Dueling Globe Columnists

Okay.  So, a contributing writer to the Joplin Globe editorial board, Anson Burlingame, got pissed about a piece written by a guest columnist, Elliott Denniston, so he shot back with a column of his own:

Elliott Denniston really crossed the line in negative “campaigning” in his guest column (Globe, Oct. 3) and must be rebutted, strongly. I vigorously challenge his shallow research and obvious partisan conclusions in trying to paint all Republican candidates nationally with only the colors of the few.

Denniston’s apparent sin was daring to point out that some of the candidates running as Republicans this fall were, well, let’s just say, extremists of one sort or another.

Here is a summary of what Denniston noted:

Christine O’Donnell: Believes that there are mice with fully functioning human brains.  Believes that witchcraft is a sin but once dabbled in masturbation.  No, wait. I got that wrong. She believes masturbation is a sin and once dabbled in witchcraft.  Whew!  And finally, O’Donnell owes back taxes and “has lived off her campaign contributions for many years and has no other apparent income.”

Although Burlingame challenged Denniston’s “shallow research,” the things he said about O’Donnell have the virtue of being factual. So, let’s move on:

Abortion: “Five Republicans nominated for the Senate want the government to ensure that women who are raped are required to have their rapists’ babies,” Denniston wrote.  He then went on:

Yes, Sharron Angle of Nevada, Jim [sic] Miller of Alaska, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ken Buck of Colorado, and O’Donnell, although they hate government intrusion into our lives, believe that the federal government should force women to give birth to babies forced on them by rapists or created through incest.

Although Burlingame challenged Denniston’s “shallow research,” the things he said about these five Republicans and their extremist views on abortion have the virtue of being factual. So, let’s move on:

Sharron Angle: “Implied that armed insurrection against the federal government might be a plausible course of action if the government does not change course,” what she called “Second Amendment remedies.”  Denniston also wrote that Angle once spoke against fluoride as “a Communist plot to undermine Western democracy,” and he said, “Ms. Angle also believes that autism is a phony condition that people use to get extra health benefits.”

Although Burlingame challenged Denniston’s “shallow research,” the things he said about Sharron Angle have the virtue of being factual. So, let’s move on:

Social Security: Denniston says there are Republicans running who want to “eliminate” Social Security “as it now stands and replace it with a system of privatized funds.” He names them: Mike Lee, Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, and he lists Ken Buck as an opponent of any federal involvement in health care and retirement and Marco Rubio as an advocate for raising the retirement age to 70 and who wants “to cut benefits to younger workers.”

Although Burlingame challenged Denniston’s “shallow research,” the things he said about some Republicans relative to Social Security have the virtue of being factual. So, let’s move on:

Various: Denniston offers that Mike Lee of Utah “wishes to eliminate the income tax“;

that Joe Miller of Alaska “believes that unemployment benefits are unconstitutional“;

that Rand Paul of Kentucky “would scrap the Americans with Disabilities Act and believes that the Civil Rights Act went too far in requiring restaurant owners to admit black Americans“;

that Rick Scott of Florida ran “a health care company that systematically defrauded the government on Medicare charges, earning the company the largest Medicare fine in history — $1.7 billion“;

that Carl Paladino distributed “racist jokes and very explicit pornographic photographs to a large group of supporters; one of these was a photo-shopped image of Barack and Michelle Obama as a pimp and a prostitute.” (Apparently, Denniston wrote his column before Paladino threatened to “take out” a New York Post journalist.)

Although Burlingame challenged Denniston’s “shallow research,” the things he said about the Republicans above have the virtue of being factual. So, let’s finish up:

You see, it really wasn’t the “shallow research” that spiked Anson’s piss meter.  It was Denniston’s “obvious partisan conclusions,” and his “trying to paint all Republican candidates nationally with only the colors of the few.”  As if the editorial page isn’t a place for partisanship and advocacy; as if Republicans aren’t themselves trying to nationalize the election and tie every Democratic candidate to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama.

