pageok
pageok
pageok
Frank Rich Versus Reality:

Rich's column suggests that McCain-Palin's rhetoric is risking the assasination of Sen. Obama. His evidence:

"raucous and insistent cries of 'Treason!'" links to "a crowd member [that is, one crowd member] screamed "treason!" during an event on Tuesday after Sarah Palin accused Barack Obama of criticizing U.S. troops.

"raucous and insistent cries of ... 'terrorist' and 'kill him!'" links to a story in which one reporter claimed that one crowd member allegedly shouted kill him, likely referring to, if anyone, Bill Ayers, and also mentioning that "a male member of the crowd in Jacksonville, Florida, yelled 'treason!'"

"the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets,'" links to a story in which one member of one crowd slung a racial epithet at a cameraman.

So, of the hundreds of thousands of people who have attended McCain-Palin rallies, we have a grand total of four [update: Rich has one more equally tenuous link, so make that five] whose conduct is said to taint the campaigns. Heck, I can find four similarly unpleasant comments on a typical DailyKos thread.

Larry K (mail):
David — Take a look at the responses at the Pajamas Media site to that to that Jennifer Rubin column you linked to approvingly yesterday. A fair number of them seem to me fall into the "Manchurian Candidate" category in their fairly elaborately worked-out scenarios in which Obama is an actual or stealth Muslim or an actual or stealth revolutionary Marxist, or both. Also, I'm struck by the frequently stated conviction in these responses that under the Obama administration the First Amendment will be abolished under the guise of hate speech legislation — the goal being to transform the U.S. from a Christian nation into a Muslim one. I don't see kookiness of this sort on Daily Kos very often — the virulence, yes, but not the conspiratorial scenarios or the echo chamber setting for them; further, I think that the inherently conspiratorial frameworks for such kookiness can lead some minds to consider violentaction to counter the "alien" threat. Also, I believe that responses of this sort do not spring ab ovo from the minds of these individuals — they're based on things that they've heard and read that are intended to stir just such beliefs. Consider something to which you did not link — the encounter between that female McCain supporter-volunteer and McCain at a Friday rally in Lakeville, Minn., where she referred to Obama as an "Arab" (the tape is unclear, but some believethat she had started to say "Arab terrorist"), and McCain said, "No." Afterwards, the woman — McCain volunteer Gayle Quinnell — reiterated her belief that Obama "is a Muslim and a terrorist"

(see the story on the Minneapolis Star-Tribune website)

The original video of the encounter is interesting, even more so the appended interview with Quinnell in which she foggily elaborates on her beliefs and how she came to them:

(search for Gayle Quinnell on You Tube).

Also, as a bit of perhaps semi-extraneous frosting on the cake, there's this video of a man entering a McCain rally yesterday in Johnstown, Pa., happily waving about his "Obama monkey" doll, and saying "This is little Hussein":

(see Jonathan Martin's story on The Politic0 site).

Good clean fun, huh? And don't tell me that depictions of President Bush as monkey-like amount to the same thing.
10.12.2008 4:39pm
Elliot123 (mail):
"And don't tell me that depictions of President Bush as monkey-like amount to the same thing."

Why not?
10.12.2008 4:46pm
genob:
Let me understand this.. For the last eight years it has pretty much been mainstream Democratic talking points that President Bush lied to trick Congress into approving a war to that he could send US soldiers to die in order to enrich his cronies at Halliburton. Bush has been called "murderer" "Hitler" and worse. That's so common it's generally accepted now....yet is far far worse than anything that's being said about Obama.

Where I live in Seattle, I've heard more than one person say that if Obama loses somehow, they are going to "go all WTO on this place."

And there is now surprise at this kind of thing happening? Please.
10.12.2008 4:48pm
Glenn W. Bowen (mail):
Oh. So the "Chimpy" handle is off-limits for BO?
10.12.2008 4:51pm
LN (mail):
Hmm, lefties say that Bush lied about the need to invade Iraq (because they had weapons of mass destruction and he didn't want a mushroom cloud)? That's NUTS! Woo-hoo crazy talk!

Is there anything the Left WON'T say?

With such ridiculous accusations as part of our political discourse, I don't see how anyone can get upset about people describing Obama as a treasonous radical Arab Muslim terrorist.
10.12.2008 5:07pm
PersonFromPorlock:

Oh. So the "Chimpy" handle is off-limits for BO?

Well, it's taken. Besides, with those ears he looks more like a bonobo. Bonobama? BO-nobo?

