I Learned It From Watching You, America-Hating Rupert!

In a column for the new, even more boring Newsweek, Slate editor Jacob Weisberg claims that Fox News "stands to become the first network to actively try to kill its viewers" by spreading lies about vaccines (HBO and the Huffington Post, he should be aware, are also trying to kill their constituents) and is "un-American" for adopting the "Australian-British-continental model of politicized media." This is an odd claim, considering Murdoch's other cable news channel, Sky News in the UK, in no way resembles the abrasive partisanship of Fox News. One easily could make the case that aggro, hyperpartisan cable news—which is an extension of talk radio, not The Sun and the News of the World—is a distinctly American approach to political discourse. Weisberg might not like it (I certainly don't), but Fox's ratings do count for something. (And yeah, it is also odd for Weisberg to denounce Fox's shrill tone while accusing them of trying to kill people because they hate America.)

Sure, says Weisberg, MSNBC and CNN are attempting to boost ratings by copying the Fox model, but the blame ultimately lies with Murdoch who "provoked his rivals at CNN and MSNBC to develop a variety of populist and ideological takes on the news." So if Rachel Maddow calls Americans for Prosperity's Tim Phillips a "parasite," if Olbermann calls anyone to his right a "fascist," you know who to blame. And it's downright bizarre to claim that, prior to the advent of Fox News, American media had a "tradition of independence—that it serves the public interest rather than those of parties, persuasions, or pressure groups."

There are plenty of problems with Weisberg's argument, but, as many others have pointed out, there is something peculiarly disconcerting about liberals, who frequently reminded us that dissent is the "highest form of patriotism," getting in to the un-American, unpatriotic game. I took a quick (and by no means comprehensive) look in Nexis and found the following recent examples of lefty jingoism:

Bill Press, syndicated columnist and former CNN host: "There's only one thing left: to rename the party for what it really stands for. It's no longer the Republican Party; it's the Hate America Party."

Eugene Robinson, Washington Post columnist: "Why, oh why, do conservatives hate America so?...As Republican leaders -- except RNC Chairman Michael Steele -- are beginning to realize, "I'm With the Taliban Against America" is not likely to be a winning slogan."

CNN Headline News host Joy Behar: Guest Richard Belzer: "We see, you know, they`re cheering when we don`t get the Olympics and - and demeaning the Nobel Prize...Joy Behar: Right, which is so un-American.

MSNBC's host Ed Schultz: "This attack on President Obama trying to get the Olympics is about the most un-American thing I think I've ever seen."

Radio host Cynthia Hardy on MSNBC's Hardball: "So [with the case of Rep. Joe Wilson] what you get is this blatant disregard for the office of the presidency, which is extremely un-American."

MSNBC's host  Ed Schultz: "Rush must have been popping a few too many pills that particular day. Turning a hopeful message about the resiliency of Americans into a partisan attack. That's un-American 'Psycho Talk,' which is par for the course."

Blogger Steve Clemons, appearing on MSNBC: "Jesse Helms of North Carolina was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for many years. And many of these folks that have come into their own today, particularly in the Bush administration, were essentially tutored by Helms to bring, you know, somewhat of a 'Fortress America' attitude to the comments, which are, I think, quite unpatriotic."

CNN Headline News host Joy Behar: "Now why don`t you figure that this is a little unpatriotic for [Palin] to go to Hong Kong and badmouth the president of the United States? At the very least it's disrespectful."

Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, appearing on MSNBC: "But they're trying to delegitimize him in any way they can, be as disrespectful, not just to him but to the office as they can. And to my mind, to be actually, what I would call unpatriotic in their approach."

