything Limbaugh has said. Sure, the dead man is beyond pain, but I'd guess his family (ex-wife excepted of course) probably missed the humor in the remark.

The fact is President Bush has never claimed that Al Qaida was finished; Dowd made the claim for him and Ivins picked it up and ran with it.

Palestinians initiated the violence, yet Ivins blasts Sharon for "undercutting" the peace plan, reserving a slightly exasperated aside for the Palestinians. It's almost as if she expects bad behavior from them, while holding Sharon to a higher standard. My inclusion of subsequent developments was simply to show that the flaw in her logic was later demonstrated in real world events.

Well there is no sense in continuing since you and I read from different points of view. Logic and reason fail to move you. Case in point:

You say:
The fact is President Bush has never claimed that Al Qaida was finished; Dowd made the claim for him and Ivins picked it up and ran with it.
Ivins said that Bushs statements indicated that Al Queda was "broken up" not FINISHED but Damaged beyond effectiveness. So the fact IS that IVINS never claimed that Bush said Al Queda was FINISHED. However that is what you read into it because it is Molly Ivins saying it.

The same can be said of each of your examples. You over-react to them because of your political viewpoint just as I react negatively to LIMBAUGH
so let's look at a Limbaugh comment:

"There is no greater testament to the depths to which the Democratic Party and liberalism have fallen. You now position yourself, Senator Daschle, to exploit future terrorist attacks for political gain. You are worse, sir, than the ambulance-chasing tort lawyers that make up your chief contributors. You, sir, are a disgrace. You are a disgrace to patriotism, you are a disgrace to this country, you are a disgrace to the Senate, and you ought to be a disgrace to the Democratic Party but sadly you’re probably a hero among some of them today...Way to demoralize the troops, Senator! What more do you want to do to destroy this country than what you’ve already tried? [pounding table] It is unconscionable what this man has done! This stuff gets broadcast around the world, Senator. What do you want your nickname to be? Hanoi Tom? Tokyo Tom? You name it, you can have it apparently. You sit there and pontificate on the fact that we’re not winning the war on terrorism when you and your party have done nothing but try to sabotage it, which you are continuing to do. This little speech of yours yesterday, and this appearance of yours on television last night, let’s call it what it is. It’s nothing more than an attempt to sabotage the war on terrorism for your own personal and your party’s political gain. This is cheap. And it’s beneath even you. And that’s pretty low." Friday Nov 15, 2002 The Rush Limbaugh Radio Program

Let’s see compared to Limbaugh’s fair-and-balanced comments Ivins is a creampuff.
Or do you find these LIMBAUGHTOMIZED comments civil Rich?

For good measure try on a very little Ann Coulter
too much will make you ill:

"COULTER (SLANDER page 205): Except for occasional exotic safaris to the Wal-Mart or forays into enemy territory, liberals do not know any conservatives. It makes it easier to demonize them that way. It’s well and good for Andrew Sullivan to talk about a “truce.” But conservatives aren’t the ones who need to be jolted into the discovery that the “bogeymen” of their imagination are “not quite as terrifying as they thought.” Conservatives already know that people they disagree with politically can be “charming.” Also savagely cruel bigots who hate ordinary Americans and lie for sport."

Just a small sample from me to you since I am by Coulters lights a 'SAVAGELY CRUEL BIGOT WHO HATES ORDINARY AMERICANS AND LIES FOR SPORT'

Sorry Rich but that is my parting shot and I would gladly offer up this debate for review and vote on who made their point best

The point being that Molly Ivins and Tip O'neil as your examples of didactic diatribe from liberal pundits in balance with Limbaugh, Liddy, Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity, North, Robertson, Falwell, Novak, Scarborough, Savage etc... just don't measure up. But then I find it interesting that you even choose to debate the issue which you could so easily admit.

Right wing conservative money buys the best most vituperative pundits. It is a simple unasailable fact.

I have just one further comment about the above post. Senator Tom Daschle served as an Intelligence Officer in the United States Air Force for the Strategic Air Command.
Rush Limbaugh got a deferrment from military service for an anal cyst.
Limbaugh is the type of chickens*%t chickenhawk that would say "You, sir, are a disgrace. You are a disgrace to patriotism, you are a disgrace to this country, you are a disgrace to the Senate, and you ought to be a disgrace to the Democratic Party" and "Way to demoralize the troops, Senator! What more do you want to do to destroy this country than what you’ve already tried? [pounding table] It is unconscionable what this man has done!"

Well guess what Rush. Daschle donned the uniform of his country and served in the military instead of laying out with an anal cyst as an excuse. Daschle got himself elected to the United States Senate and was elected it's minority and majority leader. What in the hell gives Rush Limbaugh the right to say that Tom Daschle is trying to destroy this country?

It is Rush Limbaugh who is sowing the seeds of dissent and hate. It is Rush Limbaugh who is destroying what this country stands for.

BRB