But I will say Anson has a point about one thing:

If you want to understand, in principle, where many Republicans are “coming from” or “headed,” go read and think carefully about the Pledge to America.  There is more than enough in that broad, even sweeping, statement of principles to scare any Democrat.

Yes, it’s true.  The really, really scary thing about Republicans and their non-specific Pledge, is that it represents a sycophantic salute to the Tea Party and that movement’s extremist generalities about government.

And I think Denniston was just using a few Tea Party extremists, who happen to be Republican candidates for high office, to point that out.

17 Comments

  1. Dueling columnists, indeed. Elliot is the acoustic, Anson is the banjo.

    Where are these masses of moderate, sensible Republicans that are unfairly lumped with the teabaggers? In reality there is no difference between Republicans and teabaggers, except the former lacks subtlety.

    Like

    • LATTER! The latter lacks subtlety! Lacks it like I lack typing skills.

      Like

    • Johnnykaje says: Where are these masses of moderate, sensible Republicans that are unfairly lumped with the teabaggers?

      Haven’t you heard the news? Those moderate, sensible Republicans aren’t actually Republicans – they aren’t conservatives and never were! They are liberals in disguise – nothing but foul RINOs!!!!

      Like

      • HP:

        When I was a conservative, I occasionally played that game of “if you’re not with me all the way, you’re against me.” To some degree, both sides of the ideological divide play that purist game, but now that I have been on both sides, I can unequivocally say that the right-wing is by far more likely to throw you out of the church choir if someone catches you even just eyeballin’ a well-stacked liberal idea.

        Duane

        Like

      • ansonburlingame

         /  October 6, 2010

        Hippie,

        OH BS. Lindsay Graham comes to mind for starters. Read Woodward’s book. Bohner is no “nut”. He knows what is achievable and has some good ideas on what is right. How about the current Senate minority leader. No nut job there. How about John McCain? Should I go on? OK, Scott Brown so far.

        If you and your crowd can bear to watch Fox, check out O’Reilly occasionally. Even Greta. Forget Hannity. But keep in mind Brett Hume as well.

        How about Krauthammer, Will, even David Brooks and in some cases Tom Freidman.

        And, for what it is worth, ME, GDI.

        Anson

        Like

        • Anson,

          You are (I think) misinterpreting a sarcastic remark I made as a serious reflection of what I believe.

          I indeed believe that there are a lot of smart, intellectual conservatives. The majority of them also tend to be moderate in their views. I think it is a good thing that there are intellectual moderate conservatives. I can have good discussions with them.

          What I do find troubling is the way that many of these intellectual moderate conservatives are being rejected as RINOs. Katherine Parker, David Frum, Christopher Buckley – just a few people who I now see regularly castigated because they are not “real” conservatives. The GOP is no longer the party of William F. Buckley. I would think that would be considered a bad thing – but for some it is apparently now.

          Like

          • ansonburlingame

             /  October 6, 2010

            Just as the Democrat Party is no longer the Party of Bill Clinton. I consider THAT a bad thing, sexual activity and lying about it not withstanding.

            Anson

            Like

            • Anson – do you really mean this? I certainly don’t think that Democrats are too much farther to the left now than they were in the days of Clinton. In fact, Clinton’s failed HCR bill was far more liberal than what we ended up with under Obama.

              Like

    • Kaje,

      Nice use of stringed instruments to make your point.

      Question: How can you tell if the stage is level?

      Answer: The banjo player drools out of both sides of his mouth.

      juan

      Like

  2. ansonburlingame

     /  October 5, 2010

    duane,

    As you MUST obviously know, the “shallow research” was in not knowing or finding out substantial REPUBLICAN POSITIONS as a large group. HE NEVER mentioned the Pledge. Had he done so and taken partisan shots, fine with me. I would have read his views on the Pledge and considered them. I MIGHT even have agreed with some, such as repeal Obamacare, which is ridiculous as a single political action. (See my blog on that subject)

    But NO, Denniston did in a very public guest column which you as well do routinely in a less public blog (but never that I recall in a guest column) challenge ALL Republicans as supporting the views of some Republican extremes even “idiots” if I might be so blunt.

