Politico’s Mike Allen claims that author of DHS report on right-wing extremism couldn’t be from ‘real America.’
Politico’s Mike Allen claims that author of DHS report on right-wing extremism couldn’t be from ‘real America.’
On Tuesday, the Washington Times revealed a recent Department of Homeland Security assessment that warned about increased activity by “rightwing extremists.” Conservatives have responded with hyperventilation, claiming that the report meant the government was targeting them. On Hugh Hewitt’s radio show Tuesday night, Politico’s Mike Allen added fuel to the outrage fire, claiming that the report couldn’t have been written by someone from “the real America”:
ALLEN: I think it’s a big story — I don’t know, I think some bureaucrat who wrote this report like misstated in a way that doesn’t comport with your or my observations about the real America. I think it was somebody, who written inside the Beltway, who maybe has fantasies about what happens outside in the real America. But I think it was obviously overstated that I can only get so like excited about that.
Listen here:
Allen’s “real America” rhetoric is ridiculous. In fact, it is reminiscent of far right talker Michael Savage’s claim yesterday that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano should be fired over the report and replaced with a “real American.” It’s doubtful that Allen is comfortable sounding so similar to Savage.
Transcript:
HEWITT: Let’s turn to the other major story, it has been on talk radio, it will be on the cable channels tonight and it will probably go on for some time, the Washington Times story, Mike Allen, about the extremism assessment. How big of a story is this?ALLEN: I think it’s a big story — I don’t know, I think some bureaucrat who wrote this report like misstated in a way that doesn’t comport with your or my observations about the real America. I think it was somebody, who written inside the Beltway, who maybe has fantasies about what happens outside in the real America. But I think it was obviously overstated that I can only get so like excited about that.
HEWITT: What I really want to know is who wrote it. This to me is to me the most interesting. If it was some career serving, 25 year veteran of some obscure analytical branch, that would be one thing. But if its a new Obama appointee, Mike Allen. That really makes me grin because it’s so…
ALLEN: Well, I think that you’re right. I think it’s a good reporting target that we should find out and I think it’s something that they should cough up and if nothing else to present information to help you determine like whether this is worth getting too stoked about.
HEWITT: Any buzz on that yet, has that surfaced yet?
ALLEN: Oh no, of course. The Washington Times story was very widely circulated today and I think that they were right to pick upon this as an interesting story that was going to drive conversation. What actually means is, I think, is unknown and probably pretty doubtful.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The ” Real America” you mean like Texas..The State that wants to secede!!!
April 16th, 2009 at 9:54 amSomeone should tell Mike Allen that in reality, right wingers are historically violent. Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, James Kopp, Paul Hill, etc are all right wing murderers. How many left wing “radicals” have committed murder? Ask him to name one.
April 16th, 2009 at 9:56 amThis whole “real America” thing makes me sick. By their logic, “real America” wasn’t even attacked on 9/11, just NYC and DC. So why do we even bother to combat terrorism until they actually threaten “real America”?
PEACE
April 16th, 2009 at 9:56 amFcuk these jacka$$es,
Anyone who goes around screaming about “real Americans” is the last person to know one if they see one.
April 16th, 2009 at 9:57 amI continue to be amazed at the depth of support violent, white-supremacist terrorists get from mainstream conservatives. I’m as far-left as the next guy but I don’t think it’s ok to blow up research clinics that experiment with animals or to throw “blood” on ladies in fur coats. But apparently, if you’re a mainstream conservative nowadays, you’re in full support of people plotting to kill abortion doctors, carry out vigilante justice against immigrants or people they think are immigrants, and lead an armed insurrection on the capitol. This is EXTREMELY troubling to me. We’re only 3 months in. What happens if Democrats gain more seats in 2010?
April 16th, 2009 at 9:59 amMy understanding of this report is that it was started by the last President. Also that it had no mention of Repugs or conseratives. Just more Bushco for ya.
April 16th, 2009 at 9:59 amMike Allen is the one who suffers from limited perspective.
Has he been paying attention to the national news at all?
BTW, this report was begun under the Bush administration, and the first part of it noted “left wing extremists” which has gone largely unnoticed — this part, noting “right wing extremists” has all the media in a tizzy because it hits their supporters personally.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:00 amTell me again, Mike, about real America — when Gov. Perry is talking about secession. Is that “real?”
April 16th, 2009 at 10:00 amthese right-wing folks waxing hysterical over this is nothing but a smoke-screen… right-wingers have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL POSITIVE TO OFFER THE COUNTRY in terms of ideas or policies, so an excuse to wax hysterical over a non-issue is just what they need.. they are going ballistic here just for show.. This report apparently was ordered by the Bush Administration; how convenient that this is never mentioned anywhere… Let’s see how hysterical these jerks will be waxing if ever another Timothy McVeigh (a war veteran, btw) strikes this country again.
