Who's More Sheepish? The Left or the Right?

I have seen right wingers called sheep by the left.

I have two words for them: Harriet Myers.

See, right wingers tend to analyze and investigate the facts, not just rely on headlines or sound bites to gather their information. And, rightly or wrongly, they make their decisions based on the results of their analysis. Harriet Myers is just such a case in point.

For those of you who have been in a coma or camped out in Crawford Texas with Cindy Sheehan eating Iraqi meals, Harriet Myers was Bush's first choice for the open Supreme Court seat that Sandra Day O'Conner has been vacating. And the most vocal opposition to Myers came not from the left, but from the right. Ann Coulter wrote probably the most scathing diatribe of Myers, noting that she was not even qualified to play a Supreme Court judge on "The West Wing".

And the Myers case is not the only case in point. From wiretapping to Scooter Libby, I have heard much excellent right wing analysis that has called Bush to task for his actions. In fact, while they defend our continued presence as necessary, many among Bush's own party have begun to suggest that the initiation of the war in Iraq was possibly well advised.

The left, however, are another story. Virtually all of their talking points are regurgitated bile from some liberal think tank. They don't HAVE to speak; Al Franken can do it for him. And yet, noone seems to notice that when Howard Dean or Al Franken bash the government as being run by rich white males, they are themselves rich white males making the pronouncement. Or that when George Soros or John Kerry bash the rich, that neither has known for a single day of their lives what it was like to be uncertain about whether there would be food on the table the next day. Nor has either renounced their wealth (OK, in John Kerry's case, it's the wife's...but, I think you get my point) to give to the government to decrease the debt or to reduce poverty. They have instead engaged in shameful political manipulation of the poor among us, who follow them like sheep.

One of the individuals in our town who has been hardest hit by the social programs put in place largely by Democrats (he hasn't seen his children outside a room with a two way mirror for nearly two years), still refuses to vote for any other than a Democrat because many years ago, his daddy told him "if you always want food on your table, always vote Democrat". He has followed the tunes of the pied pipers of the left all the way into the cave. And he will probably never know what it's like to live as a free man.

12,939 views 31 replies
Reply #1 Top

Damn!  If I was as smart as you, I would have written this!

can I add another?  WHo on the left now trashes Ruth Buzzi, even after her support of pedophelia and a persons right to chose?  Yet!  She is so out of the mainstream that none really agree with her.  They merely support her as being on their side!

Reply #2 Top
From your previous blog:
'The reason this person continues to use such grossly inaccurate labelling is because he has been trained and conditioned to see politics as left or right ...'
Yet, with 'right wingers tend to ...' and 'The left, however, are another story ...', you're doing exactly the same thing here.
Reply #3 Top
WHo on the left now trashes Ruth Buzzi, even after her support of pedophelia


This has been repeatedly shown to be false. I think I even remember proving it you myself. Not that truth matters to you....just an FYI.
Reply #4 Top
This has been repeatedly shown to be false. I think I even remember proving it you myself. Not that truth matters to you....just an FYI.


Prove it. You can state anything as fact, yet you cannot back it up. You have never proven anything other than you are the left sheeple. You dont deal in facts, just emotions.
Reply #5 Top
I've already shown you before you senile old bat! Pay better attention next time.

Reply #6 Top
Okay, how about those of us that aren't senile old bats?

Care to provide the proof? I've seen the opinions where she supported NAMBLA, et al. Where's the proof that she doesn't? That she actively opposes pedophelia?
Reply #7 Top
I have seen right wingers called sheep by the left.


As an intelligence analyst for a government agency, I hope that I am not "sheeple", just blindly following and bleating along with the herd. I like to think that I investigate an event or scandal before forming my opinions. And not all of my opinions fall neatly into a "right wing" or "left wing" label. I strive for truth and fact, not opinion or guesswork.

See, right wingers tend to analyze and investigate the facts


See, even that shows that my actions fall into a "right wing" camp. I can't win...
Reply #8 Top
Do a little research. The claim that she supports pedophilia originated in a 1974 report where she supposedly recommended lowering the age of consent to 12. She wasn't even addressing this particular issue. She was merely pointing out gender bias in legislation.