    Now go read my comments on your Billy blog. THAT is right way in my view to attack Republican’s particularly local ones. You have my support in such accusations, well researched, etc.

    I also note you DID NOT try to imply, much less say, that because BILLY thinks or does such and so, THEREFORE Blunt must think or do so as well.

    When you accuse ALL Republicans or even a substantial majority of Republicans for their ideas and action, do the f… research to show a factual foundation for such broad accusations. Start with the Pledge and move on if you will. But cherry picking the extremes, simple BS IMHO

    Anson

    Like

    • Anson,

      You missed the point of Denniston’s piece. Here is the intro:

      The media has been claiming fre­quently that the enthusiasm in the upcoming November elections is all with the Republicans; they will turn out to vote, while the Democrats will not… But those Democrats who have become dis­couraged or complacent should think about what these new tea party Republicans are and what they stand for.

      And here is the end:

      There is a grave danger that some of these attitudes will prevail in the new Congress, especially if voters who are scared about what may hap­pen do not get to the polls on Nov. 2.

      Did you get that? “…a grave danger that some of these attitudes will prevail in the new Congress…if voters who are scared…do not get to the polls…”

      I have written pretty much the same thing repeatedly. Democrats can’t just sit on their behinds and let Republicans—especially weird Republicans—have their way. In fact, your point about the Pledge is what should really scare Democrats–and the American people–as I pointed out.

      It is in fact an embodiment, generally, of the Tea Party mania that is sweeping through the hordes of no- and low-information Republican voters. You know, those that think Barack Hussein Obama is a Kenyan anti-colonialist socialist with designs on destroying America.

      Duane

      Like

  3. ansonburlingame

     /  October 6, 2010

    duane,

    Once again, chastize or ridicule ALL Republicans based on a position clearly reached and promulgated as a Republican position, not an individual politician.

    Privatize SS, crazy now after watching the GR and what happened to 401Ks. I’m not even sure if ANY Republican is proposing that NOW. Even Bush in 2003 (or so) only proposed privatizing “part” of individual SS as I recall, not the whole “bag”. I may be wrong on that but…

    Aren’t you getting tired of witchcraft allegations?

    How about the crazy debate in Ca over the Rep gubernatorial candidate’s “illegal immigrant” situation. Simply crazy in my view and the worst sort of political attack. She ought to respond with a “Med Flies” ad!!

    What are Republicans either against or for, basically, today?

    1. Obamacare( against but with ideas never “developed” in public for reform)

    2. raising taxes (against entirely for now)

    3. cutting spending, a lot (For) But no specific cuts proposed for sure.

    4. Preserving SS and Medicare for current seniors (for) Who knows what next. No real position from either party. See above about Privatization.

    5. Reign in the growth of government using the constitution as a basis (for) No statement on retroactive cuts in whole departments or areas.

    To me, at least so far, that is what the Pledge proposes. Have at it all you like and I will respond one way or the other.

    Actually, I would love to see you and Democrats “campaign” on the past two years. You do for sure in some cases, but NOT a SINGLE Dem running for office that I have heard.

    You seem to be trying to “clean up your own party” in that respect but I sure don’t hear anyone listening to such sentiments.

    Anson

    Like

    • Anson,

      Here’s why I wouldn’t make a very good politician:

      Dear Voter,

      You elected me to do a job. I have done the job to the best of my ability. I am proud of my accomplishments, and I will work hard to get the things done that still need to be done.

      I voted for the stimulus package because, contrary to what you have heard, it saved the economy from further disintegration. I wish it would have been bigger because it would have been even more effective, but it was hard enough getting done what we got done. Republicans fought us every step of the way.

      I voted for health care reform and I’m damn proud of it. It isn’t a perfect piece of legislation, but it is a start towards trying to control the costs of health care. If I had my way, I’d prefer a system like Medicare for all, so insurance companies and their profit-making business model would be eliminated from health care decisions. But I’m not a radical and I had to work within the system we have because the private insurance industry has a lot of power in Washington. And Republicans fought us every step of the way.