So a report can’t even MENTION that right-wing extremists and militias are targeting war veterans? I mean come on, this is really NEWS to anyone???
April 16th, 2009 at 10:01 am“Real America”, isn’t that Sarah Pallin’s home in Alaska?
April 16th, 2009 at 10:01 amYoo know, where they want to seceed?
a recent Department of Homeland Security assessment that warned about increased activity by “rightwing extremists.” Conservatives have responded with hyperventilation, claiming that the report meant the government was targeting them.
Yo! If the foo shits, wear it.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:02 amI think it was somebody, who written inside the Beltway, who maybe has fantasies about what happens outside in the real America.
There should be no doubt that the description above best fits the right wing of the republican party. They are the ones who truly live in Fantasyland. As such, they have no credibility and deserve no support.
Should we be keeping our eye on these people? Damn right!
April 16th, 2009 at 10:03 amand the author of the “leftist threat” report?
April 16th, 2009 at 10:04 amThese Publican blowhards are just a bunch of sissy Marys.
There is a clear and present danger IF anyone decides to take up arms to resolve political issues in a democratic republic, left, right or sideways.
Now, what were they whining about?
April 16th, 2009 at 10:05 amHmmm…with that in mind, I’d rather be from the ‘unreal’ America than the ‘real’ America that Allen and Savage want.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:09 amauthor of DHS report on right-wing extremism couldn’t be from ‘real America
Why?
Because an honest effort to protect US citizens on the home turf isn’t truly in the interest of Conservatives.
Yea, we know already.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:10 amAnd, they’re armed.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:13 amThere’s that “No True Scotsman” again…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
April 16th, 2009 at 10:14 amThis is a common delusion among conservatives. They think they’re real.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:15 amisn’t it interesting to note the report was aimed at neo nazi and seperatist groups and how clowns like malkin and savage are so quick to conflate themselves with and identify themselves as members of such lunatic fringe groups
April 16th, 2009 at 10:15 amFortunately, most right wingers are just a bunch of quivering cowards, which is why it was so easy for the GOP to terrorize them into supporting thier policies in the first place.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:15 amI think michael savage should be fired and replaced with a real human being.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:18 amkali90 Says:
….”Let’s see how hysterical these jerks will be waxing if ever another Timothy McVeigh (a war veteran, btw) strikes this country again.”….
April 16th, 2009 at 10:18 am————————————————————
…and if that happens the conservatives will blame obama?
“I think it was somebody, who written inside the Beltway, who maybe has fantasies about what happens outside in the real America.”
__________________________________________________________
Mike Allen seems to be confusing a researched report from a government agency with an opinion piece written on somebody’s blog.
What makes him think a report like this is done by a single person? And does he really think this was done with no research whatsoever; that a single person just sat at his/her desk and made everything up?
And what, exactly, is “real America”, anyway?
April 16th, 2009 at 10:22 amI heard that there was a similar report about left wing extremists that preceded the one on right wing extremists.
Homeland Security needs to protect the country for violent actions of extremists, but labeling groups of people (left or right wing extremists) creates at least a couple of problems.
It gives government more latitude to tamp what may be legitimate discourse that’s ideologically problematic in the name of security.
Additionally, when the criteria for what is an extremist is revealed, many people that don’t have extremist proclivities, many identify themselves with the extremists groups under consideration. If the categories targeted for scrutiny are too general (e.g. tea party attendees, nra supporters) the jeopardy is that some moderates will begin to identify themselves with the extremists and become more anti-government.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:23 amobviously, from violent actions…
my bad.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:24 amTimothy McVeigh
April 16th, 2009 at 10:24 am“The real America”??? The assessment was asked for by the Bush Administration. It’s accurate as any I’ve seen considering the conservative hate-mongering going on. It doesn’t label anyone, just states the obvious. What’s this idiot’s problem (other than being a closet bigot)?
April 16th, 2009 at 10:25 amAgreed backy, but I don’t recall too many Obama election rallies where buffoons in the crowd were calling McCain a socialist, or even a rich white guy, and calling for personal violence against him.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:27 amIdea:
Let’s rename the island of Guam “Real America” and tell all these fcukwits crying about the loss of said to hurry and move there already…
April 16th, 2009 at 10:27 amWhat really irks me is, these kind of risk assessments are done by the government all the time. If Bush had listened to the risk assessments that Clinton had left him about terrorists attacking us here, 9/11 might have been a different story. Folks should start to worry if the government doesn’t do these kind of risk assessments.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:27 amright wingers wearing chinese made flag pins waving chinese made flags and whining about ‘the REAL america’
right wingers are irony impaired aren’t they?
