Archive for 2011

PETER WEHNER: A CIVILITY TEST FOR LIBERALS:

A week after President Obama’s stirring remarks at the Tucson memorial service comes an important Civility Test for liberals.

ABC’s Jonathan Karl reports that Democratic Representative Steve Cohen went to the well of the House and compared what Republicans are saying on health care to the work of the infamous Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.

“They say it’s a government takeover of health care, a big lie just like Goebbels,” Cohen said. “You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually, people believe it. Like ‘blood libel.’ That’s the same kind of thing. The Germans said enough about the Jews and the people believed it and you had the Holocaust. You tell a lie over and over again. We heard on this floor, government takeover of health care.”

In our post-Tucson world, I’m eager to see people like E.J. Dionne Jr., Dana Milbank, and Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post; George Packer of the New Yorker; James Fallows of the Atlantic; Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, and the editorial page of the New York Times; Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, and Ed Schultz of MSNBC, and scores of other commentators and reporters all across America both publicize and condemn Representative Cohen’s slander.

Each of them will have plenty of opportunities to do so. I hope they take advantage of it. I hope, too, that reporters ask White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs what his reaction is. And I trust President Obama, who spoke so eloquently last week about the importance of civility in our national life, has something to say about this ugly episode as well. If the president were to repudiate Mr. Cohen quickly and publicly, it would be good for him, good for politics, and good for the nation.

But if the president and his liberal allies remain silent or criticize Cohen in the gentlest way possible, it’s only reasonable to conclude that their expressions of concern about incivility in public discourse are partisan rather than genuine, that what they care about isn’t public discourse but gamesmanship, not restoring civility but gaining power.

I know which way I’m betting.

UPDATE: Not just uncivil, but wrong. “What is significant, though, is not that Cohen’s attack was uncivil, but rather that it was wrong. He says that Republicans are lying when ‘[t]hey say it’s a government takeover of health care, a big lie, just like Goebbels. You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie and eventually people believe it.’ But Obamacare is intended to lead to a government takeover of health care. How do we know this? Because Barack Obama says so. He wants a single payer system, a euphemism for socialized medicine, and expects his plan to drive private insurance companies out of business over a period of 15 to 20 years, thereby clearing the field for the federal government. That is what he says, in public.”

JAMES TARANTO: Palinoia, The Destroyer: What’s behind the left’s deranged hatred.

Professional jealousy and intellectual snobbery, however, only scratch the surface of the left’s bizarre attitude toward Palin. They explain the intensity of the disdain, but not the outright hatred–not why some people whose grasp of reality is sufficient to function in society made the insane inference that she was to blame for a madman’s attempt to murder Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

This unhinged hatred of Palin comes mostly from women. . . . What about male Palin-hatred? It seems to us that it is of decidedly secondary importance. Liberal men put down Palin as a cheap way to score points with the women in their lives, or they use her as an outlet for more-general misogynistic impulses that would otherwise be socially unacceptable to express.

Women are always meanest to other women.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO Lysander Spooner! More on this occasion here.

HOUSE VOTES TO REPEAL OBAMACARE: “The House voted on Wednesday to repeal the sweeping healthcare law enacted last year, as Republicans made good on a central campaign pledge and laid down the first major policy marker of their new majority. The party-line vote was 245-189, as three Democrats joined all 242 Republicans in supporting repeal.” Party-line vote? I think you mean bipartisan vote.

PROFESSOR JACOBSON OFFERS A PROGRESS REPORT on the media’s “Operation Demoralize.” “There is an insatiable mainstream media hunger to demonize and marginalize potential Republican nominees. Feeding that beast in the wake of the Tucson shooting is not the way to win in 2012.” Just remember that at this point in the prior election cycle, it looked like we were set for a Hillary Clinton / Rudy Giuliani slugfest.

MORE ON THAT CALIFORNIA SUPERSTORM SCENARIO, including this: “The 1861 and 1862 storms show what is possible. The 19th century featured much more drastic disasters than the 20th. In my previous post about the 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquakes (Mississppi river changed course), the 1815 Mount Tambora VEI 7 volcanic eruption, the 1859 solar Carrington event and other awesome displays of nature’s power I made the argument that if the 21st century features disasters more like the 19th century then we are in some some tough times. But I missed out on the California storms of the early 1860s. With nearly 40 million people now such a storm would do far greater damage. Picture a 300 mile long lake in the Central Valley and hurricane-force winds.”

Given all the human-made disasters of the 20th Century, I suppose we should be glad that it was a period of comparative calm in other ways, but I think it did produce a false impression of what constitutes “normal.”

Meanwhile, you may want to check out Bill Quick’s disaster-preparedness forum. And here’s a disaster-preparedness list.

IN TEXAS, now it’s Michael Williams talking about running for the Senate seat being vacated by Kay Bailey Hutchison.

FOLLOWING UP ON TODAY’S HATE RHETORIC: The Hill: Democratic lawmaker compares GOP health law claims to Nazi ‘lies’. “Cohen’s remarks, first caught by ABC News, come amid heightened sensitivity to political rhetoric following the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).” Apparently, not that heightened. This whole “new civility” thing seems to be kind of a bust. . . .

INCIVILITY AT THE WASHINGTON POST: Reader Joe Jackson notes Chris Cilizza’s “dangerously inflammable rhetoric:”

* Rep. Ben Chandler (D-Ky.): Chandler also voted against the bill originally, surviving by the narrowest of margins in 2010. And he figures to be targeted again in 2012. Republicans have already jumped on his vote for Nancy Pelosi for speaker, and a vote against repeal could throw fuel on the fire.

“Targeted?” “Fuel on the fire?” I thought our pundits were going to eschew such language, which might be interpreted by crazy people somewhere as a call for violence. For shame.