Ed Koch: Palin Holds High Ground Over Harsh and Unfair Critics

[ACW]

Can people stop trying to say that "The Left is scared of Palin," or "Palin has liberals running in fear," or any similar phrases?

I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks that's actually true.

Well, to be fair, the thought of her as Pres=:ahhhhh:

[Burgold]

Can people stop trying to say that "The Left is scared of Palin," or "Palin has liberals running in fear," or any similar phrases?

I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks that's actually true.

I think they find it strangely comforting. That way they don't have to think about the fact that they have embraced/adopted her as one of their main spokespeople.

[SnyderShrugged]

Maybe I'm misreading this, it sounds to me like you believe the media has read Saul Alinsky's writings and is conducting themselves accordingly. Or maybe just a portion of the media, but enough to conduct coordinated campaign against Palin using tactics learned from Alinsky.

I hope not, because that would be bone stupid, birther stupid, truther stupid, Elvis-is-living-on-a-desert-island stupid. So I must be reading it wrong.

But any way you look at it, what you are saying is exactly the kind of unfair assumption making that Koch is talking about. Do you think conservatives are also being disengenuous by ignoring the similarities between Loughner's anti-government paranoia and rhetoric from the fringes of the Tea Party and conservative blogs?

no, mainly because there arent any similarities whatsoever. laughner was a nut, nothing more, nothing less. His attack wasnt political at all and the fact that this dumb line of thought is still present, even after ALL the facts say otherwise is telling all by itself.

No, I dont think ALL the media is performing an Alinsky strategy, but there definitely are some (see journolist if you have doubt)

Again, all that said, its no skin off my back how they treat Palin, because frankly, I think she and the rest of the neo-cons are as bad for our country as any marxist ever had fantasies of being.

But I'm also a realist and I call it like I see it. Personally, I think the left has made a mistake and have been baited into targetting Palin (among others). She, in effect acts as a lightning rod and a resource drain where they could have otherwise found better targets that would be more impactful for their policy advancements if they took them down. Just my humble opinion of course, but thats the way it looks from someone with no stake in either of the Redsox vs Yankees teams in politics.

[mardi gras skin]

Can people stop trying to say that "The Left is scared of Palin," or "Palin has liberals running in fear," or any similar phrases?

I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks that's actually true.

What are you talking about? Liberals say, "She scares the hell out of me." Ed Koch acknowledged that he said that in the original article. If liberals are tired of hearing that Palin scares the left, they should stop saying they're scared and quit being so obsessed with her.

[zoony]

What are you talking about? Liberals say, "She scares the hell out of me." Ed Koch acknowledged that he said that in the original article. If liberals are tired of hearing that Palin scares the left, they should stop saying they're scared and quit being so obsessed with her.

She scares the hell out of me in an indirect way. When did the American People decide stupid was okay? In other words, I'm scared for our country.

[mardi gras skin]

She scares the hell out of me in an indirect way. When did the American People decide stupid was okay? In other words, I'm scared for our country.

She isn't important enough to scare me. I agree with a recent Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/opinion/17douthat.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

To the media: Cover Sarah Palin if you want, but stop acting as if she’s the most important conservative politician in America. Stop pretending that she has a plausible path to the presidency in 2012. (She doesn’t.) Stop suggesting that she’s the front-runner for the Republican nomination. (She isn’t.) And every time you’re tempted to parse her tweets for some secret code or crucial dog whistle, stop and think, this woman has fewer Twitter followers than Ben Stiller, and then go write about something else instead.

[twa]

stop acting as if she’s the most important conservative politician in America???

If they did that they would just drag out the Rush is one

[JMS]

I will I wouldn't go that far. He's certainly equally well known for creative editting, cherry picking, etc. He's much more of a propagandist than a documentarian.

Moores facts are absolutely true. It's his conclusions and hypothesises which are questionable....

Example.... Moore makes the claim that Bush Senior is more concerned with Saudi Intrests than he is American interests. As evidence of this he points to the fact that Bush Sr makes about 200k a year as his former president's pention, but has hundreds of millions of dollars worth of business with the saudi royal family. The facts are true, but it's questionable that those prove his hypothesis....

Another Example.... Saudi Arabia is such close friends with the United States and our economies are so closely tied that the Secrete Service which guards the President also guards the Saudi Embassy and their Ambassidor. Factually accurate... although it doesn't entirely support his assertion because the uniformed secret service guard many embassies in DC.

I don't know if you've ever sat through a Michael Moore film. But I'll tell you he makes really really wild statements in his movies. Things you will never hear and have never heard from the American news industry. I've never heard Moore make a mistake on one of these wild accusasions. Never heard him backed up or refuted in a decisive manor. Sonjay Gupta MD did a 15 minute exposa on Moore's movie SICKO and pointed out all sorts of inaccuracies. Moore went on CNN that evening and mopped the floor with Sonjay. Sonjay openned up the debate with another piece recapping all the issues he was wrong about in the previous piece.