Link

Where's the proof that she doesn't? That she actively opposes pedophelia?


Where's the proof that many other people actively oppose pedophila? Just because someone doesn't have published opposition doesn't mean that they don't oppose it. I'm not aware of any proof that Bush, or many others are actively opposed to it either, but that doesn't mean they are not.

I can even show you indication that some would say is proof that conservative champion James Dobson supports pedophilia;

In what would seem to be a counterintuitive approach to preventing homosexuality, Dr. Dobson In a 2002 newsletter endorses advice by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi on preventing homosexuality in boys by, among other things, encouraging fathers to take their sons into the shower with them where "the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger."

Link

I don't believe for one minute that Dobson supports pedophilia, but merely use this as an example of how taking things out of context on this issue can twist the true meaning and intent.
Reply #9 Top

From your previous blog:
'The reason this person continues to use such grossly inaccurate labelling is because he has been trained and conditioned to see politics as left or right ...'
Yet, with 'right wingers tend to ...' and 'The left, however, are another story ...', you're doing exactly the same thing here.

Not exactly, furry.

See, I recognize that SOME people fall towards the right or left of the spectrum. Just not MOST people.

Reply #10 Top
'See, I recognize that SOME people fall towards the right or left of the spectrum. Just not MOST people.'

Hmm, not convinced you have explained your way out of this one, Gideon. To quote your previous blog a bit more, 'Very few people that I have ever met have fallen CONSISTENTLY on either the left or the right side of the political spectrum', 'Left-right political labelling is demeaning, and, almost completely inaccurate', 'it suggests a lack of intelligence on the part of the labeller', and 'If we want to advance in our thinking, we have to discard this simplistic system.'

So, you denounce such labelling as inaccurate, demeaning, unintelligent and obsolete, yet you use it with gusto right here, from the title down, and in your very next blog.

Incidentally, if it's true that 'MOST people' don't 'fall towards the left or the right of the spectrum', then surely neither the Left nor the Right are particularly sheepish?
Reply #11 Top
See, right wingers tend to analyze and investigate the facts, not just rely on headlines or sound bites to gather their information. And, rightly or wrongly, they make their decisions based on the results of their analysis. Harriet Myers is just such a case in point.


Right wingers arguments usually consist of selective use of the facts, no matter how obscure or irrelevant those facts may be. One could use that method to argue that the Baltimore Colts are the worst football team in the league, by making a list of every fumble, missed assignment, interception, missed field goal, and bad pass. Even though the Colts are one of the best, if not THE best team in the league, focusing only on their mistakes could make them appear to be the worst. This is similar to the technique used by right-wingers to attack former president Bill Clinton, nit-picking at every little failure and trivial scandal. One could also use the opposite approach to make it look like the Green Bay Packers are the best football team in the league, by emphasizing only the good plays and ignoring all the failures. This is similar to the way right-wingers defend Bush's accomplishments.

Some may argue that selective use of the facts is not technically lying. This is how Bush sheep defend the accusations that Bush lied about the intelligence used when making his case for going to war in Iraq.

The Harriet Myers nomination is simply an example of Bush's boundless incompetence, wanting to put a crony in the highest court in the land. Both republicans and democrats called her unqualified. The religious right rejected her because they wanted someone they could count on to overturn Roe V. Wade. It was implied that democrats supported Myers, but in reality, many democrats simply said she should be allowed to go through the process to determine whether or not she was qualified. Of course, if that had happened, she would have been completely humiliated, which is why she withdrew.

But the topic is "who is more sheepish? The Right or the Left?" If the question was "Who is more sheepish? Neocons or Liberals?" it probably would be a draw. But the fact is, the right consists of Neocons as well as true conservatives and the left consists of moderate and liberal democrats. The difference is, while the right is dominated by neocons, the majority of democrats are moderates, many of whom are outraged over the actions of the radical right wing running and ruining our country.