      I voted for reform of Wall Street. Again, it wasn’t everything I wanted, but it’s the best we could do given the enormous amounts of money that big bankers put into our political system. By the way, I’m for getting that kind of money out of the system, but again, Republicans stand in the way.

      The short of it is this: If you want to put someone in office who will look out for the welfare of all, then I’m your man. If you want to put someone in office who will look out for the interests of those with money and influence, then vote for my Republican opponent.

      Duane

      Like

  4. ansonburlingame

     /  October 6, 2010

    Duane,

    And I would say:

    He inherited a mess and made a bigger mess, much bigger. He has increased the deficit more than the first 40 president’s combined and no results in terms of rebounding economy or lowered unemployment is seen or even on the horizon.

    His health care reform had wonderful intentions to help the poor. But he sacrificed the continued well being of others in his program and with seeminly little real help for the poor, at least thus far.

    He has done nothing with Immigration, a major and getting bigger issue.

    He and I both want “clean” energy but again his approach has been soundly trounced not only by opposition politicians but most Americans as well. NOBODY wants to pay for clean energy and he has yet to lead us to why we indeed must be willing to do so.

    He ALWAYS looks to the already bloated governemt to fix jsut about anything yet he can’t even control or cleanup an oil spill. His approach to preventing another spill is to shut down our supply of oil.

    He has sincere concerns for some but not ALL Americans. He disparges many Americans, many of whom acutally support him, as “fat cats”. We have yet to hear him say a word of praise about the risk, hard work, dedication to all things good in America, including the American Dream vigorously pursued by MANY of his so called “fat cats” even the liberal ones.

    With a substantial majority in Congress he has failed to LEAD All Americans. Rather he has used his majority sword to at least attempt to “conquer”. All he has achieved is to “divide” further an already divided nation.

    His specific policies have utterly failed thus far yet he and his supporters call simply for more of the same failed policies. But more important, his administration is a flat out failure to LEAD. If HIS WAY is indeed the RIGHT way, why have so many arisen in great anger and resentment?

    THAT is absymal LEADERSHIP. Forget the policies or politics.

    Anson

    Like

  5. ansonburlingame

     /  October 7, 2010

    Hippie,

    Running out of margin space to reply to your last above about Clinton but here is my reply.

    Forget, at least for a moment the whole impeachment “thing”. He lied under oath, etc. etc. I choose not to reignite that fight.

    Clinton was probably the smartest and most politically astute politician, at least as President in my lifetime. He was NOT rigidly ideologoical but indeed demonstrated flexibility. Post 94 election being the best example.

    He had a strong Democrat agenda for sure, but far from what I would consider a RADICAL agenda. It would take too long to describe that view so will not attempt to do so.

    To me (and many others it seems) Obama is FAR more ideological in both his views and pursuit of same. No one can legitimately challenge his attempts to provide more health care to all Americans. But the way he went about it with ZERO evidenced concern for fiscal sanity is but one case in point. Ideology trumps economics for Obama, in my view.

    There is the implication in Woodward’s book that Obama considers himself “the smartest guy in the room”. There is strong evidence to support that just in the manner the he personally wrote the final “output” from the six week strategic review. Decisive, yes, but right after the fact, no, in my view. See my blog and Jim Wheeler’s on the critique of that book for background. Read the comments as well.

    Thus far is approach to economic conditions is almost totally ideological. He is absolutely convinced that government is the only way forward, contrary to now two years of strong evidence otherwise.

    Will he moderate or change that approach simply in economics after Nov. We will have to wait and see.

    Perhaps the greatest personal or character flaw that I have observed over the last two years on the part of Obama is his apparent lack of acceptance of HIS responsibility for conditions NOW in our country. He has now essentially been WHINNING (my word) for two years about the mess that he inherited and has yet to take responsibility for either making a bigger mess (economically) or at best maintaining the messy status quo in Afghanistan.

