Freedom of Speech = Freedom from Responsibility?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

So, I know, I know. It's Glenn Beck. We expect the whacko from him. And, of course, he's got every right to speak his mind; I certainly don't think he should be censored.

But at what point does he become responsible for the actions of people who follow his advice?



Buy farmland. Move to places where everyone is like you. Buy guns. Buy ammunition. And then... what? It's not like enclaving really works long term. Eventually, one of two things will happen.

1) After Obama's term ends without the world doing the same, maybe some of these people will pull their heads out and say "why did we listen to that guy?"
2) Someone provokes an incident.

The message sent by the American people this election was quite clear. The President won a resounding electoral victory and beat his opponent by more votes than Bush beat Kerry. Every competitive senate race save for one was taken by the democrats, and these aren't blue-dogs we're talking about; these are real progressive liberals like Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin. And while the GOP retained the House, they did lose seats, and more people voted for Democratic Congresspeople than Republicans.

It was a fundamental rejection of GOP ideology. It was a rejection of the rape brigade, a rejection of the Ryan budget plan, a rejection of the concepts of the Makers and Takers, a rejection of the concept of the 47%, a rejection of conservative definitions of marriage, women, LGBTQ, race, immigration and drug law.

But the GOP doesn't seem to want to believe it. The constant refrain of "Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed" continues to sing in their ears, drowning out anything resembling the truth, which is that they lost and they lost big, and then they turn to people like Glenn Beck, and he tells them to buy farms, move to where everyone is like you, and get more guns.

Or this guy, who advocates cutting EVERY democrat in your life out of that life, to the point where he doesn't know if he'd rescue a democrat who was drowning, and thinks that he can get better brain surgery in Mexico than from a US brain surgeon who happened to vote differently than he did.

Or these people who think that losing an election is a national emergency so they, who so often rail about how burning the flag is treasonous, fly their flags upside down to indicate distress.



At their McDonalds.

And why do they do this?

Because they've been lied to, by the guy at the top of this post. By Rush. By Karl Rove. By http://www.unskewedpolls.com By every pundit who insisted that Nate Silver was cheating. Hell, GOP donors are angry because they were assured, ASSURED, I TELL YOU, that Romney was going to win based on bad data using bad algorithms, and a campaign that wasn't going to be dictated to by facts.

So what responsibility to these people have to tell the truth, I wonder? Of course, I think they should tell the truth. There are reasonable arguments to be made on policy. There are reasonable disagreements to have. I just wish we could see more of that, and less insistence that Obama is a kenyan radical christian muslim nazi communist.

Comments

[dwer.livejournal.com]

How's Sarah Palin doing these days?

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Meh, we'll see how you guys fare on the next election. Then your theory will have a chance to be tested again. Perhaps a far-right Le Pen could win the nomination and then we'll see.

Now if you may excuse me, I have a music festival to attend ;)

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Oh, there is a well shaped identity on the right. It's just much more extremist, irrational and counterproductive than any moderate GOP candidate would like to be. So Jeff is right in his own way, here. A wacko right-wing crazy-ass candidate is probably what many GOP constituents want. Whether that'd be a winning formula on elections, is another question. And exactly how useful would that be for the country after the election, is yet another question that I'm rarely seeing being discussed at all. Because people might not like the answers.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

If you mean Obama moved rightward, maybe.

The thing is, your desire to view things that way is not to the lefts disadvantage.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

And yet, time and time again, we see people being incited to violence via propaganda and rhetoric.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

And?

Murderous cunt-stains will be murderous cunt-stains.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

US Military sure shut down the Iraqi press tho. Funny that.

Also, you are an intelligent human with a vocabulary. Try elevating your insults above female genitalia comparisons. After all, what did the genitalia ever do to deserve such derision? (Yes, I think its a low blow to cunt stains to compare them to....)

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Matt Drudge is butt hurt too.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

US Military sure shut down the Iraqi press tho. Funny that.

And that was a mistake in my opinion. But then again how I would have handled the whole middle eastern situation were I dictator would be even less popular with the bleeding heart types than the one we eventually enacted.

Also, you are an intelligent human with a vocabulary. Try elevating your insults above female genitalia comparisons. After all, what did the genitalia ever do to deserve such derision? (Yes, I think its a low blow to cunt stains to compare them to....)

