ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Digital Brownshirts

What's the difference between a blog swarm by the Right vs. a blog swarm by the Left? Facts and relevance vs. Emotions and irrelevance.

When the Rightside of the Blogosphere "Gets a Swarm On," it's usually in response to some gross misconduct by the MSM or a public official - see Rathergate, etc, etc.

Well, what's the latest blog swarm by the Left? Attacking MSM reporters for their subjective criticism of Stephen Colbert.

Digital Lynch Mob
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, May 9, 2006; A23

Two weeks ago I wrote about Al Gore's new movie on global warming. I liked the film. In response, I instantly got more than 1,000 e-mails, most of them praising Gore, some calling him the usual names and some concluding there was no such thing as global warming, if only because Gore said there was. I put the messages aside for a slow day, when I would answer them. Then I wrote about Stephen Colbert and his unfunny performance at the White House correspondents' dinner.

Kapow! Within a day, I got more than 2,000 e-mails. A day later, I got 1,000 more. By the fourth day, the number had reached 3,499 -- a figure that does not include the usual offers of nubile Russian women or loot from African dictators. The Colbert messages began with Patrick Manley ("You wouldn't know funny if it slapped you in the face") and ended with Ron ("Colbert ROCKS, you MURDER") who was so proud of his thought that he copied countless others. Ron, you're a genius.

Truth to tell, I peeked into only a few of the e-mails. I did this because I would sometimes recognize a name I thought I knew, which was almost always a mistake. When I guilelessly clicked on the name, I would get a bucket of raw, untreated and disease-laden verbal sewage right in the face.

Usually, the subject line said it all. Some were friendly and agreed that Colbert had not been funny. Most, though, were in what we shall call disagreement. Fine. I said the man wasn't funny and not funny has a bullying quality to it; others (including some of my friends) said he was funny. But because I held such a view, my attentive critics were convinced I had a political agenda. I was -- as was most of the press, I found out -- George W. Bush's lap dog. If this is the case, Bush had better check his lap.
But the message in this case truly is the medium. The e-mails pulse in my queue, emanating raw hatred. This spells trouble -- not for Bush or, in 2008, the next GOP presidential candidate, but for Democrats. The anger festering on the Democratic left will be taken out on the Democratic middle. (Watch out, Hillary!) I have seen this anger before -- back in the Vietnam War era. That's when the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated.

The hatred is back. I know it's only words now appearing on my computer screen, but the words are so angry, so roiled with rage, that they are the functional equivalent of rocks once so furiously hurled during antiwar demonstrations. I can appreciate some of it. Institution after institution failed America -- the presidency, Congress and the press. They all endorsed a war to rid Iraq of what it did not have. Now, though, that gullibility is being matched by war critics who are so hyped on their own sanctimony that they will obliterate distinctions, punishing their friends for apostasy and, by so doing, aiding their enemies. If that's going to be the case, then Iraq is a war its critics will lose twice -- once because they couldn't stop it and once more at the polls.

Now, I love The Colbert Report, but I didn't find his performance at the Press Club dinner as one of his best... See the video for yourself. And my lack of enthusiasm is not just b/c he was speaking "truth to power," since it's not very courageous to parrot the conventional wisdom night after night. Rather, the video clip that he relied on for most of his humor was too long and didn't get the laughs that it should have.

I seem to recall being called a Digital Brownshirt by one of the leaders of the Left... In reality, it's the Left that is squashing dissent from the conventional wisdom. They provide no evidence for Colbert's performance, just attack those saying that he wasn't funny as being lapdogs for W. And what's the purpose? Who the heck cares if Colbert was funny or not? If you can get yourself in a lather over how a comedy performance was received, then you're clearly unhinged. seriously... take a breath, folks.

How childish... and as the '06 midterms approach, expect the Left's volume to get louder and louder.... and for the GOP base to become more and more energized.

It's a good thing that Rove Bush picked Gen. Hayden (of NSA terrorist surveillance fame) as the future head of the CIA. Nothing like reminding the base how idiotic and submissive the Left is in this War On Terror to get the Security Moms back into the fold.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Comments (2)
Repack Rider said...

I love it that so many offended targets of Colbert are trying desperately to tell the millions of people rolling on the floor clutching their sides and gasping for breath that they are not "LAUGHING" dammit!

They further attempt to marginalize the millions of people laughing at THEM, as well as the 68% of America that dislikes Mr. Bush, by calling them the "angry left," or a "digital lynch mob."

Strawman arguments are SO last year.

Once you have dug a hole of stupidity, Mr. Cohen, it's time to stop digging.

QuadrupleAgent said...