To The Ghouls
By Mitch Berg
I’ve avoided the suppurating mass of leftybloggers and commentators that have reacted disgracefully to the death of Tony Snow. I haven’t commented on this blog because my only reaction to such moral retardation – depressed disgust – doesn’t translate to print well.
Patterico notes that there is one guy who does this sort of thing very well:
I stopped watching Bill O’Reilly a long time ago, but he’s good for one thing: righteously laying into someone with passion and anger. When there are goons who laugh about people’s deaths — whether they are Ted Rall, or commenters at the L.A. Times web site (posting with the permission of comment moderators) — you need someone with O’Reilly’s attitude to take them to task.
Well done.
I’ve only seen O’Reilly’s show maybe three times (barring the odd clip that pops up here and there). Don’t care much for him, most of the time.
But…well, just watch:
July 15th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Aw, did AP hurt Bill O’Reilly’s feewings?
Nothing funnier than vicious wingnuts-turned-crybabies.
Waaaaaaaaaah!
July 15th, 2008 at 8:35 am
ac your parochialism is betraying you again: the Wingnuts are from Wichita KS (900 km away) and they are called unsurprisingly The Wichita Wingnuts but then what do you know of sports? you labor under the delusion that the Mets are a good team.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:37 am
That may be true. But it’s a much less destructive delusion than “huh, I guess George W. Bush could handle the job.”
July 15th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Turning the death of Tony Snow into an opportunity to engage in Bush bashing. You a class act, Clownie, Not.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:00 am
So obits are not supposed to contain any negative information about the deceased? That principle is so dumb I can not even believe even you or O’Reily even pretend to believe it.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Yes Kermit, believe it or not obits are often a time to reflect on a persons life and work, their successes and failures. I wouldn’t expect an obit of Teddy Kennedy to leave out Chappaquiddick, so why should the AP leave out some assessment of Snow as WH spokesman. You man disagree with that assesment, but you are in the minority.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:12 am
But it’s OK for Kel to rag use the death of Tony Snow to rag the Mets. You wingnuts are profoundly silly people.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:14 am
RickDFL, 44, a resident of the Twin Cities area, died late Monday evening following a brief battle with brain depletion syndrome.
Mr. DFL, who was a familiar voice on several local blogs, was known to be particularly mentally vacant, and his vacuousness only seemed to increase as the 2008 presidential election drew nearer.
He enjoyed making increasingly stupid comments on blogs, giving reciprocal hand-jobs to his life partner, AngryClown, and basically venting his unique brand of BS into the digital medium known as “the Internet.”
He is survived by countless leftybloggers who think they’re far more important than they are, and even more blog commenters, who are basically people who can’t figure out how to create their own Web sites.
Interment will take place at Daily Kos.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Betcha don’t find that classless, eh Kerm?
So is it OK to imagine Lee Atwater playing guitar in Hell? Or is it too early for your dainty wingnut sensibilities?
July 15th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Rick,
Your sense of ethics in this matter is pretty self-indulgent.
You’re right to the extent that obits do include some commentary on biographical facts. But do you see the difference between…
“Kennedy was involved in a controversial car accident on a bridge at Chappaquiddick that involved the death of Mary Jo Kopechne…”
and
“Kennedy was involved in a controversial car accident. “I think that drunken slapnut killed that poor girl”, said Waxadickport sheriff Bernie Wengnutz about the accident”
and
“Kennedy was widely believed to have caused the death of an innocent woman while driving drunk”.
The AP, in particular, went way beyond “reflecting” on Snow’s “life and work, their successes and failures”. It took editorial shots at the job Snow did – and not by quoting Snow’s contemporaries, but stating the cheap shots as matters of editorial fact.
I’ll await the next round of rationalizations.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:24 am
It’s not a matter of what information an obituary is ‘supposed’ to contain, but what information an obit should properly contain.