April 16th, 2009 at 10:27 amIt’s doubtful that Allen is comfortable sounding so similar to Savage.
I don’t know about this; all evidence available suggests the reverse. Allen sounds exceptionally comfortable lining up so close to Savage. They all seem to, the whole right-wing punditocracy.
That should tell us something, no?
April 16th, 2009 at 10:28 amRUCeriousDragonfly
“buffoons in the crowd “?
they had a baffoon on the stage caliming he “palled around with terrorists” while she was banging a member of AIP
April 16th, 2009 at 10:28 amkatydid Says:
——————————————————————————–
and the author of the “leftist threat” report?
That would be the Bush Aministration also.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Leftwing_Extremist_Threat.pdf#page=4
April 16th, 2009 at 10:30 amSince the Right now associates itself with extremists, maybe the trolls will be able to get those testicles to descend.
Pathetic.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:31 amIf the categories targeted for scrutiny are too general
Typical GOPnutt-huggery.
The definition is NOT too general:
Official United States Government Definition of Terrorism
“[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.”
You’re still a pathetic, apologists idiot b-cup.
Soft pedal your bullshit elsewhere, mmmkay?
April 16th, 2009 at 10:31 amb-cup, that is a lot of crap.
when the criteria for what is an extremist is revealed, many people that don’t have extremist proclivities, many identify themselves with the extremists groups under consideration. If the categories targeted for scrutiny are too general (e.g. tea party attendees, nra supporters) the jeopardy is that some moderates will begin to identify themselves with the extremists and become more anti-government.
Are these people about whom you are concerned incapable of critical thinking? Incapable of self-awareness?
Oh, wait — we’re talking about the Right here, aren’t we?
I see your point.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:31 amOT, but worth celebrating: John Madden is going to retire!
great coach, but damn he irritated the hell out of me explaining every play like he was talking to children that had never seen the game
“see, the Falcons are down by 6, so what they need is a touchdown”
ok, sorry for the OT, just saw that on the news and thought it was worth mentioning
April 16th, 2009 at 10:31 amSo, you think Beck, Malkin, Limpballs, etc. will enjoy their stay at Gitmo now that they are supporting an act which is set on “influencing government policy through coercion”?
I believe they’ve referred to it as a “vacation like retreat compared to their lives back home” so I guess they be pretty damn happy there.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:34 amIsn’t this another example of what some call ‘attack the messenger’?
April 16th, 2009 at 10:35 amI’m from a small town in the heartland – rural Missouri. The area identified as the “Real America” in so many political ads.
And there are head honchos of a White Supremist hate group nearby. Not to mention the church that McVeigh and Rudolph frequented in central Missouri.
So YES these folks do exist in the REAL AMERICA.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:36 amOn face, it looks like Obama made a mistake by letting this report go public. But with the reaction of conservatives about this, would lead one to believe that “conservative” and “right wing extremist” are one and the same. This plays back to the moderates of the country who are coming to appreciate Obama’s moderate and thoughtful approach to Government. The more shrill the right becomes the harder their return to relevance becomes.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:36 amabsolutely wiz
making sure that the GOP is correctly attached to the right wing extremist types is paramount to maintaining the political capital to return America to her greatness
April 16th, 2009 at 10:37 am#
#
backup Says:
I heard that there was a similar report about left wing extremists that preceded the one on right wing extremists.
Homeland Security needs to protect the country for violent actions of extremists, but labeling groups of people (left or right wing extremists) creates at least a couple of problems.
It gives government more latitude to tamp what may be legitimate discourse that’s ideologically problematic in the name of security.
Additionally, when the criteria for what is an extremist is revealed, many people that don’t have extremist proclivities, many identify themselves with the extremists groups under consideration. If the categories targeted for scrutiny are too general (e.g. tea party attendees, nra supporters) the jeopardy is that some moderates will begin to identify themselves with the extremists and become more anti-government.
What makes a person an extremist is not their ideology. I’m a very strong believer in climate change, as are the members of the ELF. But I don’t believe we need to use violence and cyberterrorism to achieve our goals and they do. There’s a difference between being pro-life and wanting to bomb abortion clinics, just like there’s a difference between attending a tea party and joining an armed militia to storm the capitol.
The problem is that the modern mainstream conservative movement seems to be radically paranoid and conspiratorial. They see any criticism of anything even remotely right of center as the first sign that the government is going to storm their homes and lock them up in a secret prison. It’s always the “where does it end?” argument that gets them worked up. It’s like “if they go after neo-nazis today, then tomorrow will they go after Christian ministers?!?!?!” If you’re not a violent extremist, you’re safe. Simple as that.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:37 amLike, it’s so nice to have Mike Allen around to tell us who is a “real American” and who isn’t.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:38 amOn Tuesday, the Washington Times revealed a recent Department of Homeland Security assessment that warned about increased activity by “rightwing extremists.” Conservatives have responded with hyperventilation, claiming that the report meant the government was targeting them.
