...and Molotov cocktails. Will this get as much news coverage as the phantom cries of "kill him" at MCain/Palin rallies (of which there has only been one reported)?
[Update a couple minutes later]
Michelle Malkin has more leftist rage and hatred. Feel the love of the left.
As the first commenter notes, this is typical projection. They accuse others of doing what they are actually doing (lying, racemongering, hating).
MSM is claiming that the attacks on Obama at the McCain rallies has "damaged" his campaign. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if these two did this to damage Obama's campaign, knowing it would get play in the blogosphere.
As usual, Politico (politico.com), and Ben Smith in particular, report promptly and even-handedly on these events. I still can't figure out whether Politico counts as part of the "MSM" or not.
Don't forget to blame the incompetent McCain campaign team. Watch Bill Kristol on Fox News make that point.
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/10/kristol-mccains-failed-campaig.html
It sure would be nice if more people were not:
- Apologists basing their apology on conspiracy theories that can easily be debunked by a phone call (Goebbels the IIIrd).
- Playing down the subject (Sideshow Bob).
- Blaming the victims (Bill Kristol).
If you're interested in the media reaction, you can monitor the media, like this:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=mccain+sign&btnG=Search (Picking the right search terms is tricky, as always -- "McCain" and "sign" gets too many false positives, but "McCain" and "Burning" misses too many stories on "torching" and the like. Still, searching is much better than just wondering if the story will be covered.
You can also note that politico.com seems to be one of the dominant voices of this election -- cited frequently by other political reporters as well as by the campaigns themselves. That Ben Smith covered the story so promptly should be pleasing to those, like Rand, worried about media bias.
I have no idea what you want, HH. Do you suppose the right approach is to get really angry and say "THAT'S TERRIBLE!" or is it better to have a conversation about whether or not the media is biased?
is it better to have a conversation about whether or not the media is biased?
That's like saying it would be better to have a conversation about whether evolution is a fact, and wanting to discuss "alternatives" such as "Intelligent Design."
Just the fact that you consider the question open for debate is a sign that you're in the tank.
Carl, that's silly. I love talking about intelligent design! You should debate everything, regardless of what you already think. My family went to see Bill Maher's Religulous last night - I think my aging, formerly religious but now atheistic mother thinks that Bill is cute, but she won't admit it. After the movie, we had a debate. My wife and my mother took Bill's side, so naturally, my sister, her husband and I took the opposite side, just for the sake of an argument, and argued for the benefits of religion. In end, I feel Religion came out on top, and there was also significant increase in tolerance of Mormonism and South Park. Next week we'll take on Intelligent Design!
You should debate everything, regardless of what you already think.
Who has the time or the energy?
How to make more time and re-energize oneself:
(Individualized for Rand Simberg)
Step 1) Never reply to Eric Chomko
Step 2) There is no need for step 2.
"Do you suppose the right approach is to get really angry..."
Yes damn it! This is not a parlor game, it's not discussion for the sake of debating and reflecting or being clever and witty or scoring points. I enjoy the good-natured original spirit of ivory towers but reality is not such an ivory tower.
And it's not Republicans or independents who should be the most angry but the truly liberal Democrats who do not believe organized graft and power hoarding is their ideology. It's hard to understand why they aren't rabid with rage at being used as stooges and useful idiots in tactics copy-pasted right out of last century totalitarian philosophy courtesy of the long-dead Saul Alinsky. Or maybe I'm suffering under the illusion that most Democrats are true liberals (and by that I do not mean classical-liberal-somethings like myself but true modern liberals like JFK and LBJ and what neocons were before they gave up and switched to neoconservativism) but I would hope I'm not.
These things are being done in their name. They can damn it but the overwhelming impression is that they choose to ignore it in any way they feel comfortable with: where is the popular Democratic outrage? Is it right next to the nearly non-existent "Paulian" popular outrage at the treatment of political opponents like Rudy Giuliani and the spambot tactics used in Ron Paul's name? I thought that was appalling but it's nothing at all compared to what has been going on and accelerating in the Democratic party this last year.
C'mon, those were just two guys showing that they have what it takes to be community organizers in the new Obama Volunteer Corps. They might even be executive material.
Well said, HH. I was raised in a Truman Democrat family, and even now I can't bring myself to resign my registration as a Democrat.
But, as Zell Miller said, the party left me a while ago, taken over by a cancer of fucking totalitarian Stalinists who don't even belong in a Jeffersonian Republic at all.
I also despise the fact that they force me to make alliance with intolerant "culture conservatives" on the right to oppose their sadomasochistic Orwellian antiliberal agenda. Phoo.
You should debate everything, regardless of what you already think
I don't think so, Bob. I'm not going to debate whether my children should be snuffed to save the planet. I'm not going to debate whether married opposite-sex parents are good for children, or why I'm repulsed by bisexuality and postmodernism. I'm not even going to debate whether individual liberty or social good is the proper foundation of human society.
However, that said, I'm in great sympathy to your impulse, to strongly defend the widest possible spirit of inquiry, challenge everything, take nothing for granted. In general, and in most areas, I agree completely. But there a very few areas where, being human, there isn't and shouldn't be any discussion. That bedrock shared mythology keeps us from slipping into the tar pit of unrestricted relativism and cynicism that, for example, made the French Revolution the egg that hatched not The New Atlantis but rather Napoleon, total war, and the first horrors of totalitarianism.
Furthermore, if that's the spirit in which you suggested a debate over media bias, then you're right and I'm wrong in my response to you.
I just assumed you meant "debate" the issue in the sort of time-wasting, energy-wasting, deliberately obfuscating way that the media itself uses to mire the criticism in the mud of hairsplitting debate. That's not a debate for the purpose of pursuing truth, that's lawyerly objection this objection that for the purpose of burying the truth.
If, as you say, I was wrong in my assumption about whence you come, my apologies.
One balanced web site does not a balanced media make, Bob. 20 million people watch the network evening news. Who do you think has more influence?
The "Hope and Change" in the title of your post, Rand, causes me to remember this. Hope you enjoy the unicorn scene.
Oops, that last anonymous was me.