Asserting that Snow had ‘not always a command of the facts’ while citing no examples of this is a journalistic hit job when it’s carried out against a living person. Against a dead man who cannot personally defend his integrity it’s inexcusable.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Yossarian, 44, died late Monday in his Mother’s basement from a combination of Cheetos poisoning and acute diaper rash. He was chiefly known for his inability to distinguish appropriateness and accuracy.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:39 am
“stating the cheap shots as matters of editorial fact”
I hate to break this to you, but Tony Snow worked for and supported the most unpopular and distrusted President in modern history. Ergo, it is not especially controversial to say that he did not always display “a command of the facts” while serving as spokesman for said President.
The AP’s remarks seem inappropriate to you only because you think they are wrong, but most Americans disagree. I am sure there are a few people in South Central LA who won’t like the O.J. obit either.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Please, Terry. If AP had included additional details, you’d be whining about how much of the story was given to pointing out Snow’s embrace of style over facts. Whatevah. Either way, sounds like the whine steward’s doing a good business today.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Terry:
“Asserting that Snow had ‘not always a command of the facts’ while citing no examples of this is a journalistic hit job when it’s carried out against a living person.”
You may disagree, but stating that Bush Administration figures regularly deceived the American people is not an especially controversial statement anymore. You don’t need footnotes to say the sky is blue.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:53 am
RickDFL-
“stating that Bush Administration figures regularly deceived the American people is not an especially controversial statement anymore.”
True or false, it has nothing to do with AP reporting in an obit that Tony Snow had “not always a command of facts”. Snow was not the Bush administration, deceiving is not the same as not knowing the facts. Your response does not address the issue of what is proper information to include in an obit, it just slams Bush. The crap that passes for rhetoric on the left these days . . .
July 15th, 2008 at 10:06 am
“Snow was not the Bush administration”
Read the obit. Tony Snow was the White House Press Secretary. He was the public voice, fo a significant time, of the Bush Administration.
“deceiving is not the same as not knowing the facts”. Not displaying a “command of the facts” covers a wide variety of verbal sins. Would you have been OK if they accused him of deception?
“Your response does not address the issue of what is proper information to include in an obit, it just slams Bush”
My, widely shared, opinion of Bush determines what information I think is proper to include in the obit. You don’t share that opinion, so you don’t like the obit. You are just unhappy the rest of us refuse to buy into your delusion.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Kinda funny the Bush administration hired a flack named “Snow.” I guess Dave Spin and Phil Liar weren’t available.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:19 am
By his own “reasoning”, shouldn’t RickDFL be including peer reviewed paper citations with every “argument” he submits?
July 15th, 2008 at 10:24 am
RickDFL said:
“My, widely shared, opinion of Bush determines what information I think is proper to include in the obit.”
That’s is some pretty retarded moral reasoning, RickDFL. Does Bush Derangement Syndrome influence every decision you make? I’m guessing it does.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Simply calling them ghouls??? Classless douchebags, Mitch.
I know, I know… brief and to the point. You’re right about that, however, somewhere in your piece or in your comments you should have used the words “classles douchebags”.
There’s only so much leading with the jaw that AC and Rick can do before you’ve got to call a spade a spade.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Terry:
I missed this:
“It’s not a matter of what information an obituary is ’supposed’ to contain, but what information an obit should properly contain.”
What exactly is the difference between ‘supposed to’ and ‘should properly’?
July 15th, 2008 at 10:48 am
You are just unhappy the rest of us refuse to buy into your delusion.
“The rest of us?”
I’m assuming you mean fellow BDS-sufferers, right? I mean, you wouldn’t have just appointed yourself spokesman for the rest of humanity, would you?
July 15th, 2008 at 10:48 am
What exactly is the difference between ’supposed to’ and ’should properly’?
Go look it up on Wikipedia.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Well BDS seems to have swept the nation
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=5377846&page=1
“Driven down by the weak economy and the unpopular war in Iraq, President George W. Bush’s job approval rating has reached a new low for the third month straight. ust 28 percent of Americans approve of how the President is handling his job, matching Jimmy Carter’s career low.
