Phil Gramm a Terrorist?
That’s what Shaun Mullen of the Moderate Voice says. His justification? Gramm, the former Senator from Texas, played in instrumental role in dismantling decades-old banking regulations during the Clinton administration. Terrorist. We’d better lock Gramm up as a matter of national security. Imagine the gall, doing away with obsolete rules from a by-gone era. Evidently Mullen’s idea of government is one that simply continues to grow without ever being pruned back. Typical far-left think, and anything but moderate, as Karl explains.
Quoting Mullen:
Phil Gramm, who is co-chair of McCain’s campaign, is not just another lobbyist. He is the man most responsible for the repeal of Depression-era banking regulations that have led directly and inextricably to much of today’s economic turmoil
…
Considering the pain and suffering that Gramm’s masterwork has caused ordinary Americans, it is not hyperbolic to say that he is a terrorist, he just doesn’t wear funny looking headgear and carry a Kalashikov.
McCain acknowledges that he’s “no expert” and “doesn’t understand” the economy. That is worrisome enough, but that he is relying on a terrorist in pinstripes to figure things out for him is . . . well, terrifying.
In Shaun’s view of the world none of the participants in the doomed lending scheme are responsible for their own actions. How could they have known, after all, that historically low credit rates would rise? Who could have guessed that adjustable-rate mortgages would increase, leaving over-leveraged buyers unable to meet their obligations? Anyone with any knowledge of financial markets whatever, that’s who.
But Mullen would have us believe that the failure of the borrowers to understand the risks they were taking isn’t their fault at all. In the reality in which he and other liberal evaders of responsibility live, it’s the government’s fault for failing to fulfill its primary function, which is to control these people’s behavior so that they do what exactly what Shaun wants them to.
Gramm, who was a professor of economics at Texas A&M University for 12 years, has more knowledge of finance and economics in his pinky toe that Mr. Mullen has in his entire body. But it is currently a popular - and perhaps desperate - ploy by liberals to attempt to link Gramm to the current financial troubles in order to make John McCain look bad by association.
As we’ve frequently seen in regard to Hillary Clinton, this technique is a staple of liberal/progressive writers, of whom Mullen is hardly the worst or most important.
Calling Phil Gramm a terrorist is both ridiculous and libelous. Reading these words makes me wonder about something akin to intellectual terrorism.
Destructive words, deliberately thrown about, damaging targets and bystanders alike with their unjustified force - all in service of an ideological cause that would not triumph in any sort of straight-up democratic process.
Sounds right.
This post has been edited at 8.04 AM ET.
Idiot (not you Marc).
Marc, you ruin the whole thing by the phrase "typical liberal think". Without going into the content of your complaint, by painting al liberals with the same ultrawide brush you remove any pretense of "moderation" you might have. You’re simply being Shaun in reverse.
No he’s not. I agree that he should’ve worded that differently, but there’s a difference between saying "typical liberal think" and "terrorist!"
Wouldn’t you agree?
I was in the middle of writing a comment like Michael’s when I refreshed the page and saw that he beat me to it. He’s right, Claudia- there’s a huge difference in degree between those two comments (though I agree with you in principle; it weakens a criticism of bad tactics when you also use poor tactics.)
Also though, when people use broad brushes it’s usually because there’s a good bit of truth to it and they’re exaggerating or lumping an entire group in with a sizable subset who are guilty of some behavior. And in this case I think that’s true; a lot of conservatives and center right observers feel that there are far too many people on the center left who’ve jumped the shark and begun using the same kind of flame throwing, name calling rhetoric that they’ve said was such a problem when righties have done it.
It has been edited, but I think that Christine explained quite well what the difference is; now back to the subject of the post.
That’s true. In my experience blogging, actually, far-lefties have been far more aggressive than far-righties.
It’s entirely a matter of perspective. When you see lefties raging against conservatives they strike you as much more aggressive because you feel personally attacked, being a conservative. When you come across the same thing from the right directed at liberals you may think it’s a bit over the top but because you may agree (like C. Stanley mentions) with the basic premise, it doesn’t strike you as that bad. But that isn’t because it’s not that bad, it’s because you aren’t personally included in the tirade. To a liberal, it would look much worse.
There’s also the matter of what sites you visit. It’s quite common for liberals to only end up in the most rabidly far-right sites because they only go to the other side when an over the top post has been made and reported on their lefty blogs. Likewise, conservatives will often only ever see the most rabidly lefty sites when their antics are reported in their more sedate conservative blogs. In both cases, there is a false comparison of my more reasonable site to the worst the other side has to offer.
True.
But that doesn’t negate the fact that Shaun shouldn’t be posting at TMV.
edited by MvdG: no profanity allowed. Shaun’s fans can comment at his rants at TMV.
Claudia, the only problem with the argument that you’re making is that we’re not talking about far left or far right sites and comparing them to moderate, center right or center left ones. We’re talking about what we see happening on sites that purport to be more moderate or centrist in nature. I’m not only talking about TMV- I see it at a lot of sites, from bloggers who truly think of themselves as moderate left or center left- but they feel somehow that since there’s a lot of anti-conservative feeling in the country that this means the center has moved to the left (whether that’s true or not is debatable, but not relevant to my central point here anyway.) My point is that even if the center is more to the left, those former centrists are not only adopting viewpoints that lean more to the left, they’re also adopting the incendiary and divisive language that used to be used only by extremists.
Christine: and it’s especially ironic when those same people were - rightfully - constantly crying foul when right-wingers used such inflammatory and divisive language. As is the case with this particular example.
And… again, this has to be said; there’s a difference between making a generalization or even saying "humpty dumpty is an idiot" on the one hand, and "terrorists! traitors!" on the other.