MSNBC host Keith Olbermann: "How are Democrats, anything but at best -- I`ll use this combination -- irresponsible at worst, unpatriotic for giving that party more say than utterly necessary than what they have already in many amendments of this bill in health care reform."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Soledad O’Brien is such a phony. In April 2008, Reverend Jeremiah Wright gave a speech in Detroit to the NAACP.  One of the things that  he said in this speech was that black and white children learn with different parts of their brain, and then gave an "unflattering imitation of the way white pastors speak."  Peoples comments were that he gave a racial speech. Soledad  O'Brien, on CNN, was quoted as saying, in a gushing manner, that the speech was a "home run" and "really funny." When questioned about the things he said in the speech, she would say things like, what he really meant was .....or what he wanted to say was... Once again she's covering the truth and being racist.  Just as with the Henry Gates incident.  In an appearance on Anderson Cooper, the night or so before CNN's "The Moment of Truth" she appeared enraged that it was a racial profile against Gates. She said that she got calls from her FRIENDS saying it was all about Gates being black.  She went on that show with the purpose, at all costs, to destroy the credibility of the white police officer and throw him under the bus.  When Cooper was talking she wanted to make the point that Gates said "Thank You" to the police officers.  By mentioning that, she was purposely misrepresenting the truth by playing down Gates' belligerence and racial remarks, which she didn't even mention.  Even Gates' attorney and friend, said to the media that he used very strong language. Colon Powell and President Obama both said he should take blame in the incident.  I have seen this in many occasions with her, where she doesn't speak the truth and hides the true facts.  Another time on Anderson Cooper, Cooper said to O'Brien that Senator John McCain hasn't brought race into the campaign, like he said he wouldn't.  You would think her response would have been something like, that's great because he shouldn't.  Instead she strongly insinuated that he would, even in the last week of the campaign. Also, her questioning style, in interviews  is completely different with a white person than it is with a black person.  Like in her interview with Henry Gates in "The Moment of Truth"  She just went along with his lies. I have seen several comments on various websites about her racism.  There are many other examples I could give of her racial bias, dishonesty and hypocrisy. She seems to consider herself to be black. She mentioned in an interview that her parents made it clear to her “you’re black” and that’s all there is to it.
    She’s all about being #1, she wants the world to revolve around her. She comes first, before her family. She wants to be a celebrity figure and a star. In interviews she says she works 6 days a week, mostly out of town, and on some holidays. She goes to gala events, concerts, lots of entertainment events, as a single woman, leaving her husband and kids behind.
    I think Soledad O’Brien is a very poor journalist. What ever happened to the days of CNN with Bernard Shaw and Judy Woodruff? T hey were honorable journalists. You could believe what they said. John Las Vegas

  • @||

    Brevity, John. Sheesh.

  • ||

    I don't think this is John, the H&R regular. John Las Vegas, find a new handle please, that one's already taken.

  • 24AheadDotCom||

    You know what would be helpful? If you could add paragraphs to that and add citations to it, and then put it on a public website where others could link to it.

    That's what I do; for an example, here's a my coverage of Eliot Spitzer. Note that there's a summary at the top, followed by links to individual posts. You could do something like that, with the goal of discrediting her to others.

  • ||

    STFULW

  • ||

    Who asked you for advice, lonewhacko?

    -jcr

  • ||

    TLDR

  • Larry King||

    Jacob Weisberg: one class act!

  • ||

    And writing in Newsweek, that paragon of even-handed, no-bias news coverage!

  • hmm||

    The rating would count for something if they were just merely close or above the other stations. At all relevant times and possibly all times the ratings are two to three times that of their closest rival and often two to three times that of both their rivals.

    In a business that survives on who is watching Fox and Murdoch have cleaned the clocks of the other partisan networks. He has also done it openly proclaiming his intent and that the station does carry his personal views. While the others still claim to be the shinning example of nonpartisan reporting.

    From the liberal side of the aisle it seems it's okay to not be liberal, it just isn't okay to not be liberal and more successful.

  • Jamie||

    I don't know about the last - that it's OK not to be "liberal" as long as you're unsuccessful at it. I haven't seen any evidence that that's the common point of view from, as you say, the "liberal" side of the aisle; seems to me that even unsuccessful non-"liberals" tend to be hounded and subjected to vicious ad hominems until their "liberal" opponents appear to believe they've lost all public credibility. (Sorry about the scare quotes; I categorically deny that we're talking about liberals here, but rather "progressives" - who for the most part aren't progressive at all, so I'm actually trying to train myself to call them statists.)

  • ||

    FOX doesn't openly proclaim their partisan intent. They claim to be "fair and balanced", silly.

  • ||

    There are plenty of problems with Weisberg's argument, but, as many others have pointed out, there is something peculiarly disconcerting about liberals, who frequently reminded us that dissent is the "highest form of patriotism," getting in to the un-American, unpatriotic game.

    What is even more odd is that the "un-American unpatriotic game" worked so horribly bad for conservatives.
    If anyone is in a position to know how badly it worked it would be the progressives. Yet here they are adopting the same terrible meme that helped destroy the conservatives.