I find this behavior as disturbing as it is revealing ; why would conservatives believe that “rightwing extremists” applies to them ?
A bit over-sensitive or perhaps feeling guilty for claiming all Muslims are “extremists” or “terrorists” , jackasses ?
April 16th, 2009 at 10:41 amAnd ‘Teh Stupid’ continues to flow like wine…
Has anyone here pointed out this report was actually started by the Bush Admin, and not Obama’s? Perhaps all these uptight righties LIKE identifying w/ violent, extremist groups like the Stormfront crowd.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:43 amRight wing extremism is redundant.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:43 ambackup Says
April 16th, 2009 at 10:23 am
If the categories targeted for scrutiny are too general (e.g. tea party attendees, nra supporters) the jeopardy is that some moderates will begin to identify themselves with the extremists and become more anti-government.
____________________________________________________________
Yeah, but that’s a pretty big “IF” — considering that the report doesn’t mention tea party attendees or NRA supporters. It mentions “right-wing extremists” (and I admit they could have done a better job defining that term), as well as “white supremacist groups”, “domestic terrorists”, and the like. The concern indicated in the report was individuals (”lone wolves”) and groups who have violent intent toward the government, or are likely to develop violent intent. Merely being conservative and/or a Second Amendment enthusiast doesn’t put anyone on that list. However, making threats or perpetuating wild conspiracy theories designed to incite people to paranoid violence WILL put someone on the concern list.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:43 amClinton had left him about terrorists attacking us here, 9/11 might have been a different story.
Why would Chaney want to stop his own plan???? How much do you know???? What if you knew that two weeks prior to 9/11 the WTC was shut down (blackout as well)for two days while a crew of workers came in to do work. What kind of work??? No one will say. Why were the bomb sniffing dogs removed from the WTC at the same time the work was being done to the buildings (1 , 2 and 7)and never returned after the work was completed????? Why wont the security company who looked after the WTC explain ??? Maybe becuase George W. Bush nephew is on the board of that sucurity company????
The truth will come out. Why do you think Chaney wants to stay in Washington after retirement???? To make sure the path will not lead to where the answers are !!!
As Led Zep said…..YOUR TIME IS GONNA COME!!!!!!!
April 16th, 2009 at 10:44 amPerry dismissed characterizations that those attending Wednesday’s “tea party” rallies in Texas and around the country are “a bunch of right-wing extremists.”
“But if you are, I’m with you,” he said.
Can we through these fcuking “enemy combatants” in Gitmo yet?
April 16th, 2009 at 10:44 amer, “throw”
April 16th, 2009 at 10:44 amof course, one could also say that it continues to flow like whine and be just as accurate.
I love the English language.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:47 amoH…by the way…that crew that worked on the WTC…were Isrealie (MOSSAD)not muslum.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:48 amRantingTommy Says
April 16th, 2009 at 10:31 am
great coach, but damn he irritated the hell out of me explaining every play like he was talking to children that had never seen the game
___________________________________________________________
Eh, I can cut John some slack on that. When he first became a television commentator, he was hired by CBS specifically to speak to those unfamiliar with the game, to try to develop football enthusiasm with this crowd, and grow the television audience. And he did his job well — he got more people watching. Including “children that had never seen the game”.
When I first started watching football, I really appreciated his chalkboard explanations of the plays, because it allowed me to understand the subtle nuances of what was going on. Before that, I always just assumed a “play” was just a couple of lines of guys bashing into each other while one guy in the fray tries to advance the ball. Now, I at least understand who’s bashing into whom, and why.
Yes, I always knew a touchdown was six points. But hearing that from him didn’t bother me, because I figured there just might be somebody who didn’t know that (hey, we all have to start somewhere).
Enjoy your retirement, John. You can go out knowing you were one of the ones who made an impact on the sport.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:54 amRUCerious. During the Bush administration there were plenty of people that called Bush names and threatened him with violence.
I believe there was an effort then (and the potential now) to highlight the extremists of any movement (the anti-war movements of the recent past and the tea parties of yesterday) to attempt to discredit the whole idea. It did not work for Bush.
It could backfire. If administration supporters drive home the message that conservative groups (e.g. the tea party attendees) are extremists, some people might think: “I went to a tea party, am I an extremist?” or “My mother (or daughter) tried to get me to go to a tea party; is she an extremist?”
If the answer to the question becomes “yes”, then the tactic could successfully undermine the opposition. But, if the answer is “no”, then the administration supporters become less credible and the moderates may begin to consider themselves more aligned with the opposition.
I think that the numbers associated with groups being considered extremists, may make the strategy of dismissing them as outside the mainstream, more problematic.