Only two presidents have gone lower: Richard Nixon, 24 percent in July and August 1974; and Harry Truman, 22 percent in February 1952.”
Frankly, given popular feelings about the Bush Administration, AP let Snow off easy.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I suppose if anyone expected the fever swamp to take things seriously, the right thing to do would to have invited 400 of Snow’s closest political allies to a memorial that featured a reading of Rev. Wright’s biggest hits and a plea to elect John McCain.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Kinda funny the Bush administration hired a flack named “Snow.” I guess Dave Spin and Phil Liar weren’t available.
I have no doubt that if elected Obama will find someone named Pope to be His spokesperson on Earth.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Badda blathered: “There’s only so much leading with the jaw that AC and Rick can do before you’ve got to call a spade a spade.”
We prefer the term “African-Americans”, Badda.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Mrs. AssClown calls ’em “customers”, just like everyone else.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:36 am
President George W. Bush’s job approval rating has reached a new low for the third month straight. ust 28 percent of Americans approve of how the President is handling his job
So has the approval rating for the Reid/Pelosi Congress climbed up to double digits yet?
July 15th, 2008 at 11:39 am
No, Kerm. Most people think they’re not doing enough to roll back the Bush-nut agenda. Things will change in a year.
“Change,” get it? You’re going to.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:40 am
RickDFL,
The approval rating thing would have a lot more meaning if the branch of government that your party controls didn’t have an approval rating that is consistently 10-12% below that of President Bush.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Funny, Rick loves pointing out how badly the Republican president is viewed, but ignores that the Democratically controlled Congress is viewed far less favorably. After all, Bush is only about 4 times as popular as Congress.
Besides, when has popularity been the dominant method of measuring success of anything other than Broadway musicals and entertainment? I thought we were supposed to view Truman as a icon since he was a courageous Democrat! The Russian Revolution was pretty popular and look how well that turned out.
I hate to break this to you, but Tony Snow worked for and supported the most unpopular and distrusted President in modern history. Ergo, it is not especially controversial to say that he did not always display “a command of the facts” while serving as spokesman for said President.
The two are not connected logically. You can work for a very unpopular and distrusted person (e.g. Reagan at the beginning of his term) and still have an excellent command of the facts and required actions (e.g. Volker also at the beginning of said administration and who was completely reviled by the Democrats at the time and was completely right about the need and methods to wring inflation out of the economy). You are confusing cause (you hate Bush and everything he stands for) and effect (a different interpretation of facts that might refute your point).
Can you point out cases where Snow was not in command of actual facts and not instances where he interpreted those facts in a non-BDS way?
July 15th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Nerdbert queried: “Besides, when has popularity been the dominant method of measuring success of anything other than Broadway musicals and entertainment?”
Well, you know, elections. Till the 2000 coup anyway.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:59 am
I resent that obit, RickDFL.
I’m nowhere NEAR 44.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
What exactly is the difference between ’supposed to’ and ’should properly’?
The same difference as between:
“I’m supposed to build a house”
And
“I should properly build a house”
There is no rule enforcer and no rules about what an obituary should or should not contain. “I have come to bury Caesar, not to praise him”, etc. I can write an obituary for an imaginary person, an animal, or someone who is still alive. It all comes down to taste and context.
In this case the poor taste comes in when the AP journalist slams Snow as being combative and not being in command of facts.
Cf the AP’s obit on Tim Russert. Russert’s political background is mentioned one time, with the party name (Democrat) never mentioned.
http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:TqXk_PgNm3YJ:news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obit_russert+AP+obituary+tim+russert&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
July 15th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Well, you know, elections. Till the 2000 coup anyway.
The election Bush won by 5 electoral votes? Because he kept winning the FL recounts?
