Thursday, April 07, 2005

It's unbelievable
It amazes me how utterly angry the Democrat Left is. Now, I post on DailyKos quite often, and I usually have a lot of patience for these people. Every now and then, however, I just get overwhelmed. Today is one of those days. And so, I'm going to bitchcomplain to you about it.

This feeling started yesterday. For those that aren't aware, I have lived my entire life in Connecticut. I was ashamed when our former governor was drummed out for corruption, and I am extremely proud of our current governor, Jodi Rell, who has moved on with grace and style. So when I entered the DKos open thread yesterday and saw people rooting for her downfall. This woman has done nothing but represent her constituents and act with honor, and the Kossacks want her to go down simply because she's a Republican. How is that productive? Shouldn't they be seeking out people who are willing to work with the opposition, rather than seeking to destroy them? If you click through on that link, you can see what was said (which I can admit in retrospect wasn't that severe) and how I responded. My username there is RFTR.

So, now we come to todaystory.bush.pope.aptn.jpg
I go back to DKos hoping to see some reasonable attitudes that would enable me to put yesterday behind me. Instead, I find a discussion of the American delegation's vieiwing of John Paul II's body, with some idiot claiming that Clinton was the only one of the three American presidents there (plus Condi) who looked to be actually upset. Now, I've provided a picture of the Bush father and son at the right (from CNN.com), and one of Bush 41 and Clinton below that (also CNN.com). Now, I'm not going to try and claim that the Bush men look any more upset than Clinton, because that's just silly. Can you tell me how sad any of them look? Clinton is upset, sure—but Clinton has always been the genius political actor. The Bush men, on the other hand, look like... well... Bush men. These aren't guys we often see show emotion. They're not Catholic. They're there out of respect, not their demands of their own faith. Anyway, I'm rambling.

story.pope.respects.ap.jpgMy point is, what are these Kossacks looking for in their facial expressions? What could they possibly hope to prove with this?

Never fear, akeitz will provide us with the answer in his amazing analysis titled Clinton went to Catholic Schools:

Not only did Bill Clinton go to Georgetown, but he also went to a parochial school for a couple of years. So he's familar with and probably sympathetic to Roman Catholicism while the Bushies probably have the typical Northeastern WASP snobbery about Roman Catholicism. Back in the election of 1888, Dr. Samuel D. Burchard, called the Democrats the party of "Rum, Romanism and Rebelion" -- the "Romanism" being Catholics.
That proves it! Clinton has real passion for the Pope because the Jesuits treated him well! Brilliant! Really, folks, are we at the point where we have to use quotes from an 1888 campaign to prove that Republicans are biased against Catholics? Well, yeah, we are, because Republicans aren't biased against Catholics. In fact, if you take a look at the CNS (that's Catholic News Service) take on things, you'll see that Catholics apparently don't feel all that unwelcome among Republicans:
Exit polling done for The Associated Press and television networks by Edison Media Research/Mitofsky International, found that 52 percent of Catholics voted for Bush and 47 percent voted for Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts.
Oh, and by the way, I take personal offense at akeitz's implication that there's some sort of "typical Northeastern WASP snobbery." I'm from the Northeast, and I'm a WASP. I have nothing against Catholics, by in large, and if I did it certainly wouldn't keep me from mourning the Pope's death. That's just a ridiculous logical leap.

Now we get to hear from CD in TX, who comments about Bush & Condi: "Bush looked like he was trying real hard to keep the smirk look off his face and he wound up with a weird look on his face." OK, makes sense. Or, maybe he was upset and trying to maintain a stoic look. Or, maybe he's a bit in shock from what's going on all around him and he can't quite figure out how to feel. Again, the point is simple: there is no way to tell from watching the guy over a webcast what he's feeling. CD continues:
Condi kept her head down but kept sneaking looks to the right and left like she was trying to figure out what she was supposed to do. At one point she looked up and had that deer in the head lights look. This was the first time that I've seen her she didn't have that smile plastered on her face. I was beginning to think her mouth was just fixed like that.
Or, maybe she was doing exactly what I do every time I'm in any church—I watch. I look around constantly and watch the people around me. It's rude to turn all the way around, so you're limited to the people in front of you. When you're in the front row like Condi, you're limited to the people adjacent to you. But, of course, we need to conclude that she doesn't know what to do. I won't bother commenting on the smile comment, because that's just inane. CD has more, though, and pay attention because this next bit is important:
Clinton looked to be the only one who was praying. I saw him mouth Amen.
There's one big clue in that: the use of the word "looked." All of these are superficial observations, with no merit to them. Clinton is a master politician, and one of a very few Democrats who figured out how to display his faith without proclaiming it. Of course, we have no way of knowing whether he is actually displaying faith, or if it's just an act. Who knows what he was thinking before he mouthed the Amen? And that's the point. We can't possibly know what these men (and Condi) were thinking, and we certainly can't know the depth of their faith. That's for God to know, and us to shut up about.

Furthermore, even if we did have some way of knowing how these men felt, are we supposed to be angry with them for not being upset about the Pope's death? If so, why haven't I seen angry posts from Kossacks about the negative editorials written about the Pope? (In fact, many held up the Guardian's editorial as a shining example for its harshness). I don't fault someone for not mourning the Pope—I certainly can't fault someone when I have no way of knowing if he is or is not mourning. But let's get back to CD. We're almost done, and we're getting to the really fun part. I'll give it to you all at once:
I heard that Frist and DeLay were both going. I wonder if they dare step foot into St. Peter's? Bet it will make their skin crawl to step foot in such a holy place which has to remind them of what hypocrites they are. They both better say a prayer for God to have mercy on them before they enter the church.
I would just like to piont out the pure hatred that drips from that sentence. This poster really believes these men to be evil. But I ask you to reflect on that. Think: what does it say about CD in TX that s/he feels confident in saying such a thing?

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I find it interesting that you're noting the discussions in which you've had an edge, but ignoring those such as Social Security, in which your argument was debunked. Being so selective does nothing for you - it only reinforces patterns of thought that lead you to bad conclusions in the future.

-Ben Schiendelman; a-bensch@microsoft.com

John Thomson said...

Gotta agree with Ben---maybe that's why we've not heard form any supporters

Irina Tsukerman said...

All right, that's it. I think the post offers a legitimate criticism of punditry taken to the absurd. Who CARES how the President and the ex-Presidents looked at the funeral? What does it have to do with our current policies and how does it affect the country and us as individuals?

By the way, I think ALL blogs are selective in what is posted... because all writers, by their nature, are subjective...

RFTR said...

Ben, John — if you're talking about why I haven't posted in general on social security, then that makes a little sense. But are you saying I should have mentioned it in this post?

If it's the former: I don't know what Bush's social security plan is specifically, so it's hard for me to comment on it.

Also, I don't cover every event under the sun, I cover the stuff that I find interesting on a particular day—usually triggered either by an event in my life, or an interesting article I've read. Obviously, I haven't had much of either on social security.

hunting said...

I had to giggle when I read that you went to dKos looking for "reasonable attitudes." I'm a die-hard liberal and I agree with the Kossaks on a lot of issues, but I don't kid myself that I can have a reasoned debate there when I happen to disagree with majority opinion. I think it's important to note the dKos is really all about rallying the grassroots, not having thoughtful debates.