Monday, January 24, 2005
The post where I talk about how the conservative blogosphere is attempting to define Barbara Boxer and, therefore, the debate... again.
I think we'd all agree that, when it comes to blogospherical dominance, the conservatives have the upperhand right now. A quick Technorati search for Barbara Boxer reveals how they are trying to define Senator Boxer. At the time of this search, 7 of the first 10 results at the time I'm writing this made comments smearing her:
All I'm saying is, there better not have been any tough questioning of Clinton cabinet appointees by Republicans, or are they the only ones who are allowed such latitude?
...blazenly ignorant...I don't have much else to say about this, but the Republicans are all crying foul because someone dared to question Rice strongly, and are attempting to discredit her by calling her a moonbat or a whiner at best and an hysterical woman at worst.
...a blithering idiot and world class crybaby...
...pursued a curious line of attack...
...California Moonbat...
...got a little punch drunk...
...made her inane comments... (Hugh Hewitt on CNN)
...Whiner, Whiner, Whiner...
All I'm saying is, there better not have been any tough questioning of Clinton cabinet appointees by Republicans, or are they the only ones who are allowed such latitude?
# posted by Dylan @ 1:17 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Hmm. If they were all running with the same attack, it would obviously be a coordinated effort.
Any effort at definition needs to involve repeating the same words, again and again, like brainwashing.
Any effort at definition needs to involve repeating the same words, again and again, like brainwashing.
I appreciate what you are saying here. I think the point I'm trying to make is that, when faced with actual (though rare) opposition by a Democrat, the Republican instinct is to attack that person's motives or integrity (see: Condi Rice's only defense against Boxer in the confirmations hearings).
It is less about organized campaigns and more about preternatural reaction.
It is less about organized campaigns and more about preternatural reaction.
Confirmation hearings are largely just a chance for Senators to give a speech to the press. Boxer did that. She's in a safe seat so she can say whatever she likes. What she likes to say is extremely partisan and inflamitory. If that matches also happens to match up with what you believe, so be it. It is very far from it for conservatives, so the natural reaction is to call her a loon, partisan hack, etc (I think that is what the commentor meant by 'preternatural' - which actually means near the opposite of 'natural').
So this isn't a matter of defining anything, just an equal and opposite reaction. Boxer attacked, Boxer was attacked.
So this isn't a matter of defining anything, just an equal and opposite reaction. Boxer attacked, Boxer was attacked.
I actually saw a mention of your blog while reading those dishonest bloggers over at the Club for Rich People (www.clubforgrowth.org/blog). Not sure if you ever visit the Angrybear, but I applauded Sen. Boxer for daring to tell the truth about Dr. Rice's dishonesty. Check out the transcript of the Capital Gang (CNN) where Bob Novak suggested Boxer was nasty for doing so as he compared her to McCarthy. What a joke the hack Novak has become.
Don't forget "diva of demagoguery," which comes from a (relatively favorable!) article linked here by Scaramouche.
"Boxer ... should read the bill that authorized the war before [she tries] to tell the Secretary of State what it was all about."
Exactly. Her assertion that it was "WMD, period" shows she's either ignorant or lying. You can find the actual bill by searching for "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq" or bill number "HJ 114" at http://thomas.loc.gov/home/search.html (search under 107th congress, 2002.)
The first 5 "whereas" clauses refer to the history from Gulf War I to 1998. Then they address the following topics about Iraq:
1) still has and seeks WMD
2) oppresses its own civilians and keeps prisoners/land from GWI
3) has used WMD in the past
4) attacks the US (attempted assassination of Bush I, shooting at planes in no-fly-zones)
5) has some AQ members in the country
6) continues to aid other (non-AQ) terrorist organizations
7) [not about Iraq] 9/11 underscored the importance of keeping WMD out of terrorist hands
8) was willing to use WMD
The remaining "whereas" clauses refer to various past acts of congress, presidents, etc.
Is that "WMD, period"? Obviously not -- the section about Iraq clearly refers to much more than that. That means Senator Boxer is either ignorant about the content of the bill, or lied about it during the questioning.
Funny how she would say this while, at the same time, claiming Condi had issues with seeking or telling the truth.
I think she'd make a brilliant candidate... to assure Republican dominance.
Exactly. Her assertion that it was "WMD, period" shows she's either ignorant or lying. You can find the actual bill by searching for "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq" or bill number "HJ 114" at http://thomas.loc.gov/home/search.html (search under 107th congress, 2002.)
The first 5 "whereas" clauses refer to the history from Gulf War I to 1998. Then they address the following topics about Iraq:
1) still has and seeks WMD
2) oppresses its own civilians and keeps prisoners/land from GWI
3) has used WMD in the past
4) attacks the US (attempted assassination of Bush I, shooting at planes in no-fly-zones)
5) has some AQ members in the country
6) continues to aid other (non-AQ) terrorist organizations
7) [not about Iraq] 9/11 underscored the importance of keeping WMD out of terrorist hands
8) was willing to use WMD
The remaining "whereas" clauses refer to various past acts of congress, presidents, etc.
Is that "WMD, period"? Obviously not -- the section about Iraq clearly refers to much more than that. That means Senator Boxer is either ignorant about the content of the bill, or lied about it during the questioning.
Funny how she would say this while, at the same time, claiming Condi had issues with seeking or telling the truth.
I think she'd make a brilliant candidate... to assure Republican dominance.
Thanks for the clarification, Michael. The links that I included were from a very cursory Technorati search meant to illustrate a point. Sorry to have lumped you in with the LGF neighborhood!
Post a Comment
<< Home