Sorry that it offends you, but that is how I see them.

Nasty little stains and blemishes left on the underwear of the world by that area between their mother's legs.

That said, I'll try to keep it a bit more "safe for work" going forward.

If it is the individual's fault, then the party of individualism failed them.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

It isn't the messaging, it's the candidate.

Romney? Okay... whatever.

so

Was Todd "Divine Rape" Akin not 'conservative' enough for the base? He was merely following the GOP script.

What about Karl Rove and his PAC's support of super-conservative candidates that had their walking papers handed out by the 47™? Were they not 'conservative enough' (for you)?

"According to the Sunlight Foundation, American Crossroads, Rove's super PAC, saw just a 1 percent return on its investments." So much for 'free markets' *ouch*

What about the other GOP candidates that lost in Congress? Is it their fault too? Character flaws all; not conservative enough(for Jeff) therefore they failed the GOP and Conservative White America™.

Ever hear of the GOP Pledge? It is a document that candidates must sign in order to receive support from the RNC. It has a platform that the candidate MUST run on. IT has the most strict conservative issues well planked, Jeff.

You clutch your pearls while you whistle past the GOP graveyard yet again. (What's that! ...lib'rels!)

The conservative message is based on the myth of a white people's manifest destiny. Come over to the 'dark' side, the fried chicken is Delicious!

Re: If it is the individual's fault, then the party of individualism failed them.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Was Todd "Divine Rape" Akin not 'conservative' enough for the base? He was merely following the GOP script.

The "GOP script" says nothing about rape being handled by biology if it's "legitimate."

The conservative message is based on the myth of a white people's manifest destiny. Come over to the 'dark' side, the fried chicken is Delicious!

This is...strange.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If you mean Obama moved rightward, maybe.

I definitely do not.

The thing is, your desire to view things that way is not to the lefts disadvantage.

It is if the left thinks I'm crazy. Then they can keep staking ground far away from the center and, when the Republicans get it together, they'll be puzzled as to what happened.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

How's Rocky Anderson holding up?

Re: If it is the individual's fault, then the party of individualism failed them.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

This is...strange.


hmmm...


MUST BE FRIDAY!

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Why did Romney struggle to meet McCain's total, then? He won independents, so why did the base not show up again?

62 million voted for George Bush. Nearly 60 million for McCain. Romney 58 million. If you're correct about the independents thing, then 2004 and 2008 weren't very different in GOP turnout. It was only this time the base didn't show up, but this was moreso the case for Obama.

It's possible that, as you said, the base didn't show up because Romney was not conservative enough. I personally think they didn't show up because he was a bad candidate regardless. Too much about him was toxic to voters, even if he was the not-Obama candidate.

The House stayed Republican. After winning 60+ seats in 2010, they only lost 11 of them. That's far from a repudiation.

Well, you're talking about seats that aren't the same seats from 2010, so we won't know what popular opinion is about that until 2016.

Which far right principles were rejected, then? They certainly weren't repudiated at the local district level, or on the Senate level given that one moderate and two people caught in the "rape statement" game got ousted, and the presidential candidate was a moderate, so where's this rejection you speak of? What's the evidence?

The idea that we can cut our way out of a recession. That was the core belief of Romney and friends, a hallmark of fiscal conservatism.

A good candidate needs to worry less about that, and bad candidates need to do more for it. Romney simply did not get his people out, and here's a firsthand account of how bad this GOTV plan truly was.

I'm not surprised the "fuck you, got mine" crowd treats their volunteers and wage-level employees like shit.

And the focus on the GOTV misses the broader point anyway - a more conservative candidate bridges that gap and then some. A more conservative candidate understands the need to bring the base out. Romney was a failure in that regard.

It's also possible that a more conservative candidate would bring out more of Obama's base as well. The knife cuts both ways.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Rocky Anderson was not the VP nominee of a major party. The point is, when it comes to predictions, you don't have much to run on.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

62 million voted for George Bush. Nearly 60 million for McCain. Romney 58 million. If you're correct about the independents thing, then 2004 and 2008 weren't very different in GOP turnout. It was only this time the base didn't show up, but this was moreso the case for Obama.