Imagine the outrage!
10.12.2008 5:11pm
Larry K (mail):
"'And don't tell me that depictions of President Bush as monkey-like amount to the same thing.'

'Why not?'"

Because the Bush-as-monkey-like swipes were based on tales of his below-average intelligence and his arguably somewhat simian features -- both swipes being unkind but specific to Bush the individual. The only thing about Obama that I can think that would be monkey-like is that he has racial ties to a group of people who have been ridiculed (and worse) as monkey-like as a group.
10.12.2008 5:17pm
genob:
LN...

there's a difference between a lie, and getting something wrong. President Clinton thought they had WMD. Every intelligence agency in the world thought they had WMD. Hussein wanted the world to believe he had WMD. The UN repeatedly sanctioned him.

So you think it's reasonable to accuse Bush of lying in order to kill people....make your case...what was the motive. To ruin himself politically when the facts were revealed? Doesn't make sense. To enrich his friends. Really? You believe that?

This campaign stuff is minor compared to the hateful and devisive bile spilling out of the Democratic party for the last 8 years. Not nutjobs at Democratic events....Party leaders have been fomenting this crap.
10.12.2008 5:22pm
genob:
And besides, under Obama's theory about why we should send troops to Darfur, even where there is no US security interest at stake, wouldn't just stopping the systematic killing of Kurds in Iraq have justified intervention under the "Obama doctrine" he spelled out at the last debate. It seems that it is the fact that there are US interests that offends him.
10.12.2008 5:24pm
Larry K (mail):
P.S. I suppose you could say that Obama, like many African-Americans, has somewhat simian feature, but come on...
10.12.2008 5:29pm
PC:
10.12.2008 5:31pm
Larry K (mail):
Next some of you guys will be telling us that some Jews do have hooked noses, therefore...
10.12.2008 5:33pm
LN (mail):
Oh God it's just too depressing to re-hash the arguments of 2004 over again. I'll just say that to this day I do not really know why we invaded Iraq, and one reason for the wide range of speculation is that there are no grounds for trusting the "official" reasons. The official reason was WMD/terrorism links, but not only did these turn out to be unsubstantiated, but considerable evidence emerged that Bush's desire to invade Iraq was independent of the intelligence estimates of WMD capability, which was actually manipulated to overstate the threat (see the Downing Street Memo, the debate over what to include in Powell's speech to the UN, the various Judith Miller fiascoes, and on and on and on).

I do think that Bush was NOT motivated to murder American soldiers, but rather that their deaths in Iraq were a cost incurred to achieve some other purpose(s). How's that for reasonable?
10.12.2008 5:49pm
Vermando (mail) (www):
I agree with the overall point DB makes that there is a heck of a difference between firing up a crowd in anger and inciting a man's assassination. Indeed, Bush has been called a lot of bad things too, and if some nut had actually shot the guy, I would not have lain the blame at the door of the Leftist rabble-rousers who got him riled up.

I think that Rich is pointing to the fear and memories of African-Americans have of worked up White crowds yelling racial slurs - yes, people have been very mean to President Bush, but there is no historical recollection for Southern Methodists of angry white mobs getting themselves riled up with slurs of "Hitler!" and then going lynch the guy or bomb his church. Blacks are uptight about this kind of thing, and given their history, I can't say I especially blame them. Still, Rich himself should place it in this context and not accuse Senator McCain of driving someone to kill Senator Obama - if any of this were really a threat, I'm pretty sure the Secret Service would have it covered.

Nonetheless, politically, I'd avoid this road if I were a politician of the Right - some of those crowds look like angry mobs, and that is unappealing to swing voters, pundits, people with decency, and various other groups. Combined with the Ayers stuff, it gives Senator McCain's campaign a whiff of desperation that is unbecoming and unlikely to succeed in this time of crisis.
10.12.2008 5:58pm
Vermando (mail) (www):
I agree with the overall point DB makes that there is a heck of a difference between firing up a crowd in anger and inciting a man's assassination. Indeed, Bush has been called a lot of bad things too, and if some nut had actually shot the guy, I would not have lain the blame at the door of the Leftist rabble-rousers who got him riled up.

I think that Rich is pointing to the fear and memories of African-Americans have of worked up White crowds yelling racial slurs - yes, people have been very mean to President Bush, but there is no historical recollection for Southern Methodists of angry white mobs getting themselves riled up with slurs of "Hitler!" and then going lynch the guy or bomb his church. Blacks are uptight about this kind of thing, and given their history, I can't say I especially blame them. Still, Rich himself should place it in this context and not accuse Senator McCain of driving someone to kill Senator Obama - if any of this were really a threat, I'm pretty sure the Secret Service would have it covered.