Goeing to Moores flicks are worth it just to hear the facts/cases he lays out. Again I don't always agree with his conclusions, but he's not anywhere in the catagory of Palin.....

I remember Farenheight 9/11 all the outragous claims made by Moore in that movie. The one which the detractors tried to focus on was rediculous. Moore made the case that only like one or two congressmen had children fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq. Moores detractors said he was wrong. Another congresmen he didn't mention had a nephew fighitng over there. That kind of thing. Moore couched his argument correctly; but still the critism has value. No doubt the congressmen in question cares about his nephew and thus has a personal connection to the wars; the issue doesn't blow Moore out of the water, but it is a valid issue to bring up.

[Prosperity]

What are you talking about? Liberals say, "She scares the hell out of me." Ed Koch acknowledged that he said that in the original article. If liberals are tired of hearing that Palin scares the left, they should stop saying they're scared and quit being so obsessed with her.

I'm a liberal, and I do think she is scary and dangerous.

I sincerely believe she wants to destroy my values and my community/ies The fear comes from the fact that lots of Americans agree with her. So maybe not really her, but who and what she represents. That scares me, and ultimately it makes me ok w/ the complete evisceration of her political career. I think the media has done well in that regard.

[DjTj]

no, mainly because there arent any similarities whatsoever. laughner was a nut, nothing more, nothing less. His attack wasnt political at all and the fact that this dumb line of thought is still present, even after ALL the facts say otherwise is telling all by itself.

That's a very large assumption to make at this stage. I think it's clear that Loughlin's actions have no direct connection to anything that Palin has said, but I think it would be incorrect to say that his attack was not political at all. Loughner clearly had his own political ideology in mind, and he deliberately chose a politician as his target. Saying he is is nothing more or nothing less than a nut is ignoring a lot of conflicting evidence.

Since last Saturday’s shooting frenzy in Tucson, investigators and the news media have spent the week frantically trying to assemble the Jared Loughner jigsaw puzzle in hopes that the pieces will fit, a clear picture will emerge and the answer to why will be found, providing the faint reassurance of a dark mystery solved.

Instead, the pattern of facts so far presents only a lack of one, a curlicue of contradictory moments open to broad interpretation. Here he is, a talented saxophonist with a prestigious high school jazz band, and there he is, a high school dropout. Here he is, a clean-cut employee for an Eddie Bauer store, and there he is, so unsettling a presence that tellers at a local bank would feel for the alarm button when he walked in.

Those who see premeditation in the acts Mr. Loughner is accused of committing can cite, for example, his pleading of the Fifth Amendment or the envelope the authorities found in his safe that bore the handwritten words “Giffords,” “My assassination” and “I planned ahead” — or how he bided his time in the supermarket, even using the men’s room. Those who suspect he is insane, and therefore a step removed from being responsible for his actions, can point to any of his online postings

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/us/16loughner.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

I think there is a clear political aspect to Loughner's psychology.

Jared, a curious teenager who at times could be intellectually intimidating, stood out because of his passionate opinions about government — and his obsession with dreams.

He became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government and that the country’s central banking system was enslaving its citizens. His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government.

“I think he feels the people should be able to govern themselves,” said Ms. Figueroa, his former girlfriend. “We didn’t need a higher authority.”

Breanna Castle, 21, another friend from junior and senior high school, agreed. “He was all about less government and less America,” she said, adding, “He thought it was full of conspiracies and that the government censored the Internet and banned certain books from being read by us.”

Among the books that he would later cite as his favorites: “Animal Farm,” “Fahrenheit 451,” “Mein Kampf” and “The Communist Manifesto.” Also: “Peter Pan.”

As he alienated himself from his small clutch of friends, grew contemptuous of women in positions of power and became increasingly oblivious to basic social mores, Mr. Loughner seemed to develop a dreamy alternate world, where the sky was sometimes orange, the grass sometimes blue and the Internet’s informational chaos provided refuge.

He became an echo chamber for stray ideas, amplifying, for example, certain grandiose tenets of a number of extremist right-wing groups — including the need for a new money system and the government’s mind-manipulation of the masses through language.

His beliefs may not have been well-reasoned, and he certainly did not associate with any specific political parties, but I think that if I were going to categorize his attack, I'd say that it was political. It wasn't personal, it wasn't about money ... and it wasn't totally random. If it wasn't political, then what was it?

[JMS]

If anything I gave Palin too much credit in comparing her to Sean Hannity and Moore. Those two both understand that a good lie has to be surrounded by a great deal of truth. More isn't about facts he's about distortion as much as he is about fact. He'll hit you with 8 facts and 2 lies out of ten but then craft a larger lie in the process leading to a highly questionable conclusion. He's smart enough to realize this but does it anyway which is why I put him up there with the other intellectual crack deals making money by selling fear and division.

Moore makes a broad statement... and then supports it with facts... You can claim the facts he offers don't prove his statement. I would agree with that. What is harder to do is to claim Moores facts are wrong. Or that his statement has no merit based upon his supporting facts. I think the way Moore lays out his arguments are honest, pursuasive and compelling... Just not decisive or even correct.

Moore is always thought provoking and educational though. I always learn things from Moores flicks.

[SnyderShrugged]

I'm a liberal, and I do think she is scary and dangerous.

I sincerely believe she wants to destroy my values and my community/ies The fear comes from the fact that lots of Americans agree with her. So maybe not really her, but who and what she represents. That scares me, and ultimately it makes me ok w/ the complete evisceration of her political career. I think the media has done well in that regard.

what values has she been seeking to destroy?

[JMS]

I will I wouldn't go that far. He's certainly equally well known for creative editting, cherry picking, etc. He's much more of a propagandist than a documentarian.

Moore isn't a "propagandist at all. Moore is most accurately described by the term video editorialist. He comes at an issue from one perspective, makes an observation and then tries to support it. Not through fiction, or falsehoods as his detractors assert but never quite prove. Moore makes very compelling arguments for his beliefs....

The only folks who could possible believe him to be a propagandist are the folks who refuse to sit through one of his movies. If you actually sat through one of his movies you would get it. The fact that his most vocal critics don't feel the need to actually sit through his movies should give pause to any of their followers.

[Dan T.]

Moore isn't a "propagandist at all. Moore is most accurately described by the term video editorialist. He comes at an issue from one perspective, makes an observation and then tries to support it. Not through fiction, or falsehoods as his detractors assert but never quite prove. Moore makes very compelling arguments for his beliefs....

The only folks who could possible believe him to be a propagandist are the folks who refuse to sit through one of his movies. If you actually sat through one of his movies you would get it. The fact that his most vocal critics don't feel the need to actually sit through his movies should give pause to any of their followers.

I've seen several of his movies. He's a propagandist in the most classic sense of the term. I don't think even he would disagree with that.

[Prosperity]

what values has she been seeking to destroy?

multiculturalism, personal liberty, elitism, sustainability/responsibility

[Burgold]

Moore isn't a "propagandist at all. Moore is most accurately described by the term video editorialist. He comes at an issue from one perspective, makes an observation and then tries to support it. Not through fiction, or falsehoods as his detractors assert but never quite prove. Moore makes very compelling arguments for his beliefs....

The only folks who could possible believe him to be a propagandist are the folks who refuse to sit through one of his movies. If you actually sat through one of his movies you would get it. The fact that his most vocal critics don't feel the need to actually sit through his movies should give pause to any of their followers.

He also been sued by a number of the people he's interviewed from misrepresenting their views and for carefully editing them to create impressions were contrary to how the speakers felt. And yes, I've seen Moore's films. He's very good at what he does, but he teeters at the very edge of honesty and is much more interested in furthering his point of view than what the facts he uncovers demonstrate. He's a propagandist... now, not all propaganda is mean, evil, or intended to destroy... but all is intended to lead a viewer down a very specific path.

That's what he does.

Edit: I think it's important to come to grips with what the guy's on our side think. Yes, I'm sympathetic to a number of his arguments and causes, but I'm also honest enough to recognize that he crosses several ethical lines to make his point. In my view that weakens his argument tremendously because it gives his enemies an easy "out"

[Prosperity]

Moore isn't a "propagandist at all. Moore is most accurately described by the term video editorialist. He comes at an issue from one perspective, makes an observation and then tries to support it. Not through fiction, or falsehoods as his detractors assert but never quite prove. Moore makes very compelling arguments for his beliefs....

The only folks who could possible believe him to be a propagandist are the folks who refuse to sit through one of his movies. If you actually sat through one of his movies you would get it. The fact that his most vocal critics don't feel the need to actually sit through his movies should give pause to any of their followers.

what is your idea of a propagandist?

[Henry]

Michael Moore is definitely a propagandist. He finds facts to support an assumption rather than basing his assumptions on facts. I find him very intellectually dishonest and insulting to the intelligence of his audience.

[boobiemiles]

Really, Koch is crying foul?! I mean really?! It seems that both sides sling mud, but only the GoP seems to cry when things get dirty. I mean Sarah has recieved harsh media attention....maybe she should shut her mouth. Like the saying goes, some can consider you an idiot, until you remove all doubt. Is her treatment any worst than the one Obama recieved over the last 6 months? I mean they put a mustache on Obama to make him look like Hitler. Stop the nonesense.

[JimboDaMan]

no, mainly because there arent any similarities whatsoever. laughner was a nut, nothing more, nothing less. His attack wasnt political at all and the fact that this dumb line of thought is still present, even after ALL the facts say otherwise is telling all by itself.

Loughner's a nut. A self-made nut as much as we can tell, not a product of anybody else's politics, from what we can tell. But you won't admit the obvious similarities between his anti-government rambling and the right wing fringe, while insisting that the Invisible Hand of Alinsky guides a liberal media attack on Palin. It's ridiculous.

[JMS]

He also been sued by a number of the people he's interviewed from misrepresenting their views and for carefully editing them to create impressions were contrary to how the speakers felt. And yes, I've seen Moore's films. He's very good at what he does, but he teeters at the very edge of honesty and is much more interested in furthering his point of view than what the facts he uncovers demonstrate. He's a propagandist... now, not all propaganda is mean, evil, or intended to destroy... but all is intended to lead a viewer down a very specific path.

He's no more a propagandist than George Will, Charles Krouthammer, or David Brooks. All these people come at a story with clear bias, just as Moore does. All these guys present a one sided view of the topic. They just do it in print and he does it in much more depth with a movie camera.

I would argue there is no truth in the world, and that the best one can hope for is to have folks like Moore on both sides of any issue who present clear and reasoned arguments to spur discussion. I frankly don't agree with Moore on a lot of his opinions. But his movies are always fun to watch and educational. His arguments are informative, interesting and educational. Moores critics are knee jerk detractors who put little thought into why they are against him other than the fact that they are on the opposite side of the discussion from him and typically deamonize any strong voice on the opposition. And Moore is a strong clear voice.

Edit: I think it's important to come to grips with what the guy's on our side think. Yes, I'm sympathetic to a number of his arguments and causes, but I'm also honest enough to recognize that he crosses several ethical lines to make his point. In my view that weakens his argument tremendously because it gives his enemies an easy "out"

I haven't seen any of his enemies capitalize on an easy out. All I've seen them do is attack the man and attack his pictures superficially. I guess that's convincing for folks who haven't seen his pictures. As Moore's broader topics; I'm not sympathetic nor do I agree with Moore on most of his premises.... I just find his arguments interesting, thought provoking, and well researched; and I guess I find that refreshing.

[SnyderShrugged]

Loughner's a nut. A self-made nut as much as we can tell, not a product of anybody else's politics, from what we can tell. But you won't admit the obvious similarities between his anti-government rambling and the right wing fringe, while insisting that the Invisible Hand of Alinsky guides a liberal media attack on Palin. It's ridiculous.

no, there really are very little similarities. he ranted as mich or more about literacy than anything related to so called "anti-government". in the materials I saw.

I see the actual tactics taking place in the Alinsky strategy first hand. Please dont take this as me claiming a conspiracy. It isnt one, at least not a large scale one. But the facts are right there for you to see that there is in fact planning by SOME in the media to seek and destroy her. See Journo-list scandal for context.

I think the Alinsky method is a very well thought out and sound strategy to go after your opponent with. It works.

[mardi gras skin]

Really, Koch is crying foul?! I mean really?! It seems that both sides sling mud, but only the GoP seems to cry when things get dirty. I mean Sarah has recieved harsh media attention....maybe she should shut her mouth. Like the saying goes, some can consider you an idiot, until you remove all doubt. Is her treatment any worst than the one Obama recieved over the last 6 months? I mean they put a mustache on Obama to make him look like Hitler. Stop the nonesense.

I just wanted to get this quote locked in before someone else tells you Koch is a Democrat. :slap:

[SnyderShrugged]

Really, Koch is crying foul?! I mean really?! It seems that both sides sling mud, but only the GoP seems to cry when things get dirty. I mean Sarah has recieved harsh media attention....maybe she should shut her mouth. Like the saying goes, some can consider you an idiot, until you remove all doubt. Is her treatment any worst than the one Obama recieved over the last 6 months? I mean they put a mustache on Obama to make him look like Hitler. Stop the nonesense.

You know Koch is a Dem, right? (and the hitler mustache was from the leftist group LaRouche btw)

edit:

Jinx Mardi gras! LOL

[JMS]

Really, Koch is crying foul?! I mean really?! It seems that both sides sling mud, but only the GoP seems to cry when things get dirty. I mean Sarah has recieved harsh media attention....maybe she should shut her mouth. Like the saying goes, some can consider you an idiot, until you remove all doubt. Is her treatment any worst than the one Obama recieved over the last 6 months? I mean they put a mustache on Obama to make him look like Hitler. Stop the nonesense.

Kotch is a Liberal Democrat. Pretty sure.