    Truly odd.

  • MJ||

    No, it is not. What liberals bitch about their opponents doing are exactly the things they will embrace wholeheartedly when they have power. Also, when the shoe was one the other foot, how many conservatives actually accused liberals noneuphemistically of being unpatriotic? How high ranking Republicans? Damned few. But rather prominant Democrats and liberal media types are accusing the right, and in no uncertain terms.

    One thing you have to realize is how self-righteous the left is. They can say and do the most horrible things because they are the good guys and their ends justify their means.

  • ||

    Also, most of the ire of the right was directed at left-wingers who were arguing that the US somehow deserved, or brought on, a massive terrorist attack, by oppressing and exploiting poor people with our evil capitalism.

    Which is quite a bit different from attacking someone as unpatriotic for not licking Obama's boots.

  • ||

    My theory is just that Dems are as clumsy making attacks on patriotism as Republicans are at making claims of racism and sexism.

  • Steve K||

    // Also, when the shoe was one the other foot, how many conservatives actually accused liberals noneuphemistically of being unpatriotic? How high ranking Republicans?

    Really? Dozens of demagogues on the right accused the Democrats of being unpatriotic and hating America. Even Cheney and Bush spoke of dissenting Democrats as giving aid to the terrorists.

    Both sides have called each other unpatriotic. Of course, that doesn't make either of them right.

  • Some guy||

    I have to admit, I get a laugh out of people who call those on the far left progressives. Pushing policies that were old in the 1930s is not exactly forward thinking.

  • ||

    Historically, it's rather funny. Progressives called themselves that in the early years of the 20th century, but the term was discredited and unpopular in the wake of Woodrow Wilson, etc. So progressives started calling themselves "liberals," in effect taking the term from 19th century/European liberals, who were small government/separation of church and state types. But by the '70s "liberals" was a dirty word, so many leftists went back to "progressives."

  • ||

    Pushing policies that were old in the 1930s is not exactly forward thinking.

    Oh, it's older than that. The whole "progressive" agenda is to return us to serfdom.

    -jcr

  • ||

    I don;t want to cal them democrats as it would make me appear to be partisan...i don;t like calling them liberals cuz dammit i am a liberal...a real liberal who actually believes in liberty. I can't call them socialist cuz that pisses of Moynahan for some reason that is inexplicable. So now i can't call them progressives? what the fuck can I call them?

    I guess i could have said "the left" but it did not seem to fit the sentence very well.

  • Jamie||

    "Statists."

  • ben tej||

    I find that could be confusing, though, as many republicans may also be "statists" (usually on moral matters, sometimes fiscally). Maybe "left-statist" and "right-statist"?

    This makes them kind of a ying and yang to the dickslap of our government, if I may be allowed to mix metaphors.

  • ||

    They're socialists - screw Moynahan's incorrect sensibilities.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    CBS

    Texas Air National Guard

  • ||

    "getting in to the un-American, unpatriotic game"

    Getting into? They've done it plenty of times before. Don't you remember the discussions of welfare reform, or Ted Kennedy's speech during Bork's nomination? When Greg Mankiw said something nice about outsourcing?

  • ||


    When Greg Mankiw said something nice about outsourcing?

    That's something that has largely crossed party lines. However, the discussion goes to the point where two parties lose - the H1-b recipient that is discouraged from reporting obvious violations in their line of work and the displaced by its ability to be evasive against all citizens (source for both statements: GAO documents GAO-06-720 and HEHS-00-157).

    How is the opposition towards outsourcing (and its inevitable byproduct, offshoring) as it is done now a "Fox v. MSNBC, CNN, et. al." or "left vs. right" thing when the direction it takes is anything but?

    The only thing that keeps it from being a constant worry is the gradual acceptance of something considered "inevitable".

  • Abdul||

    I thought the first network actively trying to kill its viewers was VH-1. The batteries in my remote died while I was watching VH-1 and I nearly hung myself

  • ||

    I don't see that anything has drastically changed. The only difference is the commentary/opinion/blowhard segments are on a channel that has the word "news" in it instead of "broadcasting".

  • Jerry||

    That this guy still has a job.

