Jesus, guys. Don't be like *them.*

[demiurgent]

The same thing happened to me as happened to a lot of Internet aware liberals. I read that President Bush reportedly screamed "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" And I got pissed as Hell, just like every loyal American, liberal or conservative, should. I ranted, in my head, about principles, about the founders, about America.

Here's the thing, though. I read it on an ultra-left-wing blog. And while I have no reason to think Doug Thompson is lying, I have no reason to think he wouldn't blow things out of proportion, either.

There is no independent corroboration. Just "three people he talked to."

Jesus Christ on the Half Shell, gang. This is bush league crap. This is punditry through innuendo. This is the kind of thing we loathe in the most partisan, least even-handed of the Neo-con pundits.

If we're honestly liberals -- if we're honestly for rationality, for humanism, for principle, for the greatest good for the greatest number, we need to be above this kind of petty rumor mongering playing on patriotism and emotionalism over substance. If Bush actually said this and if it can be corroborated, we can have a debate over what this means -- what it means to have a President who swore an Oath to uphold a Constitution he dismisses as meaningless. And all the rest. I can froth with the rest of you.

And guess what -- if it turns out to be true, the Right Wing in this country will be right alongside us, frothing as hard or harder. Don't kid yourselves, love of the Constitution is a bedrock Conservative principle too.

But right now, it's fucking gossip.

This is beneath us. This is Ann Fucking Coulter level crap.

If their side of the aisle won't decry it, that's their lookout. But Liberals? Like me and a lot of you? We should be staring at this, calling shenanigans and getting our fucking brooms.

It's not like the Bush Administration hasn't given us plenty of real things to be outraged over. We don't need this ridiculousness clouding the debate.

Comments

[ryuko-midori.livejournal.com]

Jebus. That's the one thing that terrifies me about the blogosphere being where people get their news nowadays. Not everyone who blogs is going to be truthful, and not everyone's going to check their facts. That's pretty ridiculous.

(sigh) I really do hate politics.

[ohnefuehlen.livejournal.com]

Whoa, wait.

Capitol Hill Blue is "ultra-left-wing"?

I know America is further right than the UK, but are there not at least some Trots there?

[edg.livejournal.com]

While I have no particular reason to think that Thompson is lying, as cappadocius points out, if he's not, why is he the only Google hit for the quotation?

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

Doug Thompson certainly is.

[masonk.livejournal.com]

This is the first I've heard about this, so I didn't have a chance to get outraged before I saw it in this context.

That said, I'm not sure I would have gotten outraged. It sounds, well, too right. More like "Oh, well, that explains why he does what he does, if he doesn't believe in the Constitution." More confirmation than outrage, you know?

But, yeah. Without more evidence that it was said, even that gets to go with a grain of salt.

[scarfman]

Yeah, I saw this quoted on my friends list. Frankly, I didn't believe it. Even if George really thinks that of the Constitution, I don't believe even he is stupid enough to say it out loud. If I'm wrong, it'll make the network news and I'll find out then.

[jamiecotc.livejournal.com]

I agree with everything you said, Eric. The problem with this is that if it was a closed meeting, and I have no reason to doubt that it wasn’t, we will most likely never know the truth one way or the other. It’s a Catch 22. If Bush really said this and the American people demand nothing, then we deserve whatever comes from this. If on the other hand this is just gossip, then those who go after Bush will only make him more sympathetic. Until we have confirmation this must be taken with a grain salt. The question is what will determine confirmation? Will it take one person from the meeting to step forward? Two? All of them? It would still be denied.

[aberrantangels]

I'm not sure I would have gotten outraged. It sounds, well, too right.

Something like that, but also like what scarfman says in the next thread-head down. Based on his behavior, I'd guess it's what he believes, but based on other elements of that behavior, I'm not sure he's ever thought about it enough to articulate that belief so specifically. So I can believe that he said it, but my inner Elohite* is going to want more corroboration before I take it as objective fact that he did say it.

* Yes, I have one of those, and an inner Habbie (though Carr didn't quite come from either).

[matgb]

some Trots there?

Not in any way that makes sense. In the UK, I'm distinctly a centrist on many issues, to the left on some, and way to the right on others.

In the US, I'd be a dangerously left wing on most issues. A quick look around the site in question and I do not find any evidence of left wing ness on terms thee and I would understand.

Eric? For examples of left wing, try:
http://leninology.blogspot.com/ (google for the 'politics of weather' stuff by China Miéville, an author I assume you know) or
http://deadmenleft.blogspot.com/

To be truly left wing, you'd have to want to re-write the constitution, to be ultra-left wing, you'd want to rip it up and start again. By the very definitions of the terminology.

[the-gneech.livejournal.com]

THANK YOU FOR BEING SANE.

-The Gneech

[onalark.livejournal.com]

Anytime a "journalist" starts using colorful language to set the stage of his or her "report" -- "retorted" "screamed" "purplemonkeydishwasher" -- I pretty much chalk it up to yellow journalism and ignore it.

Unfortunately, my friends in the blogosphere aren't quite so inclined. Which is sad. The fact of the matter is, we've got a war going on where people are dying daily because of this administration's repeated failure to properly fact-check and deliberate. We don't need any more reason to dislike this administration than that.

Of course, if you believe my conservative military friends, there are "state secrets" civilians just don't know. Things that, if the American people did know them, it would blow our little minds!!! And that is why we had to go to war, Steph. Someday, it'll all come out in the open and YOU'LL UNDERSTAND.

That's like the Santa Claus of war arguments. And it doesn't fly in a democracy.