Nonetheless, politically, I'd avoid this road if I were a politician of the Right - some of those crowds look like angry mobs, and that is unappealing to swing voters, pundits, people with decency, and various other groups. Combined with the Ayers stuff, it gives Senator McCain's campaign a whiff of desperation that is unbecoming and unlikely to succeed in this time of crisis.
10.12.2008 5:58pm
donaldk2 (mail):
Yeah, right. Wars make you popular. Look at Harry Truman. Look at Lyndon Johnson.

When a homicial maniac says he's going to get a bomb, you better damn well believe it UNLESS you can prove the opposite.
10.12.2008 6:03pm
genob:
LN...then you are imminently more measured and reasonable than Democratic party leadership (Howard Dean, chair of the DNC among the most outspoken) who have constantly repeated the mantra that Bush lied to enrich his friends at Halliburton. That is their "truth." (They had something else they hated him for before Iraq, but I can't really remember what that was. I guess because prince Gore was still mad that the throne wasn't a birthright after all.)

But this kind of garbage didn't start when it recently got directed at Obama. The level of deep hatred for the sitting President has been fanned and fomented by the very highest levels of the Democratic party...not just nut jobs yelling from the crowd.

It's bad for the country. Dissent is fundamental to our system. But calling a sitting President a murderer, a Hitler, is just bad for the country.
10.12.2008 6:17pm
Joe Bingham (mail):
Because the Bush-as-monkey-like swipes were based on tales of his below-average intelligence and his arguably somewhat simian features -- both swipes being unkind but specific to Bush the individual. The only thing about Obama that I can think that would be monkey-like is that he has racial ties to a group of people who have been ridiculed (and worse) as monkey-like as a group.

I call shenanigans. Obama's ears are freaking huge, and his nose is very flat. I wouldn't draw monkey caricatures of him for the same reason I wouldn't of Bush (it's unkind), but you can't argue his features aren't similarly monkeyish. For gosh sakes, go back and look at his picture.

I'm not saying this to be mean to him; I don't think he's a terrible-looking guy. He's plain in a very Lincoln-like way.
10.12.2008 6:19pm
LN (mail):
Howard Dean, chair of the DNC among the most outspoken

Can you point me to a link describing what you're talking about? I believe Dean was outspoken about Halliburton's no-bid contracts, but he used words like "selling the country down the river" and "overcharging taxpayers." Some Googling led me to this 2003 Dean interview with the blog Liberal Oasis:


LiberalOasis: What do you think were the motivations for the Bush Administration to go to war with Iraq?

Howard Dean: I can't speak to his motives, because I can't read his mind.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, though, and presume that he believes Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to our security.

I happen to disagree with that; I think we had Saddam pretty well contained. My problem with the war in Iraq isn't with motivation; it's with justification.

I don't believe the President was able to show that Iraq was an imminent threat to our security; his whole rationale for using force was based on the idea that they might be a danger to the United States at some point in the future.


I guess because prince Gore was still mad that the throne wasn't a birthright after all

This is somewhat ironic phrasing given that Bush's father was actually President. At any rate, the 2000 election came down to a Supreme Court ruling over a recount in Florida, one that was explicitly not supposed to be used as precedent for future cases. Whether or not you believe the outcome to be legitimate, it was incredibly close. Not sure when Gore ever acted as if the Presidency was a birthright. Also, Bush's Presidency has sucked big time.
10.12.2008 6:31pm
Brett Bellmore:

and his arguably somewhat simian features


Geeze, we're freaking PRIMATES! We've ALL got "somewhat simian features!

I haven't noticed that Bush was any more simian than your average example of homo sapien, unless you've already morphed him to look like Mad Magazine's "Alfred A. Newman". Which is, IIRC, how the whole Bush as a monkey thing got started.
10.12.2008 6:35pm
PC:
Geeze, we're freaking PRIMATES! We've ALL got "somewhat simian features!

Caucasians don't have a history of being called "porch monkeys."
10.12.2008 6:45pm
just me (mail):
I think Bush looks far more Alfred E. Newman like than chimp like.

I think Bush has about as many simian features as Obama, but you are right that it would be bad form to call him or refer to him as a chimp or to caricature him as such, mostly because of the racial conotations. It is just going somewhere that nobody really needs to go.