  • @||

    CNN Headline News host Joy Behar

    "Joy."
    Has any child ever been more inappropriately named?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    This is... she's the... CNN HAS JOY BEHAR HOSTING SOMETHING WITH NEWS IN THE TITLE???

    I thought that Headline News was a channel that just did news, no [whatever the hell kind of show Joy Behar would host] type of programming.

  • @||

    Where have you been for the last year, Fist? Headline News has become HLN. It's now a tabloid network. For women! Missing children. Rapes. Balloon boys. More missing children! More rapes! Psychotic female hosts! And Larry King!

  • MJ||

    The difference between a psychotic female host and Larry King is,...what?

  • Larry King||

    Joy Behar: one class act!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Srsly? Wow, the last I saw Headline News it was strictly, well, news. How long ago was that? Damn.

    Lifetime News, I like it. Too bad my television dial stops at Channel 13, as God intended.

  • Paul||

    Don't forget, Beck used to be on Headline News ... Nancy Grace, too.

  • @||

    Nancy Grace is still there. Still looking for Caylee. Hey Nancy! They found her! Wrapped in plastic. You can weep now.

  • ||

    Has any child ever been more inappropriately named?

    HA! Truly.

    Joy Behar is the most obnoxious fucking yenta (properly pronounced yenter by those who use the word often) in the world.

  • @||

    Funny thing is, she's not even Jewish. Her ancestry is Italian.
    What's the Italian word for yenta?

  • Guido||

    Stupid cunt. Fat twat will also do.

  • Jim Treacher||

    Oddly enough, there are Jews in Italy.

  • jtuf||

    At this point, Reason and the occasional WSJ are the only American news sources I bother to read. If something that major happens in the US, I'll read about it in the Times of India.

  • ||

    O rly? Are you aware that the Times of India sells space in its news section, and even on its front page with no indication whatsoever that the "article" is paid for? Are you also aware that the Times of India will sign "private treaties" with firms that basically consist of the Times getting a stake in the firm in return for favourable coverage? The Times of India is about as reliable and trustworthy a news source as Rachel Maddow's watchlist on Wikipedia.

  • matt||

    And this affects things how, exactly?

    To me, this seems like a slightly more third-world version of what all newspapers do. I don't think the NYT is falling all over itself to print Carlos Slim exposes, either.

  • Br'er Rabbit||

    If something that major happens in the US, I'll read about it in the Times of India.

    If drunken elephants trample villagers to death somewhere in the USA the Times of India will be the first place I'll look.

  • Rich||

    Laugh if you must; but I agree with jtuf. For example, the best coverage of the DPRK "attack on Hawaii" was provided by the Indians.

  • Colin||

    I don't know who's to blame, but twenty years ago even the New York Times was pretty objective in their coverage, and now almost no one is.

  • ||

    I agree and wish we could go back to a time where we got straight unbiased news reporting on events like the Tet Offensive.

    I for one welcome news outfits that embrace their biases instead of attempting to conceal them, because they all have them, and always have.

    You could even argue that a big part of Fox's success comes from the fact that they have a monopoly on the Republican viewpoint part of the TV news dial while the Democratic viewpoint side has to divide their viewership among several different networks.

    And of course the internet allows people to seek out all sorts of viewpoints if they so choose, which to me pretty much makes the above calculus less important than it used to be.

  • ||

    I don't know who's to blame, but twenty years ago even the New York Times was pretty objective in their coverage, and now almost no one is.

    I really don't see this as a bad thing. I can listen to NPR and know where they are coming from and still form an opinion very different then the one they are trying to give me.

    I think it is a more honest approach. Not to say that NPR is honest about it.

    The one thing i do find very annoying is the outlets that try to fake being objective.

  • ||

    Well, sort of. But sins of omission are harder to detect. Would NPR ever mention (e.g.) Sweden's success with school vouchers?

  • ||

    That is true...i guess it does take a bit of self education and a broader sampling of various news sources to be aware of omissions and other slant.
    Still i do not see how the lack of self education and a broader sampling would not be required if news groups were the mythical objectivests they claim to strive for.

  • Jamie||

    Bugs the unholy cr*p out of me that NPR dares to call itself National Public Radio. I listen as a proud free rider, while laughing maniacally at their appeals for pledges - "Not in my name, you smarmy-mouthed whiny-voiced effetes!"

  • ||

    Jamie, you dropped out one word there- it's National *Socialist* Public Radio. Don't you feel much better now?