Hm. This has turned into an anti-war post. Sorry about that. Sigh.+

[aberrantangels]

Of course, if you believe my conservative military friends, there are "state secrets" civilians just don't know. Things that, if the American people did know them, it would blow our little minds!!! And that is why we had to go to war, Steph. Someday, it'll all come out in the open and YOU'LL UNDERSTAND.

I may be remembering things wrong, but I think my brother has actually used a similar argument to justify his support of Operation Iraqi Liberation Iraqi Freedom Enduring Our Freedom to Bomb the Living Fuck Out of You II: Electrocuted Balls-galoo.

That's like the Santa Claus of war arguments. And it doesn't fly in a democracy.

Or even in a democratic republic. As Long Tom said, if the people are un-informed, the solution is to inform them, not to take power away from them.

(And you have nothing to apologize for. Despite the phrasing of this icon's keywords, you're not one've the dogfuckers in question. They're the ones need to apologize.)

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

Wow.

From "Left Wing" or even "Ultra Left Wing" to Communism in one jump? Stunning.

For the record, I don't conflate "Ultra" Left Wing with liberalism or socialism any more than I conflate "Ultra" Right Wing with Libertarianism or Randism. To me, you can have liberals and conservatives and socialists and communists and libertarians and all the rest... and then you have the Ultra-Left and the Ultra-Right, defined as being In Opposition To The Other Side.

Ann Coulter? Ultra-Right. William F. Buckley? Conservative. Two entirely different things.

[ocarina.livejournal.com]

If you confalted Ultra right with libertarians you'd be in trouble. Not only do we hate Ann Coulter as much as an liberal, but [long, drawn out reply detailing many issues]!!

For the brits, libertarians ARE liberals, anyway. Terminology and issues are all over the place.

Which is one of the many reasons why vilianizing the "other side" through rumor-mongering is stupid.

Not that I'd be surprised if Bush said that, but yeah.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

Which brings us back to the actual point. If I'm wrong about the blog's degree of liberalism, I'm wrong. I'm sorry.

This is still beneath we the liberals.

[scrawlgirl.livejournal.com]

if you had just spoken these words to a large auditorium and doing so resulted in only silence and glares, i would stand up alone and clap.

[ocarina.livejournal.com]

I can't tell from the blog what the slant is, either. I get liberals and conservatives confused when someone wants the government to do something based on their own morals/ethics, for example. Or tell the difference between people who go after whoever's in charge and those who dislike Bush and his particular brand of conservatism.

It should be beneath any sensible person, regardless of leanings. I dislike Bush for his actions, not what other people say about him.

But yeah, come on liberals, I expect better of you! Aren't you supposed to be elitist and intellectual and junk?

[akhenaten.livejournal.com]

Ah, crazy liberals, conservatives, leftists, rightists. Crazy partisans of all stripes. Whenever something like this comes up, centrists like me just laugh, and sigh, and then say, "That's why there's no point in voting. Whoever's elected is just going to alienate and piss off half the county."

[z-gryphon.livejournal.com]

Centrists are the new radicals!

[matgb]

From "Left Wing" or even "Ultra Left Wing" to Communism in one jump?
If you're British, then yes, that's the traditional usages of the term (if you take ultra-left and far-left to be synonyms).

I was answering his question about you guys having any trots (ie communists like the two I linked to, note the deliberate small 'c' in communist there, to a political theorist (like me) the word isn't dirty, it's merely a descriptor).

Personally, and apologies for not defining my terms, I prefer the usage of left/right in reform/anti reform terms, ie 'where the phrase came from', in which case your definition (ie conservative (again small c) = right wing).

I've never read that blog until you linked to it, so I can't judge it except on front page, to me, as an involved liberal democrat, it looks a little right wing (in your terminology, that which is usually used, rather than mine, that which is not used anymore).

Left/Right is so useless as a way to describe politics I just wish we could get used to it. Wait, I'm, um, supposed to be writing a peice on that very topic this weekend anyway. Methinks I ought to stop playing Civ. Nah...

Oh yeah; Libertarians are liberals. So was Churchill. Blair isn't liberal by pretty much any definition, despite being, nominally, a socialist. He's from the wrong side of the socialist tradition.

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

Oh, I believe Bush is plenty stupid enough to say that the Constitution is "just a piece of paper." His incompetence is so blatant that I'd believe almost anything idiotic he might do... especially given that Bush has, on occasion, referred to a Higher Law.

What I don't believe is that Bush would use the word, "goddamned."

[nicholey-2003.livejournal.com]

hear, hear. and people wonder why no one takes the damned democratic party seriously anymore. i may feel a lot of hatred toward the bush administration, and i may want to go all anti-ann-coulter-esque on them, but then i look at idiots like bill o'reilly and said coulter and sean hannity and i think, why do i want to portray myself in the same light as they are seen?

plus, being a supposed 'ethical' journalist, i'm not really allowed to say. but still ... spreading shit that you're not at least sort of sure about - not quite cool. i would have thought the same way you did had i read that at the time before checking out my sources. i think we are all just very frustrated with EVERYTHING that is going on, and especially since in this day and age liberals really don't have a voice, some people feel they have to take what they can get, which could result to radicalism ... radicalism isn't even a word ...

and i'm just yammering.

[gwalla.livejournal.com]

The last Trot in North America got an ice axe in the back of his head.

[(Anonymous)]

More confirmation than outrage, you know?

Exactly. I didn't bother to doubt it because it didn't surprise me the tiniest bit. It may be gossip, but it's much more dog-bites-man than man-bites-dog news.