You can easily identify a sheep when a person is for a policy that goes against his or her best interests. High fuel prices are not in our best interests. Lack of a sound strategy in Iraq is not in our best interests. Irresponsible fiscal policies are not in our best interests. Out of control corruption is in government is not in our best interests. The political polarization of our country is not in our best interests. Having the most secretive government in U.S. history is not in our best interests. Unchecked executive branch political power is not in our best interests. Yet, Bush supporters either defend or aren't bothered by these things, simply because they are following blindly. And THAT is what makes a person a sheep.
Reply #12 Top
Baltimore Colts

Boy, the fans in Indianapolis are gonna be pissed that Baltimore took their team back.

'Course, Baltimore would be happy ... they'd be rid of the albatross that are the Ravens.

As for the rest ... I'll have to get back to you on that one 'cause a) I'm about to leave work b) the easiest thing to do would be to do a find/replace and let you have your own arguments thrown back in your face.
Reply #13 Top
Can you give an example of the selective use of facts that you describe Right wingers using?

If right wingers are making Clinton look bad by focusing on his significant shortcomings, shouldn't this be an opportunity for you to demonstrate how much more reality-based left wingers are, by showing all the facts about Clinton's successes and strengths?
Reply #14 Top
Right wingers arguments usually consist of selective use of the facts, no matter how obscure or irrelevant those facts may be. One could use that method to argue that the Baltimore Colts are the worst football team in the league, by making a list of every fumble, missed assignment, interception, missed field goal, and bad pass. Even though the Colts are one of the best, if not THE best team in the league, focusing only on their mistakes could make them appear to be the worst. This is similar to the technique used by right-wingers to attack former president Bill Clinton, nit-picking at every little failure and trivial scandal. One could also use the opposite approach to make it look like the Green Bay Packers are the best football team in the league, by emphasizing only the good plays and ignoring all the failures. This is similar to the way right-wingers defend Bush's accomplishments.


Boy did you pick a lousy team to use as an example. The best they've done since 1970 was to win the AFC championships. They have not won a superbowl since 1970. They are far from being "the best" in the league.

Right wingers arguments usually consist of selective use of the facts,


Sorry but "selective use of facts is a liberal/leftist trick. Just go read the col's stuff. Bash Bush and the war all the while ignoring any good that has come out of it.
Reply #15 Top
One could use that method to argue that the Baltimore Colts are the worst football team in the league

I would have picked the post-Barry Sanders Detroit Lions.
Reply #16 Top
Excellent article Gid, as usual. I, too, wish I were as smart as you.

Anyway....here's my take on the whole Harriet Myers thing, only partially tongue-in-cheek.
There are those here who will laugh loudly at this, because I know I'm probably giving much more credit than is due. That's okay, though; it was a comedy of errors to begin with.

Here's how I see it:

Bush knew all along she'd never get greenlighted; she's nowhere near qualified enough. He also knew he'd take it on the chin, from all sides, for "cronyism" and such.
But, she was a strong supporter for much of his career in politics, and perhaps he felt a loyalty to an old friend, and wanted to do something nice. Give her a little pat on the back, a little spotlight, for all her efforts. And when they said "no", as he undoubtedly knew they would, he could shake his head sadly, shrug, "tsk" a couple times and---"Well, hell, Harriet...I tried." And there would be no fault to him.

After all, he's already on his second term, a lame duck, so who cared about damage? At the time, he still had about three years for it to be forgotten, and it will be. This was a minor glitch, a little pothole in a long road, and he was willing to take the hit....out of loyalty to a friend.

Now, go ahead...laugh all you want. It makes more sense than anything I've heard yet.
Reply #17 Top
Isn't liberal think-tank an oxymoron?

If you said liberal emotion-tank I might not laugh.
Reply #18 Top

One could use that method to argue that the Baltimore Colts are the worst football team in the league

I would have picked the post-Barry Sanders Detroit Lions.

The 1 and 15 Aints!