  • ||

    Hey, at least the Republican's jingoism actually related to, ya know, a massive terrorist attack by people that actually want to kill as many Americans as they can.

    The Democrats are getting all jingoistic over, what, people not agreeing with the health care plans?

    Fuck you.

  • ||

    The Iraq War had absolutely nothing to do with a terrorist attack of any sort, let alone a massive one.

  • ||

    True but the vast majority of the charges of unamericanism weren't directed against Iraq war protestors, but against the ANSWER left wing types who were also against Afghanistan and/or were arguing that the US deserved it in some way, or that the US is an evil oppressive country.

    In any case, going against the country in a war is more traditional territory for charges of unpatriotism than failing to support the president's health care plans.

  • ||

    So if Rachel Maddow calls Americans for Prosperity's Tim Phillips a "parasite," if Olbermann calls anyone to his right a "fascist," you know who to blame.

    Yes. Maddow and Olbermann. And their bosses probably.

    Radical, yes, I know.

  • Lester Hunt||

    These Demos don't know how to use this "un-American," "unpatriotic" rhetoric plausibly. The Olympics? The Nobel Joke Prize? They should study the speeches of Joe McCarthy to see how it is done properly.

  • Paul||

    There are plenty of problems with Weisberg's argument, but, as many others have pointed out, there is something peculiarly disconcerting about liberals, who frequently reminded us that dissent is the "highest form of patriotism," getting in to the un-American, unpatriotic game.

    HA!

    They meant their own dissent. Dissenting against them is treason, of course.

  • Jamie||

    Right - they meant it, and their intentions were good (to bring down the eeeeevil that is modern America, replacing it with a nice little Lego block of a nation, just like all the other little Lego blocks). Lost on them was (and is) the fact that geopolitics is not a freaking preschool, and (this part, from the cultural relativists, astounds me) that what one says actually does have readily understood meaning in the context of the culture in which it is said. Thus, "Amerikkka sux!" said by an American can in fact be taken to mean "I actually do hate America! It costs me nothing to say so or to do so, so my hatred is pretty much as superficial as everything else about me, but there you go!"

  • ||

    The comments over at slate on this issue are hysterical. Current liberals are the most un-self aware people on earth. They rage about how horrible and narrowminded and oppressive Conservatives are and how they need to be silenced. Okay, project much? And Slate is not Kos. It is supposed to be middle left. The whole lot of them have lost their minds.

  • dave c||

    I don't think the Left is very bright to start with.

    After the clusterfuck of this President/Congress, hopefully they will be out of serious political power for sometime to come.

    But you never know.

  • ||

    Liberals right now are like Steinbrenner was from 2002-07. He was spending north of $200M a year on player salaries, getting all the best free agents on the market, and still couldn't even get to the World Series.

    This has just got to be a huge disappointment for them. They got pretty much everything they wanted: the White House and supermajorities in Congress, and yet none of their grand plans have come to fruition. Add liberals tend to be far more invested in politics than conservatives, so the anger is much closer to the surface.

  • ||

    I just spent a few minutes watching Greta Susteren on Fox talking with Tucker Carlson about the White House's and other major media outlet's "attack" on Fox News. Then flipped over and watched Olbermann for a couple minutes whining about the same thing, but obviously from a very different perspective. The irony was so incredibly thick it was nauseating. Looks like Tucker got out of MSNBC just in time. Since I'm on the road in L.A. and away from home, I didn't have my 1911 .45 with me, which is a good thing, because I probably would have shot the TV.

  • ||

    Mr. Moynihan,

    I disagree with the assertion that Fox News is the reason we've developed such a hyper partisan political tone. Fox News, in my opinion, is the appropriate counter balance to the left's historical control of the media. They started out as the little guy, they had to yell to make themselves heard.

    Sure, the "liberal" press (though they're all statist, Fox included) may have covered news in a supposedly "independent" manner prior to Fox News, but the stories covered were chosen through the prism of ideology, the phrases used to describe people, places, and things were unconsciously leftist (They always inform you that a politician caught up in a scandal is a Republican, but if it's a Democrat scandal, it's the Sen. So and So of Such and Such State), etc. They didn't have to be as in-your-face partisan as Fox News to still be partisan, and drastically so.