2004 and 2008 shows a shift of 2 million votes. That's significant. 2004 and 2012 show 4 million - that's enough to swing the election.

Yeah, the base didn't show up. Exactly my point.

It's possible that, as you said, the base didn't show up because Romney was not conservative enough. I personally think they didn't show up because he was a bad candidate regardless. Too much about him was toxic to voters, even if he was the not-Obama candidate.

Except the exits don't really bear that out, either. Nor did the pre-election polling - the two were likable, and Romney won out on many of the issues. It turns out that his palatability was deflected on the base level.

Well, you're talking about seats that aren't the same seats from 2010, so we won't know what popular opinion is about that until 2016.

The House seats are up every 2 years.

The idea that we can cut our way out of a recession. That was the core belief of Romney and friends, a hallmark of fiscal conservatism.

And where, exactly, was that repudiated? Obama ran on a spending cut in 2008, after all.

I'm not surprised the "fuck you, got mine" crowd treats their volunteers and wage-level employees like shit.

I didn't realize that we were talking about Democrats.

It's also possible that a more conservative candidate would bring out more of Obama's base as well. The knife cuts both ways.

It's possible, sure. But it appears that Obama's candidacy severely depressed his initial support based from 2008. Maybe he'd claw some of that back with a better conservative candidate, but the independents would have swung harder toward the Republican as well as a result.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

but the independents would have swung harder toward the Republican as well as a result.

Requires facts utterly not in evidence.

What Nate Silver does: you're not doing it again.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

It didn't offend me, but it made me think you have underlying respect issues with women. I doubt that is what you wanted to communicate.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the base didn't show up. Exactly my point.


60 of 62 is over 96%, jeff.

Except the exits don't really bear that out, either. Nor did the pre-election polling - the two were likable, and Romney won out on many of the issues. It turns out that his palatability was deflected on the base level.

Which issues did Romney win out on? Certainly not the fundamentals. Certainly not on the economy, which most voters cited as their most important issue.

The House seats are up every 2 years.

Oh, the House. 11 of 60 is pretty significant, in my opinion. At the very least, it certainly doesn't help your notion of this 'right-ward shift', especially since so many TP were voted out.

And where, exactly, was that repudiated? Obama ran on a spending cut in 2008, after all.

He also ran on a stimulus plan, and a healthcare plan. I didn't say Obama would never cut anything, he just wasn't the 'no new taxes' candidate.

I didn't realize that we were talking about Democrats.

lol

It's possible, sure. But it appears that Obama's candidacy severely depressed his initial support based from 2008. Maybe he'd claw some of that back with a better conservative candidate, but the independents would have swung harder toward the Republican as well as a result.

Considering that Americans poll favorably on progressive issues, I'm not sure where you're getting that notion. A more conservative candidate is more likely to alienate independents.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Alirighty then.

Currently trying to think of a snappy 2-3 word term that would imply that the world would have been a better place had their daddies worn a condom on the night in question.

Alternatly just call them a murderous waste of perfectly good organic compounds.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

murderous waste of perfectly good organic compounds.

Ouch! That's a good sci-fi tone!

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

When someone can remove the active race hatred from the last two pres races and qualify that the current president is about as hard-right as one can be and still be nominally called "Democrat," I'll believe this "shift to the right" nonsense.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I was wondering when someone would play that card.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

60 of 62 is over 96%, jeff.

And?

Which issues did Romney win out on? Certainly not the fundamentals. Certainly not on the economy, which most voters cited as their most important issue.



Oh, the House. 11 of 60 is pretty significant, in my opinion. At the very least, it certainly doesn't help your notion of this 'right-ward shift', especially since so many TP were voted out.

Not really significant. Mostly can be explained with the Obama coattails than anything else. Unless people actually think New Hampshire's a blue state, I guess....

He also ran on a stimulus plan, and a healthcare plan. I didn't say Obama would never cut anything, he just wasn't the 'no new taxes' candidate.

Okay, but Obama also ran on a tax cut.

Considering that Americans poll favorably on progressive issues, I'm not sure where you're getting that notion. A more conservative candidate is more likely to alienate independents.

And yet they continually don't when given the opportunity to vote for them. Why is that?