Reply #19 Top
I dunno...the Aints at least have an arguable reason for their miserable season. The Lions, on the other hand, have produced a continuing legacy of poor play ever since Barry retired, offering brief glimpses of hope that nevber panned out. They're also one of the increasingly few teams in the league to have never been inside a stadium while the Super Bowl was being played without having bought a ticket. I mean, for crying out loud, for all you can say about the Vikes, they've at least been there to LOSE five Super Bowls in their history!
Reply #20 Top

Hmm, not convinced you have explained your way out of this one, Gideon. To quote your previous blog a bit more, 'Very few people that I have ever met have fallen CONSISTENTLY on either the left or the right side of the political spectrum', 'Left-right political labelling is demeaning, and, almost completely inaccurate', 'it suggests a lack of intelligence on the part of the labeller', and 'If we want to advance in our thinking, we have to discard this simplistic system.'

Meh. Now you're just splitting hairs, furry. In this article I am deferring to the media labels because I am describing a general tendency among those who are visible within the media, who almost always describe themselves along left/right lines. Frankly, not even all of those who ARE left or right fall within these broad categories. I have literally known hardcore conservatives who will not make a decision on the topic without finding out what Pat Robertson has to say about it. And I have known members of the left who know enough to split with their party when they feel their party is wrong. But I have found a FAR greater diversity of opinion among right wing talk show hosts and bloggers than among those tend to be leftists. With MOST leftist talk show hosts and bloggers (some HIGHLY notable exceptions here on joeusers), they use the same talking points over and over because they can't come up with a constructive analysis. As for the many who aren't left or right, well, the very fact that they aren't suckered into the one dimensional political scale would show a hint of independence in their thinking (even though I must acknowledge that that's not universally true either). But this article wasn't about them.

Reply #21 Top
One could use that method to argue that the Baltimore Colts are the worst football team in the league, by making a list of every fumble, missed assignment, interception, missed field goal, and bad pass.


But then you would have to compare these stats with other teams and in turn not be a selective use of the facts. There's a difference between ignoring the good facts for the bad one and ignoring that bad facts of the rest just to point out one.
Reply #22 Top
'Meh. Now you're just splitting hairs, furry. In this article I am deferring to the media labels because I am describing a general tendency among those who are visible within the media, who almost always describe themselves along left/right lines.'
Hmm. As far as I can see Gideon, you either subscribe to such labels and use them, or you denounce them and don't. How can you justify having it both ways?
Reply #23 Top
They're also one of the increasingly few teams in the league to have never been inside a stadium while the Super Bowl was being played without having bought a ticket. I mean, for crying out loud


whether you wanna believe it or not, the lions' stunning lack of success isn't really their fault. if i could only bring myself to quit backing them, but...

unfortunately, there's no equally obvious explanation for several decades of vicious, unfounded character assassination targeting justice ginsburg. but perhaps that sorta unreasonable insistence on denying fact in favor of opinion is really more mulish than sheepish.
Reply #24 Top
Or that when George Soros or John Kerry bash the rich, that neither has known for a single day of their lives what it was like to be uncertain about whether there would be food on the table the next day. Nor has either renounced their wealth (OK, in John Kerry's case, it's the wife's...but, I think you get my point) to give to the government to decrease the debt or to reduce poverty. They have instead engaged in shameful political manipulation of the poor among us, who follow them like sheep.


whether you despise soros and kerry, it hardly helps your argument to engage in disseminating dubious propaganda. soros was born in pre-war hungary and lived there until 1947. since he was hardly likely to have collaborated with the nazis and he took advantage of the first opportunity to escape the soviet occupation, it seems more likely than not he's seen an empty table--and worse. kerry was not born into a wealthy family.

as a libertarian, i'm amazed you'd condemn either man for having used their talents and initiative to benefit themselves. admittedly kerry did marry money later in life, but he doesn't control it.

as far as the poor following either of em like sheep, i'm thinking if that were the case, kerry would be president now.
Reply #25 Top
as a libertarian, i'm amazed you'd condemn either man for having used their talents and initiative to benefit themselves. admittedly kerry did marry money later in life, but he doesn't control it.


While he does not control all of it or "anything" connected to the Heinz factory. I think you'd be surprised at what portion of the money he can control.


as far as the poor following either of em like sheep, i'm thinking if that were the case, kerry would be president now.


I wouldn't bet on this either. I know a shit-pot load of poor people that couldn't stand the thought of this clown getting into office.