Obama and Democrats are going to govern however they want. Why not trade in the tactic of dismissing opposition groups as extremist with understanding attempts to change their minds?
I know you won’t change many conservative minds, but it may prevent moderates from having to choose sides.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:57 amI know you won’t change many conservative minds, but it may prevent moderates from having to choose sides.
From the GOP playbook:
We don’t make deals with terrorists.
Another lesson mommy and daddy didn’t teach Regressives:
You are the company you keep.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:00 amThe aschloch Allen means the “Real America” where the rich and unproductive grow fat on picking the productive classes clean, spy on their own people, and have different standards of justice for their “nobility” and our “lowliness”?
April 16th, 2009 at 11:01 amDuring the Bush administration there were plenty of people that called Bush names and threatened him with violence.
WHITE POWER rallies are much more a dangerous threat than some whiny bloggers.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:02 amPerry dismissed characterizations that those attending Wednesday’s “tea party” rallies in Texas and around the country are “a bunch of right-wing extremists.”
__________________________________________________________
Did I miss something? I haven’t heard anybody calling tea party attendees “right wing extremists”. I have heard, however, plenty of wingnuts like Perry CLAIM they’re being called right wing extremists.
There are plenty of other names given to the tea party attendees, though. Idiots, teabaggers, kool-aid drinkers, dittoheads, etc. — there have been a lot of names suggesting that many of these attendees are people just looking for a place to bash the President and parrot GOP talking points. But “right wing extremists”? Nah.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:05 amAnother classic instance of b-cup’s disingenuousness in debate.
b-cup introduces the teabagging parties as an example of a category “too general”.
RUC observes the difference between the rhetoric at the teabaggings and the lack of such rhetoric at Obama campaign rallies (since McCain rallies were also marked by frequent bursts of such extremist language, thus establishing a pattern).
b-cup has to move the goal posts to encompass “during the Bush administration, there were people”. No longer simply talking about public rallies, b-cup must increase his sample to include all rhetoric expressed during the eight years Bush was in office, presumably.
Pathetic.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:07 amright-wing extremism, sounds like an oxymoron to me.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:08 ammissmolly. Here are some TP headlines from the past couple of days:
I understand not everyone here is charging that attendees of the tea parties are extremists. But, it seems that a progressive narrative is that those involved with the tea parties (to include the attendees) have extremist views.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:15 ambackup Says
April 16th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Obama and Democrats are going to govern however they want. Why not trade in the tactic of dismissing opposition groups as extremist with understanding attempts to change their minds?
_____________________________________________________________
Would you mind giving some evidence that President Obama is “dismissing opposition groups as extremist”? I don’t think he has labeled anybody as “extremist” merely for opposing his policies. He does, however, use the “extremist” label for people who really do spout extreme ideas, such as overthrow of the government, or violence against it.
As far as attempting to change minds, Obama has been somewhat successful with that, but there’s a core of people who are still mad as h*ll that he got elected, and that’s not going to change. And while many of them aren’t exactly “extremists” (not yet, anyway), trying to change their minds is a waste of time. Obama has to sail the ship with or without their help. Which is what he’s doing.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:17 ambackup Says:
It could backfire. If administration supporters drive home the message that conservative groups (e.g. the tea party attendees) are extremists, some people might think: “I went to a tea party, am I an extremist?” or “My mother (or daughter) tried to get me to go to a tea party; is she an extremist?”
If the answer to the question becomes “yes”, then the tactic could successfully undermine the opposition. But, if the answer is “no”, then the administration supporters become less credible and the moderates may begin to consider themselves more aligned with the opposition.
I think that the numbers associated with groups being considered extremists, may make the strategy of dismissing them as outside the mainstream, more problematic.
Obama and Democrats are going to govern however they want. Why not trade in the tactic of dismissing opposition groups as extremist with understanding attempts to change their minds?
I’m taking a leap here, but I’m guessing that backup hasn’t actually read the report – anymore than the “conservative” pundits have and that it’s a classic sockpuppet escalation of outrage.
This comment is so riddled with “what ifs” that it is absolutely meaningless.
If administration supporters drive home the message that conservative groups (e.g. the tea party attendees) are extremists, some people might think:
The report makes no mention of tea party attendees, nor has anyone else made that connection — except the Right. And please, dear god, no more “some people” strawmen.
I think that the numbers associated with groups being considered extremists, may make the strategy of dismissing them as outside the mainstream, more problematic.
What numbers? Do you even know what definition the report uses for “extremist”?
Why not trade in the tactic of dismissing opposition groups as extremist with understanding attempts to change their minds?
Another limp strawman. The Obama administration has not employed such a tactic at all. The REPORT, which was primarily produced by the BUSH admninistration, clearly defines what constitutes “right wing extremism”, just as they clearly defined “left wing extremism.” And extremists are, by definition, not open to persuasion or “changing their minds.”