I am curious to see what direction political satire will take though when it comes to Obama when the election ends and if (although a likely if) he is the winner. Will we get whines every day when he is caricatured in political ads about racism, or will the artists tell him to go suck eggs?
10.12.2008 6:55pm
Bob from Ohio (mail):
All words in opposition to The One are racist.

You can't oppose Him on any basis. Using white terrorists is off limits, showing white women in ads is racist, using Wright is racist, using his middle name is racist.

Everything is racist.

That is the emerging theme. Of course, after the accusations against Bill Clinton, is anyone surprised?

It is going to be a long four years.
10.12.2008 8:19pm
Elliot123 (mail):
The PC police just uncovered another example of racism. This afternoon McCain said he was going to "Whip Obama's ---in the election."

(The dashes mean he didn't say anything. He just paused. It's not my editing of an actual word he said.)
10.12.2008 8:46pm
DangerMouse:
Everything is racist.

Meh. The word has lost all meaning then. Go ahead and call me a racist if it only means that I oppose THE ONE's policies, like his support of infanticide.

Honestly. The best way to react to a charge of racism these days isn't disgust and indignation, but boredom. It's such a pathetic, lazy way to smear someone. It doesn't really deserve a response.
10.12.2008 9:03pm
Vermando (mail) (www):
Professor - did you see Jeffrey Goldberg's post today analogizing between Senator Obama and Yitzhak Rabin? Given your knowledge of Israeli issues I would be curious to hear your thoughts.

A quote from his observations:

In the months before Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated, he was the target of numerous vitriolic demonstrations, during which he was labeled a liar, a traitor, and a coddler of terrorists. Bibi Netanyahu, his opponent at the time, did little, or nothing, to tamp down the anger of the crowds. We know how that story ended. Those demonstrations, and the anger hurled at Rabin, created the climate for what might be considered the worst day in Israeli history, and one from which the country has not recovered.
10.12.2008 9:04pm
NickM (mail) (www):
And whose rallies are the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by Bush showing up at? McCain's or Obama's?

If you wanted garbage that might lead people to consider assassination, accusing the President of plotting the public murder of thousands of Americans would seem to do the trick.

Nick
10.12.2008 9:26pm
Slocum (mail):
If you wanted garbage that might lead people to consider assassination, accusing the President of plotting the public murder of thousands of Americans would seem to do the trick.

Yes -- and then there's Naomi Klein, for example, who has loudly argued that we're on the road to fascism and dictatorship! Seems like that might be an incitement (to a supporter even nuttier than she is) to go get a gun and save the country from a Bush dictatorship, no?
10.12.2008 9:31pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
his arguably somewhat simian features


The relevant exhibit is here.
10.12.2008 9:33pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
genob:

calling a sitting President a murderer, a Hitler, is just bad for the country


When a sitting president Obama is being called various incendiary names (e.g., the same names he's being called now, like "terrorist"), presumably you'll be back here warning folks that it's "bad for the country." Right?
10.12.2008 9:33pm
winstontwo (mail):
I seldom read Mr. Bernstein's political posts nowadays since they pretty much regurgitate whatever was highlighted on Fox News the previous day, but this post does merit a response, if not for any reason than its sheer, jaw-dropping illogic:

So, of the hundreds of thousands of people who have attended McCain-Palin rallies, we have a grand total of four [update: Rich has one more equally tenuous link, so make that five] whose conduct is said to taint the campaigns. Heck, I can find four similarly unpleasant comments on a typical DailyKos thread.

The point that Bernstein fails to mention is that Sarah Palin (or some other poo-bah) had addressed these crowds inciting these comments. Palin recently remarked in several different speeches that Obama pal'ed around with terrorists.

While it is obvious that there is hateful and stupid speech to be found on Daily Kos (and, indeed, on the Volokh Conspiracy from time to time) the difference is that nobody at Kos and nobody at VC is one vote away from ascending to the Vice-Presidency.

So it is beyond inane to attempt to compare the mutterings of some Kos poster with what has been happening at Palin/McCain rallies. Even if the most vile speech has come from audience members, it really isn't that different than the the garbage that Palin utters.

This post pretty much demonstrates that Bernstein cannot think rationally about this subject.
10.12.2008 9:37pm
Elliot123 (mail):
Palin said Obama palled around with Ayers. He did. He started his first campaign at Ayers' house. He wrote a favorable review for Ayers' book. He served on boards with him. Obama directed funds to his organizations. What's the problem?
10.12.2008 9:54pm
David Warner:
Jeez, people. This is politics in a democracy, not pattycake.

