Here are three news stories. Tell me if any of these seem particularly partisan to you…
- A Congressman tells his constituents to keep quiet about billions in fraud.
- A planned violent attack during a political convention is thwarted.
- A college professor jovially boasts about electrocuting cats as a method of getting the upper hand in labor negotiations with an electric company.
To my mind, this is all basic stuff. Right and wrong, good and bad. Ethics 101. Who is in favor of fraud, sabotage and violence?
The unfortunate answer seems to be — most liberals today.
These are all news stories that were broken by people who didn’t assume they would be that controversial. I know, because I’m one of them. My story about Congressman Sanford Bishop covering up Pigford fraud was published on the front page of The Huffington Post. It ended up getting a total of seven (that’s 7) comments; something unheard of for a front-page story on HuffPost. There’s no question in my mind that if that story had had exactly the same facts but had been about a Republican – let’s say, Michele Bachmann — that it would’ve gotten thousands of comments.
Instead, my reporting the Pigford story has gotten me called a racist and a traitor.
The second story there relates to Brandon Darby, who helped stop violent attacks that were planned during the Republican convention in Minnesota. Whatever’s happened to me for reporting a story that really shouldn’t be controversial, it’s been 100 times worse for Brandon. The New York Times printed false information about Brandon and refused to retract until he sued them. Brandon has also been the target of a campaign labeling him as a “snitch.” This is all because Darby help stop violence.
The third story is about the class on unions being taught by two socialist/communist activists in Missouri. And those people who likes to throw around the term "communist" loosely but one of the professors brags about being a member of the Communist Party and actually brings someone in from the Communist Party to recruit students as members, I think it’s a pretty fair assessment.
If you haven’t read about what’s going on in Missouri, I’m going to link to it again right here because the article written by student Philip Christofanelli is well worth your time. Based on my experience and what I’ve seen Brandon go through, my heart sank a little when I read this paragraph from Philip towards the end.
Both my grandfathers were proud union men, and I respect their hard work, which provided my parents and my family with a comfortable lifestyle today. I resent the fact that these professors’ irresponsible approach to this course has made legitimate union members appear ridiculous. I hold academic freedom as one of the most important tenets of our Constitutional Republic.
This saddened me because I know that Philip probably thinks that holding a fair and reasonable position will exempt him from being attacked. I know better and I feel sorry for what this young man is in for.
This is not a matter of being moderate or centrist. I think it’s going on here is the idea that somehow the ends justify the means. It’s the nagging feeling some liberals have that somehow, somewhere some conservatives might actually be right about something.
This is stupid. This is no other way to put it. It’s stupid. Take a look at the comments over here on Rock Story about Andrew Breitbart’s recent dustup with Al Pires about the Pigford scandal. You’ll see one or two people express momentary confusion that Breitbart seems to be making a valid point. Here’s an example; a comment named Bodoblock says…
Through all this shouting and name calling…can someone explain to me what all this is about again? My general lack of knowledge on this subject makes Breitbart look like he’s saying something worthwhile. Pires unfortunately does not argue well here. He resorts to name calling and seems elusive. Breitbart appears the better man in this (whether he actually is or not).
But just as quickly as a scintilla of rational thought starts to dawn in someone’s head, the liberal mob stamps it down. Is their argument based on facts? Rational deduction? Nope. They just don’t like Breitbart because they’ve been told by the left for about a year now how bad Andrew Breitbart is. A couple of examples…
Why does the media give this racist hog any respect or attention?
Somewhere out there is a photo of this man in his Klan costume. Some day soon it will reappear and he will be silenced. Again.How can a serious journalist have Andrew Breitbart on his show? Breitbart has become synonymous with a malicious, slanderous attack on working class people through the use of doctored video.
Blah blah blah. Nobody dealing with the facts. It’s intellectual bankruptcy of the highest order and its common. It’s routine.
Liberalism is dead if liberals aren’t able to hold coherent, common sense positions.
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
I think you’re missing some words in this sentence: “And those people who likes to throw around the term “communist” loosely but one of the professors brags about being a member of the Communist Party and actually brings someone in from the Communist Party to recruit students as members, I think it’s a pretty fair assessment.” Perhaps, “I’m not one of those people who…”?