    No news can be reported upon without the perspective of the reporter /news organization coming through. Our real problem is that the only "news" we get anymore is the endless editorializing of both the extreme left and the extreme right's talking heads, and there is zero reason to believe that any of them know anything about what they're discussing (See: Number of talking heads that saw September of 2008 coming). I mean, who seriously believes that Glenn Beck is a Libertarian? Come on, how Libertarian do you think he'll be in September of 2010?!? That's a riot.

    CNN, MSNBC, Fox, they're all for increased government, they just want its increases targeted in specific ways. There is no other voice or alternative heard on that scale.

    Thanks.

  • ||

    Oh, yes, the biggest manifestation of bias is in which stories get covered.

    You know, the way the local newspaper will run a three week series on homeless veterans, while relegating a story on eminent domain abuse to a three paragraph clip on page B15.

  • ||

    Glenn Beck is a conservative who favors less government than we've had this decade. He may not be a true big "L" Libertarian Party member, but he seems to have genuine respect for libertarian guests on his show. Sean Hannity in the partisan Republican on Fox, but the rest of the hosts are mostly just more respectful to conservatives than is typical of TV news and commentary.

  • ||

    There sure are a lot of logical fallacies around here for a web site named "reason" lol

  • ||

    Sadly i have nothing to drink at the moment.

  • ||

    If there are a lot, you should have no trouble giving an example of one...

  • ||

    "I'm With the Taliban Against America"

    Uh-oh! Somebody was not listening to the president. The president had said recently that Taliban were not AlQaeda, he would not rule out welcoming the Taliban to share the govt in Kabul. Seems the president was saying "I'm With the Taliban Against America".

  • TJA||

    Check out this non photoshopped picture of a person who appears to be Axelrod warning the mainstream press about taking Fox News seriously. Note their slavish devotion.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Telescreen.png

  • ||

    Behar calls Palin unpatriotic for attacking Obama in a foreign country, but when Obama goes to Cairo and says:

    "Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course."

    I don't consider anything the Bush Administration did in the War on Terror contrary to my ideals.

  • Punk||

    Except for that "Patriot Act" thingie and Iraq, there's nothing to see here. Move along.

  • Zeb||

    I do.

  • Rick||

    "And yeah, it is also odd for Weisberg to denounce Fox's shrill tone while accusing them of trying to kill people because they hate America."

    Odd?

    Uhh, ya think?

  • ||

    I'll raise your "unpatriotic" with an "enlist now".

  • ||

    Weisberg didn't seem to be using "un-American" in the sense of un-patriotic, but in the sense of "not in the American tradition." So Fox is "un-American" in the way that hairy armpits on women is un-American, not the way that Benedict Arnold was un-American. I think he's clearly wrong on the facts about that--as it's been pointed out, partisan media is squarely in the American position--but he should be criticized for the lousy arguement he did make, not the lousy argument he didn't make.

  • ||

    He almost certainly meant "un-American" in the sense of "meaningless epithet it's momentarily convenient to toss in my opponents' direction".

    If you think professional opinionators pause to reflect on the nuances of meaning buried deep in the words they use, I've got an ultra-American bridge to sell you.

  • ||

    Tulpa, I bow to your obviously superior interpretation. I think you've nailed it.

  • @||

    At the end of the day, there will be pushback.

  • Mike M.||

    Obviously Weisberg has jumped on board with the Obama administration's repulsive Nixonian strategy of declaring outright war on any media entity that dares to so much as even question The One.

    To their credit, I've seen a few liberals in the press defend FNCs right of free speech, but Weisberg is certainly no classical liberal of the old kind.

  • Bill Clinton||

    We recognized, once again, that we can't love our country and hate our government.

  • Bill Clinton||

    In this high-tech world, we must make sure that we have the high-tech tools to confront the high-tech forces of destruction and evil.

    That is why I have insisted that Congress pass strong anti-terrorism legislation immediately -- to provide for more than 1,000 new law enforcement personnel solely to fight terrorism; to create a domestic anti-terrorism center;

    […]

    We can do this without undermining our constitutional rights. In fact, the failure to act will undermine those rights.

    […]

    I would like to say something to [those of you] who believe the greatest threat to America comes not from terrorists from ... beyond our borders, but from our own government.

    I believe you have every right, indeed you have the responsibility, to question our government when you disagree with its policies. And I will do everything in my power to protect your right to do so.