Backup, sometimes you make me want to slap you into paying attention. If only I really cared, I would.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:20 amralph. believe what you want. But, I find your constant drumbeat that my posts are disingenuous, curious.
I’m wrong all the time, why not disagree with my ideas without the insistence they are not genuine?
I disagree with many of the things that you say, but just because we disagree, I don’t find you disingenuous.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:22 ambackup Says
April 16th, 2009 at 11:15 am
I understand not everyone here is charging that attendees of the tea parties are extremists. But, it seems that a progressive narrative is that those involved with the tea parties (to include the attendees) have extremist views.
____________________________________________________________
In fact, NONE of those headlines (or even the articles themselves) gave a blanket label to the attendees as “extremists”. However, where there were individual extremist views being expressed, they were called out. That’s kind of one of the functions of this blogsite, you know.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:22 amgum, I don’t think b-cup’s problem with logical fallacies is a consequence of his not paying attention. I think he is just incapable of honest debate.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:23 ambackup Says:
missmolly. Here are some TP headlines from the past couple of days:
I understand not everyone here is charging that attendees of the tea parties are extremists. But, it seems that a progressive narrative is that those involved with the tea parties (to include the attendees) have extremist views.
Ah, so now we’re the Obama administration?
And if you would pull your head out and read, there is ample evidence that many of those involved with the tea parties have extremist views. You don’t think secession qualifies?
April 16th, 2009 at 11:24 amHEY IDIOT!!!!!!!!!
THE INTEL REPORTS FROM DHS ARE PREPARED BY -CAREER-
EMPLOYEES- NOT POLITICAL HACKS!!!!!!!!
And last time I checked, until 9/11/2001, the worst act of mass murder WAS COMMITTED BY TIMOTHY MC VEIGH, A RIGHT-WING SCUMBAG.
(sorry for shoutinng, but the FoKKKs “news” crowd is nauseating)
April 16th, 2009 at 11:29 amAnd anyone stoo-pid enough to lissen’a them is too stupid to live, as in wake up and dress themselves unaided.
gummitch. I care. (it’s an agape kind of love). I’ll back off.
I have an impression that there is a tactic used by left (that is also used by the right) to dismiss opposition by creating the impression that the opposition is extremist. Whether that opposition is extremist or not.
But, you seem passionate about it. I’ll think about what you are saying.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:30 amAgain, b-cup, my critiques of your comments as being disingenuous are not because we disagree. You keep trying to sell this bullshit, and it’s just further evidence of your inability to actually deal with the substance of a comment.
When you make an argument with which I disagree, I explain why. But when you distort an argument through your use of straw men, moving the goal posts or other false narratives, you make a straightforward debate useless. That’s what I’m objecting to here.
I disagree with the way you use language, the way you misuse others’ words and arguments, and the way you return to logical fallacies again and again.
If you’re not engaging in these logical fallacies, why don’t you disagree with my assessment without the assumption that it’s simply because “we disagree”?
April 16th, 2009 at 11:30 amThe right wing spews forth nonsense that sounds quite similar to pre-Nazi Germany.
The whole stabbed in the back mythology, the “real America” meme, the fake roots tea bag movement,on and on it goes.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:31 amPerry dismissed characterizations that those attending Wednesday’s “tea party” rallies in Texas and around the country are “a bunch of right-wing extremists.”
I would never call the Tea-baggers right-wing extremists.
Dupes maybe . . . but never right-wing extremists.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:31 amThat “impression” is only useful if the opposition is NOT extremist, and the impression is used to dismiss responsible opposition.
If the opposition is truly extremist (and, as gum notes, secession certainly qualifies) then it’s irresponsible to put the brakes on such identification, as you seek to do.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:32 amSee, b-cup? I can disagree with your ideas “without the insistence they are not genuine”.
(And just to be clear; I don’t generally claim your ideas are not genuine — just the arguments you advance in support of them. There’s a difference.)
April 16th, 2009 at 11:48 am/yawn
April 16th, 2009 at 11:57 amProd, your satire leaves a lot to be desired.
Of course, that’s true of pretty much any satire that takes ridiculous delusions and stereotypes as its starting point. Comedy experts agree that’s why the Half Hour News Hour failed so embarrassingly.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:00 pmAs a lifelong resident of “fake America” (Portland, OR. in this case) I can honestly say, it wasn’t us.
.
Brian Crooks Says:
What happens if Democrats gain more seats in 2010?
Try “when.”
.
backup Says:
It could backfire. If administration supporters drive home the message that conservative groups (e.g. the tea party attendees) are extremists, some people might think: “I went to a tea party, am I an extremist?”
