we are stardust's picture

    Alan Grayson's 'Taliban Dan Webster' Ad: Open Thread: Have an Opinion? Please Share It.

    By we are stardust on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 9:56am |

    Markos Moulitsas says his new book American Taliban (etc.) is receiving plenty of criticism from the Left.

    Here's a link to video of his defense of the book and word usage.  (Sorry, I can't stand Kos or his voice, so you have to go to this ons on your own.)  ;o)

     

    Comments

    I'm torn.

    On one hand, I don't like implying that my opponents are members of some sort of foreign, rival political movement to the U.S.  In effect, I don't like calling people traitors.  I tend to believe that even though a guy like Newt Gingrich has ideas that would be terrible for the country that he's at least trying to make things better (he's a bad thinker, not an evil one).  I try, and sometimes fail, not to call people fascists or Nazis.  The Taliban is the former government of Afghanistan and a political movement with no warm fuzzies for American democracy.  So in that sense, calling somebody Taliban is like calling them a Nazi and is probably beyond decency.

    On the other hand, we are so free and unapologetic about our criticisms of "radical Islam" and "radical Islamic clerics" and "Taliban extremists" and yet we do have our own religous extremists here at home who, like the Taliban, seek to use the government to impose their radical religious beliefs on their fellow citizens.  So, fair's fair, right?  It's hard to feel sorry for that hypocrite Newt Gingrich and his Taliban quest to impose his mystical fascism on the rest of us.

    I'm going to go with: acceptable if funny and I'll give both Kos and Grayson a pass.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 10:20am

      Yeah ... There ya' go . . .

    Let's all have a conniption fit over how it's said rather than what is said.

    "She should submit to me. That's in the bible..."

    So ... What's next Dan? You have a load of stones you wish to sell?

    This doesn't portray this dipstick as a "traitor" so much as it properly depicts this fundamentalist as a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist of the worst kind.

    Keep in mind it is a local ad for a local race and the local voters will decide.

    So ... Everyone take a deep breath and keep in mind it's election time and tighten up the big boy pants and live with it.

    ~OGD~


    by oldenGoldenDecoy on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 1:27pm

    Sorry, this is the text of the video Grayson doctored.  His last ad accusing him of draft-doging was also bogus. 

    Webster: So, write a journal. Second, find a verse. I have a verse for my wife, I have verses for my wife. Don’t pick the ones that say, ‘She should submit to me.’ That’s in the Bible, but pick the ones that you’re supposed to do. So instead, ‘love your wife, even as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it’ as opposed to ‘wives submit to your own husbands.’ She can pray that, if she wants to, but don’t you pray it."

    But yeah; I'll be a big boy and hitch up my pants and cheer Rove's ads, too.

     

     


    by we are stardust on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 1:44pm

    Ouch . . .

    The video depicts a fasehood of Dan's quotation's from scripture? Not good.

    Although Webster's position is "...true that he would prevent women from obtaining abortions even when the pregnancies result from rape, just as the ad says. And that goes for incest as well."

    Nice to know that Webster believes that a woman's body and mind are not their own.

    That, in my eyes makes him even more of a fundamentalist of the worst kind.

    Now ... If you've had a problem with this add, I assume you complained to the guilty party?

    If not, it's just a phone call or mouse click away.

    • Phone: 1-800-403-0303
    • Address: 8419 Oak Park Road Orlando, FL 32819

    I've sent my complaint. If you haven't, you should too.


    ~OGD~

     


    by oldenGoldenDecoy on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 2:21pm

    No one is arguing that Webster is absolutely accauntable to his stated positions, and they're fair game.

    Thanks for the link, Duck; I'd canceled his emails.  Well, blocked, actually; his 'Unsubscribe' link goes nowhwere.  I am also pissed he decided to go with the telecoms on net neutrality; that's HUGE for me.  (Israel is a whole 'nother story...)


    by we are stardust on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 2:54pm

    Given the context the "submit to me" was lifted from, and the way it's portrayed, I think it's not only wrong, but stupid for Grayson to run that ad, and even stupider to run it with so much time before the elections, as "Taliban Dan" can now easily counter it, and get out the message that Grayson's not playing straight.


    by miguelitoh2o on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 2:37pm

    Them South-o-the-border papayas and guavas mekkin' ya pretty smart, there Pig?   ;o)


    by we are stardust on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 2:56pm

    I'm torn.

    This is deeply insulting towards the Taliban. And...

    Ok. I'm not really torn.


    by Obey on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 11:19am

    LOL, wiseass.


    by we are stardust on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 11:44am

    I hereby render unto Obey the Dayly Line of the Day Award for this here Dagblog Site, given to all of him from all of me. hahaha


    by Richard Day on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 12:21pm

    My PRECIOUSSSS! the prize. Thanks Dick!