If you don't like it, I'm sure a nice, noble king can be arranged...
10.12.2008 9:57pm
TJIT (mail):
Vermando, jukeboxgrad,

Frank rich and other obama supporters are blissfully ignorant on who has actually been threatening politicians with violence.

Of course this is yet another example just how nauseatingly and comprehensively the media is in the tank for obama

LEFTY ASSASSINATION FANTASIES:

LEFTY ASSASSINATION FANTASIES: Various people, oddly, deny that such existed. Try Death of a President by Gabriel Range, or Nicholson Baker's novel, Checkpoint, just to start.

Similar Obama assassination fantasies, should they appear, won't get this kid-glove treatment from Big Media, I suspect.

"It is not the first time a novelist has chosen fiction to express their point of view about American society or politics. Upton Sinclair did it. So did John Steinbeck. Nick Baker does it with more nerve and fewer pages."

UPDATE: Here's Salon, in 2003, on a play entitled I'm Going to Kill the President,

"one of the most amusing plays currently running in New York . . . a madcap farce about terrorism and apathy in John Ashcroft's America whose performance may or may not be a federal offense."

ANOTHER UPDATE: "Snipers Wanted."
10.12.2008 10:06pm
genob:
Jukeboxgrad:

Yep. I sure will be. There's no place for that either. And it will be bad for the country..

But most libs think it's ok to call Bush a lying murdering Hitler, because he is you know.
10.12.2008 10:24pm
Ricardo (mail):
You can't oppose Him on any basis. Using white terrorists is off limits, showing white women in ads is racist, using Wright is racist, using his middle name is racist.

Of course, no one is going to accuse you of being racist if you attack Obama as being a detached intellectual or an elitist (stupid, yes, but not racist). But with all these potential attacks off limits, you might just need to start coming up with substantive reasons for disliking Obama like having disagreements with his health care policy, his mandatory/voluntary service program or his protectionist rhetoric. And imagine the damage that will do to political discourse!
10.12.2008 10:27pm
genob:
And John McCain himself is already trying to calm the he frothing crowd, telling them that Obama is a decent man with whom he just has disagreement on issues.

On the flip side, you are welcome to point me towards a single statement by any prominent Democrat telling their masses that President Bush is decent, deserving of respect, was making a difficult decision in the face of perhaps less than perfect intelligence, but against the backdrop of presiding over the devastating attack on American soil and being responsible to ensure that it didn't happen again. (by the way....it hasn't. knock wood. I'm sure Bush deserves no credit at all for that.) It's not good politics for a democrat to show any respect for Bush. And none have.
10.12.2008 10:38pm
genob:
By the way...I'm still trying to figure out why Senators Biden and Clinton voted to go to war in Iraq. Were they, like Bush, lying murderers and co-conspirators. Or were they stupid enough to be duped by the studipest president of all time? Is there a third option?
10.12.2008 11:19pm
Assistant Village Idiot (mail) (www):
There is an assumption underlying the worry that Republican overexcitement is more likely to turn violent than Democratic overexcitemnt. If I could locate him, I would connect you to the out-of-state union thug who threatened me at work in November 2004. Environmental groups, some AA groups, and anti-globalists have also been violent. I grant that liberal academics seldom slug it out in the streets, but that is not the entire composition of progressivism.

And even those are worrisome, frankly. I have worked in the state psychiatric hospital in NH (think primaries) since 1978. In addition to the national assassination news, we get more than our share of unbalanced people threatening to kill prominent political figures. My good liberal coworkers chuckled at threats to Reagan with the standard joke "well, you can understand that" or "I've thought of that myself." They turned white-faced and spoke in serious, hushed tones when a Clinton-threatener came on board. Then it was all humorous again after Bush was elected. These are psychologists, social workers, physicians - overwhelmingly liberal folks with graduate degrees. Not violent, but excusing violence. Just last week a boomer special ed teacher told me it was shameful that America didn't take to the streets after the 2000 election. The others present - all progressives - made no demurring comments to tone her down.