My perception is that Huffpo is overwhelmed by adolescent liberalism; rife with superficial arguments designed to provoke anything but thought. I’m not sure they are even interested in critical investigation, debate or intellectual curiosity. Your case here, Lee, seems to be: If it exists there, where is it? I’ve found a few Huffpo articles on spending that make it pretty clear we have major nonpartisan challenges. The adolescents avoid those discussions because they conflict with the narratives they like or, frankly, they just don’t understand them. And honestly, to some extent I see similar behavior at some right leaning sites. Sides have been chosen; with each picking brief skirmishes with other, then retreating for another round. Rinse (ignore issue), lather (assemble talking point), repeat. Neither side, in the case of these kids will be willing to budge. The agitiation and insults are part of the fun and games it seems. It’s the conflict they desire; hence the anonymity. They don’t want to put their name to their actions/words. I suspect trying to change that might be futile. Instead, ignoring it and continuing our investigations (and meaningul conversations) may have to proceed elesewhere. Which may very well be where all the sane liberals went; somewhere else besides Huffpo. On the other hand, sometimes I feel we need people like Lee to keep pressing on at Huffpo with their message and investigations. Is drowning out, ignoring, or mischaracterizing the message a different scenario than not having heard it? I think it is. And I think the imact potential is markedly different for those who are intellectually honest observers. The idea of being able to link back to Huffpo posted facts adds to argument leverage amusement for me as well. I’m weird that way though.
Hey Lee…speaking of sane and honest…did you forget the part where he allowed those videos handed off to “friends” to be dishonestly edited in such a way as to paint the professors as slobbering animals out for blood when in fact they said just the opposite?
No? Why am I not surprised?
Why don’t you just come out and admit that you’re about as liberal as Andrew Breitbart’s left toe?
Karoli,
Check your sources. Those professors were absolutely doing everything breitbart’s reporter said. in fact, the media matters “correction” also edited out significant inflammatory remarks. Ancel wasn’t just quoting someone, she was quoting someone to make a point. If I said, “well Jesus got violent in the temple,” am I saying violence isn’t an answer, or am I saying that violence is justified? You know the answer, but you’re as intellectually honest as arianna huffingtons left foot.
Lee,
There are sane liberals. Look at media matters site traffic, and its dropping like roaches in a Raid factory. In fact, while you may feel alone right now, the fact that less people are buying the lines they’re being fed is a start. My best friend is a self-described socialist, but he can’t accept the falsehoods being thrown around by the people he thought he could trust. I’ve directed him to your site, and he’s thoroughly impressed by your ability to tackle the truth no matter what narrative you destroy in the process. Keep up the good work. I don’t agree with glenn beck a whole lot, and whether he lives up to his mantra or not (that’s up to you to decide), its clear that for you, the truth has no agenda.
There are sane liberals and sane conservatives . . . and many folks who get involved in politics the same way the get involved in professional wrestling or sports teams, and want good guys and bad guys and aren’t interested in nuance. As a long time conservative, I’ve been more recently disappointed numerous conservatives and Republicans in terms of Obama and their reaction to the death of OBL . . . but then some liberal Democrats come along to remind me why I’m not a liberal Democrat!
I wish there were more objective discussion of the issues. Unfortunately, some people aren’t interested in that.
Lee,
I think you are finally realizing something that I noticed a long time ago. While there are bad actors on both sides of the Liberal/Conservative divide, One side appears to embrace and defend them. Look at what has happened when conservatives are caught doing something wrong. Many resign or are simply not re-elected. When liberals are caught they are defended and re-elected. To me this is one of the biggest problems with liberals today. Simply put a lack of integrity is one of the primary reasons I have trouble siding with any Liberal positions.
While this is not exclusive to liberals I find it far more often on the left side of the spectrum. If you want to argue an issue and you are proven wrong, simply admit it. Instead many double down into obviously absurd talking points. When that does not work it then digresses further to Ad-Hominem attacks. Again this is not exclusive to todays liberals. But Liberals do seem to have institutionalized it and accepted it into their ideology ,and it is accepted and practiced by leadership in the Democratic party
Progressivism (which is what these folks are, and there is nothing liberal about them) is a religion. Once you realize that you’re dealing with people who are enslaved by their religious instinct and are going to attack you as a heretic no matter how obviously correct you are, it gets easier to understand. Muslim intolerance and Progressive intolerance look the same and are psychologically identical. It’s a mistake to think there is an intellectual component to this conflict. Only one side is thinking, the other is defending a religion that has killed more people than any in the history of the world. Yet they remain prostrate before it. How weak they must be.
You seem principled, which I admire, even though I openly admit I’m conservative and likely disagree with your politics. But, what you are complaining about in this article is what we (on the Right) have been complaining about for some time. Liberals (I used to be one) have become Leftist and are strident and vitriolic. Additionally, you seem to recognize that many of your peers are corrupt, dishonest and/or using Alinsky-type tactics (even though you didn’t mention Alinsky). So, what will you do? You are in a lonely place these days. Do you stay on the Left– voting for candidates who are corrupt, dishonest, and using Alinsky-type tactics? Or, do you move to the Right? Ideologically, I realize you’re still a liberal, but how can you support those who support corruption, dishonesty, and tactics where the ends justify the means?
there are antisocial people and there are those who are not. I am beginning to wonder if there are any who are not antisocial. Antisocials argue no matter. Oh, I give up.
you can certainly not be sane and be what is considered uber conservative or closed minded. Is not possible.
You should not hate them tho cause they are incapable of changing and arent even aware