Extremely ironic
I've heard many conservatives demand that Muslims be more vigorous in denouncing and fighting extremists since 9/11. I've sometimes joined them in that. One guy wrote to lament how people like me were deaf to all the denouncing that had been going on.
Now that the government is worrying about right-wing extremism on our own shores, the Economist notes that conservatives are downplaying and rationalizing their own extremists.
Conservative pundits are, understandably, ticked off. "The piece of crap report issued on April 7 is a sweeping indictment of conservatives," writes Michelle Malkin. Nobody likes being insulted by a government agency, least of all during tax week, but shouldn't conservatives be reacting to this by... distancing themselves from the extremists?
Historically, when Democrats have been able to paint Republicans as far-right radicals, the Democrats have won. Look at Bill Clinton's placing the blame for the Oklahoma City bombings on right-wing extremism, or look at Democrats in the 1960s blaming John Birchers for the climate that led to the Kennedy assassination. Republicans really can't afford to be blamed for right-wing extremism. It's foolish for the government to pin that on them, but it would be doubly foolish if they did it to themselves.
Too true. I'm sure some conservatives on this board will split hairs over the difference between conservative Muslim extremism and conservative American extremism. But I'd just love to hear one of them say, "Yeah, we should be consistent on this stuff."
Violent extremism, which is the type of extremism referenced in the Economist, should not be tolerated by anyone regardless of its origins. Democrats, too, have been burned when they failed to distance themselves from the radicals in their own ranks. Not every anti-war protest in the 1960s, for instance, was peaceful. Not by a long shot. And when the Democratic establishment failed to denounce their own radicals, they were consequently blamed for everything that was deemed wrong with 1960s America. How else do you explain Nixon's victory in 1968, only six years after Time (or was it Newsweek?) published his political obituary?
On another note, I don't get the following line: "Democrats in the 1960s blaming John Birchers for the climate that led to the Kennedy assassination." JFK was whacked by a self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist who had previously tried to assassinate General Edwin Walker, recently discharged from his NATO command for distributing John Birch materials to his troops. Oswald was an extreme leftist who targeted right-wingers (including JFK, an alleged hardliner toward Cuba). Maybe someone has a different take. Or maybe I'm missing something.
I don't think you're missing something.
These were my thoughts precisely. Democrats don't distance themselves from their radical past. They embrace it! (Ayers)
In any event, the outrage over the "reports of right wing radicalism" is justified seeing as how conservatives very accurately perceive that simply having conservative opinions is seen in many media circles as being "radical" with all the "potential for violence" that evokes in the minds of the knee-jerk liberal.
We shouldn't have to distance ourselves from Klan types. Those pairings are made only in the those same minds, mentioned above.
And by the way, there are people in Congress with old ties to the Klan. Guess which side they vote on.
I got some whiff of this Department of Homeland Security report last night - a not at all unreasonable interpretation suggests that anyone opposed to Obama is a right-wing radical. That would make about fifty percent of us, give or take, right-wing radicals.
In any event, one man's radical is another man's moderate. I might argue that Obama is a left-wing radical; however, Rob and ASU graduate David Long would have issues with that view. Radicalism can be a fairly nebulous concept until it escalates to violence, which is why I mentioned above that *violent* extremism, in whatever form it emanates from, should not be tolerated by anyone.
>>That would make about fifty percent of us, give or take, right-wing radicals.
John Galt, you obviously haven't seen the polls. You're much more of a minority than that.
But as one wag pointed out, Michelle Malkin suggested that Muslims be interned based on how 10,000 out of 1 billion of them had extremist affiliations. Based on that, shouldn't Obama be rounding up a few people right about now....? I'm not serious, of course, but I hope you can see how these games get played on all sides.
Rob, approximately 47% of the popular vote in last year's presidential election went to McCain or Barr. This is where I'm getting the "about fifty percent of us, give or take." Approval numbers aren't that significant so early in a president's first term. Most every president has high approval numbers within the first 100 days - JFK mucked up the Bay of Pigs and barely anyone noticed.
President Obama Job Approval
RCP Average: +30.3% Details
Approve 60.9%
Disapprove 30.6%
Huh....? Now you say that early poll numbers aren't important in a president's term, even though you placed on this blog so much "stock" in how the Dow Jones reacted to Obama in the first few weeks of his term, and when you've mentioned polls yourself in an attempt to show his support was declining in response to his economic proposals...? Okay, I'll concede. But what exactly is our standard here....?
Rob, I was only trying to justify where I got the fifty percent from - that's it. I don't know of any president - maybe you do - that had an approval rating within his first 100 days less than his percentage of the popular vote. Actually, if you look at the margins between approval ratings and percentage of the popular vote received, Obama fares worse than both Bush and Clinton.
Fair enough. In the meantime, here's a report from a tea party: "I think it's only a matter of time before these people quit carrying signs and start doing something else," said Ed McQueen, an Ohio resident who attended the Chicago rally. "What that is I don't know. Quit paying taxes? Are they going to start carrying sticks and clubs? I don't know."
Hmm. Totally harmless, I'm sure.
Oh geez Rob. Taken out of context it is very difficult to know what exactly this means, but just from what you quoted, the man was speculating on what "people might do." He didn't say he was going to, did he? If people in Ohio want to board up their windows for fear of Ed McQueen, more power to them. But it will only be the lily-livered weenie liberals.
Oh, I'm sorry. I should have said:
I hereby distance myself from Ed McQueen and his irresponsible violent rabble-rousing.
There. Everybody feel better now?