So no, I don't share your assumption that it's only those dangerous conservatives who advocate violence. I think the balance scales are well the other way, actually.
10.12.2008 11:24pm
Assistant Village Idiot (mail) (www):
winstontwo - I believe that was the argument against MLK Jr's speeches as well. Care to sign on to that?
10.12.2008 11:26pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
genob:

most libs think it's ok to call Bush a lying murdering Hitler, because he is you know


There's no doubt about the lying part. For example:

- we found the weapons of mass destruction
- he wouldn't let them in
- a wiretap requires a court order

by the way....it hasn't. knock wood. I'm sure Bush deserves no credit at all for that


The WTC was first hit about a month after Clinton took office. We then went through the rest of Clinton's term (almost 8 years) without suffering another domestic attack (unless you want to claim that Timothy McVeigh is part of the vast Islamofascist conspiracy). But I'm sure Clinton "deserves no credit at all for that." Because it sure is easy to find Rs who give him that credit, right?

And he managed to do it without bankrupting us by spending money we didn't have on a war we didn't need.
10.13.2008 12:30am
BruceM (mail) (www):
So what, we should just let McCain win to save Obama's life?

If Obama is assassinated by a crazed McCain supporter, I think McCain and Palin should be jointly liable for wrongful death (along with the killer), and charged criminally with conspiracy to commit murder.

It's reasonably foreseeable that McCain and Palin's actions (particularly Palin's, with the encouragement and support of McCain) will result in a wackjob, racist, frightened white guy with a "Remember 9-11" bumper sticker on his truck taking an assassination attempt on Barack Obama's life "in the name of Christ." I'm actually moderately surprised that no such attempts have yet occurred, but the "who is the real Barack Obama - he hates america and associates with america-hating terrorist" angle of the McCain-Palin campaign only started about 2 weeks ago.

I don't want to see anyone harmed, just to be perfectly clear.
10.13.2008 1:47am
LN (mail):
genob, you haven't bothered to back up your charge that Howard Dean said Bush started the war to enrich Halliburton, even after I found an interview from 2003 where Dean explicitly does not question Bush's motives but rather his justifications (and of course Dean turned out to be 100% correct). You then go on to marvel that "most libs think it's ok to call Bush a lying murdering Hitler." Yes, why can't most libs take an objective and honorable approach to politics like you do?
10.13.2008 1:53am
Assistant Village Idiot (mail) (www):
So Bruce M, you want the opposition party to always be charged in an assassination attempt? That's the only conclusion I can draw from your statement. I know you meant to say "Republicans should be held liable for any attacks on Democrats" but it doesn't sound so good that way, does it?

There is nothing in the McCain rallies that does not have its equivalent on the other side. You can have it either way, but not both ways.
10.13.2008 2:01am
LM (mail):
NickM:

And whose rallies are the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by Bush showing up at? McCain's or Obama's?

Good question. Which one picked up more of the Ron Paul vote?
10.13.2008 3:41am
PC:
The PC police just uncovered another example of racism.

I don't have police, but I did point out that a white guy wearing a shirt that says "NIGGER please it's a WHITE house." Bonus points for the McCain/Palin sticker.

For some reason I think Prof. Bernstein would be much more concerned if that epithet was aimed at Jewish people.
10.13.2008 11:29am
Kazinski:
Bruce M,
I'd like you to cite just one direct quote from McCain or Palin that you think goes over the line to incitement.

Just one.
10.13.2008 3:44pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
pc:

For some reason I think Prof. Bernstein would be much more concerned if that epithet was aimed at Jewish people.


I agree with your general point, but he also seems to be oddly unconcerned about Palin's witchhunter who talked about "the Israelites" and the "wealth of the wicked." Shortly before he gave her an anti-witch blessing.
10.13.2008 4:08pm
Gaius Obvious (mail):
his [Bush's] arguably somewhat simian features


The relevant exhibit is here [link to Bush/chimp photos].


And the same juxtaposition of similarly expressive Obama/chimp photos can be made as well. The similarity is in the eyes of the viewer.
10.13.2008 4:35pm
LM (mail):
genob:

Yep. I sure will be. There's no place for that either. And it will be bad for the country..

But most libs think it's ok to call Bush a lying murdering Hitler, because he is you know.

And it's good for the country to smear "most libs" with the behavior of a tiny fraction of liberals who actually engage in it? Because I personally know more "libs" than I could come close to estimating, and the number I've heard call Bush anything like "a lying, murdering Hitler" is one. I've seen it often enough in anonymous blog comments, but if you think the commenters here, much less at any of the more extreme sites that partisans draw from to caricature their opponents bare a meaningful resemblance to "most liberals" or "most conservatives" or "most anythings" you should really get out more.
10.13.2008 8:53pm