    ;0)


    by Obey on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 3:11pm

    Really feelin' yer feathered-oats, there, are ya Pug?  ;oP


    by we are stardust on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 4:51pm

    Personally, it turns me off.

    Socially, it's bad for the country.

    Politically, it's works.

    Incidentally, Moulitsas held a book signing in NYC last week and gave the same speech. The reception was very enthusiastic. On the other hand, there were only about fifty people there. Glenn Beck, he ain't.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 11:59am

    Genghis, could you explain why you think those first two things?  (I'm interested that you think it works, too.)  And give Obey a smack when you find him...; Dick, too.


    by we are stardust on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 12:35pm

    Personally - It's a false analogy. There are parallels between Christian right and the Taliban, but that does not make them equivalent. I hate rhetorical misrepresentations.

    Socially - Demonizing opponents foments hatred. Mutual hatred between political opponents undermines the civility, trust, and spirit of compromise necessary for government to function. It discourages politicians from following the rules and raises the risk of internal violence.

    Politically - Fomenting hatred has a long history of political success, and the right has been doing it particularly effectively lately.

    PS I'm working on digital-slap feature (the iSlap). It's not perfected yet. Articleman is still recovering from a test performed under unsafe conditions.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 1:14pm

    Thanks, Genghis.  I agree; I found factcheck.org saying he manipulated the video cravenly. 

    http://factcheck.org/2010/09/rep-grayson-lowers-the-bar/

    Again, I'd ask defenders to turn it around: if it were used against a Dem, would they say, "Har har har."  I just starting tuning in to political ads; the only one I've seen that's not an attack as full of distortions or lies is John Hickenlooper for Gov of Colorado.  Grayson's disgusted me; but I think he's getting too big for his histrionic britches.  Plus I have issues with his back-tracking on issues, so that colors my opinion, no doubt.)  I think it's a stupid ad, and it makes him look ignorant.

    And I don't know what digital slap is, but I assume Mr. A-man's okay...

    I was interested in hyour opinion since uh...you sorta wrote the book on these folks...

    Shouldn't this be bumped to the left column?  It's kind of wrong to have it in the center....

     

     


    by we are stardust on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 1:56pm

    I put it in the center b/c of the ad and b/c I think it's a really interesting question, but you're right, open threads should probably stay on the left.

    OK, a more authorly answer then. The right wing has been using demonization tactics repeatedly and effectively for years. They did it back in the McCarthy era, and they started doing again in the 1970s--against homosexuals, blacks, feminists, secularists, and of course liberal "elitists." They invented conspiracy after conspiracy--from "secular humanism" to "the gay agenda" to Glenn Beck's communist-cum-fascist progressive movement. It's been highly effective in cementing right-wing control over the GOP (which was run by moderates until the 1990s) as well as in winning elections against Democrats. It's also tearing the country apart at the seams and crippling the government, as is particularly obvious this year.

    But for all that, they're not the Taliban or anywhere close. Kos knows this, but he's trying to fight fire with fire by demonizing the demonizers. If he did it well--which he doesn't because he lacks the talent for real firebreathing demagoguery--it would probably work. But it would also deepen the bloody rifts diving the country and turn Congress into a daily food fight between Grayson clones and Bachmann clones.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 2:30pm

      Demonizing opponents foments hatred?

    http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd234/Howlin_Al/Dag_Blog/20101007_BS_book_cover-1.jpg



    Quack! Quack!

    ~OGD~


    by oldenGoldenDecoy on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 1:57pm

    Ridiculing opponents, on the other hand, is an entirely different story. Or maybe you were referring to the right-wing folks.

    Regardless, I think that I walked a fine line that some may accuse me of crossing.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 2:10pm

    Yeah; satire is one thing, using their own true wods against them is fine; makin' stuff up outta whole cloth is vile, AND bound to backfire, as you say.

    Didn't mean to question your editorial expertise, Genghis; I was afraid it was way too small-bore to be center stage.  I do take some of this seriously, though:  I worked active campaigns during the Willie Horton days...and saw how easily a lie could take wing.


    by we are stardust on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 2:48pm

      Me ... Referring to?

     

    I am simply referring to the cover. "Why the right keeps serving up whack job fantasies..."

    Ridicule? Demonize? Po-tah-toe ... pah-ta-to . . .

    I fully agree that some on the right are serving up whack job fantasies.

    Although when putting on my right-wing glasses I could read that as not only ridicule, but an attempt to paint the right as wicked or evil. Eighteen (18% ) percent to 27 % (whichever poll one believes) is not ALL of those on the right.

    Now ... I'm sure you did walk a fine line... in the text.

    From following your comments at the Cafe to reading your thoughts here, I realize your intentions are good.

    Quack! Quack!

    ~OGD~


    by oldenGoldenDecoy on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 2:55pm

    Ah yes. The title was a collaborate effort between me and my publisher, with the publisher having the final say.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 3:07pm

    Latest Comments