Or they might think to themselves, “I went to a tea party. Did I put myself and my family at risk by bringing them to hang out with violent sociopaths? How many potential Tim McVeighs were there that day? Maybe I better stop doing that.”
.
Uncle Ho Says:
right-wing extremism, sounds like an oxymoron to me.
More like a redundancy.
.
Proud Says:
The White House is moving in the right direction they have decided to rename the DHS to SS.
Link? Explanation? What?
.
Proud Says:
Thats what we get for electing a Muslim, Kenyan Immigrant as President.
You are a silly person!
April 16th, 2009 at 12:01 pmProud Says
April 16th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Thats what we get for electing a Muslim, Kenyan Immigrant as President.
_____________________________________________________________
Do you EVER get tired of spouting crap? I normally don’t flag posts merely because they’re stupid; I flag only when they’re abusive. But in your case, I’ll make an exception.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:04 pmElBruce Says:
As a lifelong resident of “fake America” (Portland, OR. in this case) I can honestly say, it wasn’t us.
Dude, really? You’re in Stumptown?
April 16th, 2009 at 12:06 pmralph, okay. I’ll work on it. So you know, my intention is not to distort what other people say. Like anyone else, I try to make the best case that I can for what I’m trying to say.
But, peace.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:11 pmI will accept you at your word on this, that you are not intentionally dishonest when you shift the ground under an argument or you mischaracterize another’s position — as when you asked this rhetorical question: Why not trade in the tactic of dismissing opposition groups as extremist with understanding attempts to change their minds? thus implying that the Obama administration was using such a tactic.
If you are sincere about wanting to make the best case possible., then I will continue to point out your missteps like this, which weaken your arguments.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:16 pmWhat’s all this BS about the Obama administration calling the teabaggers extremists? The only thing I read about the administration and the teabaggers was from Pelosi who, quite rightly, told everyone that is was organized and promoted by rich right wing fu(ks.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:19 pmLimbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Beck, Bachmann, Bachus, etc have been playing a very dangerous game. They are fanning the flames of bigotry through their manipulative, disingenuous association of Obama and the Democrats in Congress with terms such as “Socialist”, “Communist”, “Fascist” and “un-American”. They claim to speak on behalf of most Americans, but they actually are primarily drawing the right-wing fringe to their cause. The Aryan Brotherhood, the KKK, the John Birch Society, etc regard themselves as their peeps.
The more that these bombastic, bellicose, self-serving commentators and politicians promote a message of hatred and fear about Obama and his policies, the greater the probability that some wacko extremist will take their message too literally and respond violently against anyone who they feel is not “American” in their eyes.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:27 pm61 misscoleptramolly,
Not missing anything. Remember how the reports of returning Vietnam vets had them being “spit on” even though no one can document such an event ?
April 16th, 2009 at 12:28 pmThat’s cool. I don’t think the Obama administration endorses or condones the tactic of mislabeling legitimate opposition as extremists. But, I believe that supporters of the administration do. I concede that the term ‘Obama supporters’ is overly generalized. And the idea of what is, or is not, an extremist is subjective. At some point, I think we can scrutinize things to an extent, where it’s impossible to have debate at all. In order to forego that, you would have to trust me. I understand if you do not.
It’s off topic, so I’ll try to split.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:33 pmNo, b-cup the idea of what is or is not an extremist is not subjective, any more than any other term in the English language. The limits and extension of the term may be subjective, but it’s pretty clearly defined; an extremist is one who is at the extreme of a political ideology in this case.
“Subjective” is not the same thing as “requires definition”.
You know, at times this appears to be your goal.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:48 pmI’m sorry..but didn’t their “real America” president, George W Bush, form the Department of Homeland Security?
April 16th, 2009 at 12:57 pmlabman 57 says;
Actually, that’s already happened. Remember last year, that man(forgot his name) went into a Universalist church and shot up the place, killing people.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:01 pmHe admitted it was a hate crime, he hates liberals. His home had books by Hannity, Savage, et al.
The hate-mongers on the radio like Limpdick, etc, should be arrested and charged as accessories to homicide.
labman 57 says;
Actually, that’s already happened. Remember last year, that man(forgot his name) went into a Universalist church and shot up the place, killing people.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:02 pmHe admitted it was a hate crime, he hates liberals. His home had books by Hannity, Savage, et al.
The hate-mongers on the radio like Limpdick, etc, should be arrested and charged as accessories to homicide.
wikipedia. It’s only subjective because it depends on the perception of what is the political center.
To a prolifer, Roe v. Wade may be considered an extremist ruling. To a pacifist, the killing of the Somolia pirates may seem an extremist action. To a Christian, the idea of atheism may seem extremist. And vice versa. It’s dependant on the judgement of those making the charge of extremism and where they perceive the political center to be.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:08 pmbackup Says:
Fresh sh!t sandwich, freshly prepared by backedup.