    But I also know there have been lawbreakers among those who espouse your philosophy.

    […]

    The people who came to the United States to bomb the World Trade Center were wrong.

    […]

    How dare you suggest that we in the freest nation on Earth live in tyranny.

    […]

    There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government.

  • ||

    I get nostalgic for the Clinton regime a lot these days. Those quotes mitigate the nostalgia, but not completely.

  • Liberal Douchebag||

    How dare you get in the way of our progress! Don't you realize that we know what's best for you? You narrow minded right wingnuts need to listen to what we're saying, we just want what's best for you. Maybe you should be held captive while we educate you on our grand plan. But no, you'd rather goosestep through the streets spitting on gays and unwed couples.

    We just want a world where everyone holds hands and sings all the time and has want for nothing, except (historically) non-Americans, non-white Americans, immigrants, and anyone who disagrees with us. They're lower than our enlightened selves and are only fit to serve us.

  • Tony||

    I don't care if you hate America. I care if you're a lying hypocritical asshole who spent the Bush years calling for me to be sent to Gitmo for the crime of being against the occupation of Iraq. Liberals are NOT demanding everyone shut up and follow Obama. Actually they're spending most of their time criticizing him. It's the hypocrisy of the right, not the (sudden) lack of patriotism.

  • ||

    spent the Bush years calling for me to be sent to Gitmo for the crime of being against the occupation of Iraq.

    Nice. In one breath you make an obviously hyperbolic exgarration of conservatives comments, and in the next you whine that people are exagerrating liberals comments.

    How very hypocritical of you, Tony.

    If you are going to insist that we be honest about what liberal are "really" saying, you could start by not lying your ass off about what conservatives have said.

  • Solanum||

    I care if you're a lying hypocritical asshole who spent the Bush years calling for me to be sent to Gitmo for the crime of being against the occupation of Iraq.

    What the fuck are you even talking about?

  • Jim Treacher||

    What the fuck are you even talking about?

    He doesn't know.

  • TallDave||

    I also called for you to be tortured.

  • JB||

    Anyone who doesn't think CNN was ideological years ago is a fucking retard.

  • ||

    One easily could make the case that aggro, hyperpartisan cable news—which is an extension of talk radio, not The Sun and the News of the World—is a distinctly American approach to political discourse.

    Why do we act as if aggro, hyperpartisan news is a creature solely of the right? Dear God, as if MSNBC, CNN, and to a lesser extent the Olde Networks aren't aggressive, or at least passive-aggressive, partisans on their own account.

    And no, there's nothing wrong with that.

  • ||

    "Sure, says Weisberg, MSNBC and CNN are attempting to boost ratings by copying the Fox model, but the blame ultimately lies with Murdoch..."

    Standard liberal tactic: it's ok that we do it because you do it too. But you suck for doing it.

  • TallDave||

    Generally, only left-liberals throw out the "unpatriotic" or "un-American" attacks, because only the center-right to right really cares about being patriotic Americans.

    Lefties are generally more than happy to be global citizens first, Americans (distantly) second. Thus they happily call Mao their favorite philosopher, etc.

    Usually the only time we hear about patriotism from the left is in the context of complaining some comment from the right indirectly questions their love of country, which is pretty hilarious given Moynihan's quotes above.

  • ||

    Liberals are such America haters and I really cant understand why they keep complaining when they are IN POWER.
    Wah, wah, wah.........

  • ||

    Joy Behar: "Now why don`t you figure that this is a little unpatriotic for [Palin] to go to Hong Kong and badmouth the president..."

    Funny. Living in Germany, I saw American academics and entertainers by the planeload hammering the President and often the whole country, or selling books and movies doing the same. That was during the Bush years, of course. Having done their worst, these same people went home and complained how Bush made America look bad.

  • ||

    Unamerican huh? When ever anyone tries to dissent they are branded as unamerican. Unamerican is the party that is out of power. Partisans in both political parties act the same way when they are in and out of power. After 8 years of books and speeches about how Bush was turning this country into a theocracy. Now we have Obama envoking the name of ... Read MoreGod even more than Bush did but its ok to liberals when Obama does it but not when bush did it. The dixie chicks spoke out against and were punished by their conservative consumers.When the whole foods CEO spoke out against obamacare his liberal consumers went nuts.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement