From my Twitter feed:
-Breakdowns of last night's House vote on health care reform by the New York Times, Stanford's Simon Jackman, and 538's Nate Silver
-John Thune is yet another GOP supply-sider with presidential aspirations: "I'm always for cutting ... marginal rates because you get more revenue"
-The unscientific state of forensic evidence in the criminal justice system
-NYT's Douthat cites flawed Rasmussen poll on 9/11 conspiracy theories -- see this post for a better poll
-Politifact on the "Obama bans fishing" myth
-How have I lived this long without a David Souter bobblehead?
-Is Michael Moore correct that health care reform imposes a $100/day fine for denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions?
-In a GOP primary debate, mentioning NPR is not a good strategic move
-French TV replicates Milgram experiment with reality TV host/audience as motivating authority rather than science
-Dick Armey -- ill-informed former majority leader
Regarding Dick Armey, the criticism made by Milbank and the linked blogger was ridiculous. Armey was asked:
How can the Federalist Papers be an inspiration for the tea party, when their principal author, Alexander Hamilton, "was widely regarded then and now as an advocate of a strong central government"?
The blogger correctly wrote:
Hamilton was more of a centralizer...So that makes Madison the (relatively) states' rights guy.
OK, of the two authors, one was more states rights and the other was more centralist. However, by today's standards, both were libertarians.
Both Hamilton and Madison would be shocked by most of modern-day government: income taxes that can take over half of a person's income, Social Security, Health Care, TVA, most regulatory agencies, etc. etc.
Furthermore, I'm afraid Brendan's endorsement of this wrong criticism supports Armey's criticism of ill informed political science professors.
This post illustrates an ugly side of today's liberals: they go out of their way to criticize conservatives. ISTM that for many liberals being able to feel superior is more important than having government policies that actually work well.
Posted by: David | March 22, 2010 at 09:16 AM
"This post illustrates an ugly side of today's liberals: they go out of their way to criticize conservatives."
There are, of course, no conservatives who "go out of their way to criticize" liberals. Seriously, David, grow up.
Posted by: daniel rotter | March 22, 2010 at 10:34 PM
Sorry, daniel. Liberals do make personal attacks more than conservatives do. And, liberal attacks tend to be nastier, too.
Look at this example: A conservative who has been out of Congress for years makes a historical comment that's either correct or at worst not terribly unreasonable. In any case, there's no great importance to his historical assertion. The Washington Post and several bloggers make a big fuss over his "error".
daniel -- your challenge is to find a comparable case with the parties reversed. I bet you can't.
(Incidentally, maybe it doesn't matter, but this so-called "ignorant" conservative is actually very knowledgeable compared to most in the political arena, having been an economics professor with a doctorate in economics.)
Posted by: David | March 23, 2010 at 09:43 AM
"--your challenge is to find a comparable case with the parties reversed."
Challenge accepted. Congressman Trent Franks called President Obama "an enemy of humanity." I win the challenge, David. Thanks for playing.
Posted by: daniel rotter | March 24, 2010 at 12:07 AM
Conservative congressman Randy Neugebauer to Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak: "Baby killer!" I win the challenge a second time.
Posted by: daniel rotter | March 24, 2010 at 01:47 AM
daniel, Neither Obama nor Stupak is a liberal who has been out of Congress for years. Nor did either of you quoted comments criticize them for supposedly being wrong about some abstract historical observation.
Your examples do show Republicans making harsh criticisms, but they're nothing like the situation we've been discussing.
However, since you mentioned the President, I would assert that liberals' personal criticism of Pres. Bush was much harsher than conservatives' personal criticism of President Obama. Not occassionally, but routinely, Bush was called a Nazi, a chimpanzee, a moron, a mass murderer, etc.
Posted by: David | March 24, 2010 at 03:53 AM
"I would assert that liberals' personal criticism of Pres. Bush was much harsher than conservatives' personal criticism of President Obama.Not occassionally, but routinely, Bush was called a Nazi..."
So is Obama now. Variations on "Obama=Hitler" are routine on signs at Tea Party protests and rallies. Comparisons by conservatives of Obama to the genocidal German are fairly commonplace, from the grassroots all the way up to a congressman (Paul Broun of Georgia).
"a chimpanzee..."
Being called "a chimpanzee" is WORSE than being called "an enemy of humanity?" Let me know when you get back to Planet Reality, David.
"...a moron."
Big deal, Congressman Dan Burton called Bill Clinton "a scumbag." And again, being called "a moron" is WORSE than being called "an enemy of humanity?" Let me know when you get back...
"...a mass murderer."
Obama has been compared to Chairman Mao, Stalin, and Hitler, all of whom were mass murderers.
Posted by: daniel rotter | March 25, 2010 at 12:02 AM