Seriously, dude, if I thought the President got in office by extra-constitutional means I’d be out in the streets calling for a revolution, not writing snarky blog comments.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
nerdbert:
“You can work for a very unpopular and distrusted person (e.g. Reagan at the beginning of his term) and still have an excellent command of the facts and required actions”
Sure anything is possible, but a. it is not very likely and b. it is hard to do while you are the public spokesman for that person. No member of the Administration has less room to distance themselves from the President than the Press Secretary.
“Can you point out cases where Snow was not in command of actual facts and not instances where he interpreted those facts in a non-BDS way?”
Not in command of the facts about illegal detentions
http://mediamatters.org/items/200706130001?f=s_search
Not in command of the facts about Admin rhetoric to link Iraq to 9-11
http://mediamatters.org/items/200705030005?f=s_search
But I don’t want to argue about the deceptiveness of the Bush admin today. Even you can see that there is a widespread distrust of the Administration. So there is no big leap to mildly chiding it’s former Press Secretary about his ‘command of the facts’.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Till the 2000 coup anyway.
Yeah! If Bush hadn’t stolen the election, he wouldn’t have been able to knock down the WTC.
Elvis is still alive and living in Baraboo, WI.
Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t act alone.
“Blue Raspberry” flavoring is a corporate plot to confuse the color blind.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Elvis is still alive and living in Baraboo, WI.
AC won’t buy that. Baraboo is the location of the Circus World Museum. Like Bob Hope, he’s been there many times. Besides, everyone knows that Elvis has been living in Perth Amboy, NJ for at least the past decade.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Hey, did anyone correlate AC’s visits to Baraboo with Elvis sightings there?
July 15th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Terry reminisced: “The election Bush won by 5 electoral votes? Because he kept winning the FL recounts?”
Yeah, funny thing that. The state run by his brother. The vote-count supervised by his brother’s girlfriend. The fake riot staged by wingnut operatives. Oh, you may also remember that the Florida Supreme Court thought there should be a real recount but was stopped in its tracks by the U.S. Supreme Court. On a party-line vote. With an opinion it said could never be used as precedent. Also that whole thing where the ballots were meticulously re-counted by an accounting firm after the election and Gore got the most votes.
But Angryclown forgets himself! You authoritarian wingnut thugs have long since rationalized all that stuff away.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Right on cue, Rickie pulls out his peer-reviewed source – mediamatters. Very objective and incontrovertible – NOT!
July 15th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Terry:
“The same difference as between:
“I’m supposed to build a house”
And
“I should properly build a house”
OK what difference is that and how does it bear on obits?
“It all comes down to taste and context.”
OK. In this context, your taste is wrong.
“Cf the AP’s obit on Tim Russert.”
Tim Russert worked for well-respected politicians a long time ago and was not widely known for that work. Tony Snow most recently left his highest profile position working for the most unpopular and distrusted President in recent memory. That is why AP ran different obits for them.
I can understand why you might want to whitewash his service in the Bush administration from the record, but that is not the AP’s job. Pravda probably didn’t mention Barbarosa in Stalin’s obit either.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Terry, Terry, Terry. . .
Writing snarky blog comments are all AC has left in this theocratic, fascist, imperialistic hellhole that is the smoking remnant of what was once the great United States.
At least until Obama is elected and the American Phoenix RISES AGAIN!
Then, AC can always look back and say he did his part, through is rapier-like, snark-filled commenting.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
JPA:
“Right on cue, Rickie pulls out his peer-reviewed source – mediamatters. Very objective and incontrovertible – NOT!”
If you want to take issue with anything they said feel free. If you think the pubic disagrees with Media Matters feel free to provide evidence for that too.
AC:
“On a party-line vote” You insult the Court and the GOP. Only five of the seven Republican appointees could be convinced to stop the recount. The Bush v. Gore dissent was a perfectly bi-partisan affair with 2 Dems and 2 Republicans standing up for the Constitution.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Yeah, funny thing that. The state run by his brother. The vote-count supervised by his brother’s girlfriend. The fake riot staged by wingnut operatives. Oh, you may also remember that the Florida Supreme Court thought there should be a real recount but was stopped in its tracks by the U.S. Supreme Court. On a party-line vote. With an opinion it said could never be used as precedent. Also that whole thing where the ballots were meticulously re-counted by an accounting firm after the election and Gore got the most votes.