Ralph is spot-on for calling you out on being disingenuous. You prove so time and again by your constant twists of “logic.” A good example so far in this post is comparing the rhetoric that McCain’s supporters engaged in with the criticism and rhetoric directed towards Bush as equivalent and you couldn’t be more wrong. Bush had ample time to establish his agenda during the first Presidency without much criticism at all – especially not the serialized criticisms leveled against Obama by FAUX News. Failure after failure led the MAJORITY of American’s to criticize Bush, but the chorus that wants to demonize Obama less than a quarter of a year into his first term is in another league.
Fo Cheney yourself.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:08 pmbackup:
To a prolifer, Roe v. Wade may be considered an extremist ruling. To a pacifist, the killing of the Somolia pirates may seem an extremist action. To a Christian, the idea of atheism may seem extremist. And vice versa.
Spineless waffling!!! The political center moves, so do extremists! To a terrorist, the OKCity bombings would seem like a fun time! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!
GAWD you’re a worm.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:11 pmRalph:
“Subjective” is not the same thing as “requires definition”.
At some point, I think we can scrutinize things to an extent, where it’s impossible to have debate at all.
You know, at times this appears to be your goal.
Exactly. Backup just muddies the waters with false equivalencies, waffling, soft pedaled BS that have become concerns of his only if his ideological brethren are “under attack.”
April 16th, 2009 at 1:13 pmYeah, like REAL AMERICANS want secede, not pay their share of taxes, impeach the president for being mixed race, or impeach a former president for a bj…
…Fcuk the Republicans
April 16th, 2009 at 1:25 pmMike Allen is another right wing politico hack! He is still trying to come to grips with his uncontrollable thoughts of taking long hot showers with Obama.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:28 pmWhen is everyone going to stop pretending that Politico is nothing more than a right-wing rag? Why do you think Drudge and Fox Noise quote them so much? Look at the majority of their comments section. And the slant of their articles.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:00 pmMike Allen really betrays his own deep-seated distorted view of America. He’s been so worked over by the right wing he actually believes this crap.
Up yours, Mike!
April 16th, 2009 at 2:14 pmYo, ThinkProgress, you don’t have any evidence for this:
“It’s doubtful that Allen is comfortable sounding so similar to Savage.”
April 16th, 2009 at 2:25 pmWhy not send a letter to Mike & let you now how please you are at his “nonpartisan” newsgathering? Here’s mine:
Dear Mike:
Gee whiz, Mike, I’m a real American, I live outside the beltway, & those right-wing, para-military extremists scare the beejeezus out of me. I’m sure glad somebody’s watching them.
As you know, the data for the extremism report leaked this week were gathered during the leftist-commie Bush Administration.
BTW, where were you when the report on leftist extremist groups came out? Please point me to the articles you wrote & interviews you gave about Bush-Cheney “fantasies” (your word) about what goes on at San Francisco soirees & Vermont sugar-maple tapping bacchanales.
The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com
April 16th, 2009 at 2:27 pmAren’t these guys who are whinging about how the actions of a few radicals are resulting in blanket condemnation of a political movement and government investigation THE SAME GUYS who advocated just that for all Muslims a few years ago?
April 16th, 2009 at 2:29 pmBTW, it’s clear that extremists with kooky ideas line the fringes of both major political movements in our country. It’s alo clear that the kooky extremists of only ONE party get their views aired regularly and approvingly on a major cable news channel, repeated endlessly by political columnists and commentators, and get to speak at mainstream political rallies (such as the tea parties).
April 16th, 2009 at 3:00 pmMike Allen is sick i guess. what else?
April 16th, 2009 at 3:13 pmBYW – the Republicans are really really identifying with right wing extremists aren’t they? Republicans that were elected i presume. What a reveil!
Politicians, TV personalities, identifying with right wing extremists? I say they have some explaining to do!
April 16th, 2009 at 3:17 pmMike Allen is a media whore who is like chicken little…..always running around yelling that the sky is falling…..this guy sets my gaydar waaaay off the chart every time I see him. He was always so reverential in his tone with Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc.
I do know for a fact, that he was despised by most of the people when he worked for Time, Inc., because he was a creapy, little gossip.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:47 pmLike, Mike Allen is, like, the cutest thing!/snark. Anyone else think he talks like my 11 year old daughter?
Backup – Ralph is too kind. You’re a clown.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:07 pm.
April 17th, 2009 at 8:12 amThere’s only one way out of this: Teabag Glenn Beck.
.
OK Pat obviously senile dementia has set in. Time to see the nice young men that will need to take care of you soon.burun estetigi rent a car arac kiralama
April 18th, 2009 at 5:14 amsac ekimi