There is not a single thing in this tirade that is other than . . . a tirade.
The state run by his brother. The vote-count supervised by his brother’s girlfriend.
You’re even alleging any irregularities because of this. Your just dropping names.
The fake riot staged by wingnut operatives.
meaningless words. What is a “fake riot” anyway? How is this supposed to have led to an incorrect vote count? Is every vote count that was accompanied by a riot somewhere nearby invalidate an election decided weeks later? You blather these inanities because you have no real arguments other than that that the vote was close and you wish the other guy had won.
Oh, you may also remember that the Florida Supreme Court thought there should be a real recount but was stopped in its tracks by the U.S. Supreme Court.
What was the party composition of the FL supreme court?How was it that they did not know that you can’t recount just some of the votes without violating the 14th amendment? You don’t want to look at what happened in the FL supreme court because they agree with you and decisions they issued were partisan and constitutionally untenable.
On a party-line vote.
Which means the Dems on the US SC were no less partisan the Republicans, I suppose. This is puts the the SC’s decision on Bush v Gore on the same level as Mets v Yankees. It’s not ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ that either side won if it’s a matter of partisanship. In any case the underlying issue in Bush v Gore was decided against the judicial geniuses of the Fl SC by 7-2. The SC did not award Bush the presidency, the 5-4 decision said that not enough time remained to do another recount before Florida law required the election to be certified (Dec 12).
Also that whole thing where the ballots were meticulously re-counted by an accounting firm after the election and Gore got the most votes.
An accounting firm! Why didn’t someone think of that before? An actual accounting firm! Now that’s something. Here’s an actual link to the WaPo story on the recount:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html
Problem is it used standards that neither Bush nor Gore was asking for in 2000 and used a method of determining voter intent that did not pass equal protection muster. But hey, a drowning man will grasp at any straw.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Rick,
pubic disagrees with Media Matters feel free to provide evidence for that too.
Heh.
And maybe you know this and are being disingenuous, or maybe you don’t and you’re being ignorant, but you are wrong about the public perception issue, because – this is important – the public has no idea who “Media Matters” is or what their agenda is. The media usually portray them (as noted in this space in the past) as a neutral source, not a Soros-funded attack-PR firm. They proactively do little to disabuse the non-activist public of that notion.
“The public” is ignorant about the story behind Media Matters – which is just the way MM likes it.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Mitch:
Do you agree Tony Snow said al-Mari had a “trial” and that no “trial” ever took place?
Yes, then what has MM got to do with it?
“he public has no idea who “Media Matters” is or what their agenda is”
OK maybe I should have been more explicit. The public agrees with MM that the Bush Administration deceived the publiv about the detention program and about the Iraq War.
Sine most of what MM published in the two posts I cited are easily verifiable quotes in the public record, nothing depends on their character.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Rick is certainly right on the trial issue — while there were magistrate hearings there was no actual trial before a judge. That’s a thin reed, but actually reasonably fair given the level of proceedings. And also a very technical point.
The second referent, however, depends far more on careful parsing with a leftist filter, something for which MM is well known. The letter quoted showing the purported linkage of Iraq with 9/11 from Bush uses the terminology of defense from terrorist organizations including those who did 9/11. From a more indepth reading of the references that Media Matters selectively quotes it seems more obvious that Bush and Cheney are talking about generic terrorist threats from the region, including the terrorists who did 9/11 but not exclusively them, so Media Matters is on far less solid ground here. To deny that Iraq was involved with terrorists pre-9/11 is pretty silly.
Impinging a man’s honor on the basis of these points certainly does no credit to anyone making those accusations.