    I think you might also admit that the current campaign for the mid-term lead by Obama has been almost entirely the “blame game” for what he inheritied and personal attacks against the opposition. How many times I wonder has he personally used the term “fat cats”. When did you ever hear him praise corporations in private industry or what they might bring to the table economically.

    And finally and this is irreputable, at least in my view. He inherited a DIVIDED nation and it is now even MORE divided, far more. I saw a statistic last night (yes on Fox) in 2007 some 26% polled believed black and white relations were “bad”. Today that number is in the 60’s%.

    And this from one that claimed a worthy goal to united. The stark reality is that he has divided more and more, politically, racially, socially, etc. Of course he blames it on Reps. BUT he is the PRESIDENT, GDI and should be leading out rather than farther into that crap. He seems to me too ideological to grasp that need.

    TERRIBLE LEADERSHIP that was never evidenced by Clinton in my view again.

    Anson

    Like

    • Anson – I had meant to respond to this earlier – but my blogging time is spread too thin at the moment. Too many discussions are going on in too many places.

      There are lots of things to discuss here, but let me concentrate on just one point for the moment.

      He inherited a DIVIDED nation and it is now even MORE divided, far more. I saw a statistic last night (yes on Fox) in 2007 some 26% polled believed black and white relations were “bad”. Today that number is in the 60′s%.

      I have seen this statistic at various times, so I suspect it is relatively accurate. But… you seem to want to blame Obama for this. What, specifically, has he done to make Black/White relations worse? I honestly can’t think of ANYTHING he has done that should cause a drastic decline in race relations.

      It seems to me (and yes, I know this is a biased opinion) that various pundits on the right have seized upon racial fears in some segments of the white population have intentionally “fanned the flames” – increasing those fears as a cynical ploy to return the GOP to power.

      For evidence I need go no farther than Glen Becks infamous statement that “Obama hates white culture.” What an insanely untrue and downright irresponsible statement! Yet – Beck has a huge audience over whom he has amazing control. If Sir Glenn says that Obama hates whites – well then he must! Is it any surprise that a bunch of his listeners will subsequently report a decrease in black/white relations – simply because he said so and NOT because of any actual events?

      This is a serious question to you: What has Obama actually done that objectively might be interpreted as causing damage to race relations?

      I don’t think he has done anything – but I am interested in your response.

      What I do believe is that the conservative media has done everything they can to paint Obama as the “scary black man” – and they have apparently succeeded.

      Like

  6. ansonburlingame

     /  October 8, 2010

    Hippie,

    And an equally serious answer.

    FIRST and foremost, Obama pledged to begin healing the divide in our nation, right. You seem to agree that the divide is now worse than before Obama. So for whatever reason the President has failed to live up to that pledge. Again, for whatever the reason. He is the President and HE MUST lead, particularly those that oppose him so strongly.

    I hope you can grasp that concept of responsibility. If you are responsibile for something and it fails to work who is to blame? In my view it MUST begin with the individual with the initial responsibility. Period.

    If I am “in charge” of a nuclear facility and the damn thing blows up, who is responsible. Well for damn sure it would not be the guy that I replaced when I was puhe in charge. And while to proximate cause of an explosion might well be caused by workers “on the floor” I as the guy in charge am responsible for their training, qualification and firing their sorry asses if necessary BEFORE the explosion.

    Duane, as a strong “union man” wrote recently herein that ANYTIME a problem or accident occurs it is ALWAYS the fault of management. He has yet to retract that view so I assume he feels such to be true. I agree only to the extent that some level of management plays a role for sure, primarily for not recognizing that a “jerk” was working for or under them and getting rid of him or retraining him before the accident.

    I fully understand how difficult that view of responsibility might be, particularly for a civilian that has never held high levels, dangerous levels of responsibility. And I am not being sacastic or “know it all” in such a remark. It IS a hard concept to both grasp and adhere to in practice.

    Now back to the President. He has ALWAYS supported the poor, the unfortunate, those with “not enough” and in some cases even “less than”. In other words his entire agenda viewed, reasonably, by many is that he is ONESIDED in his support. He wants to Give to some and TAKE AWAY from others.

    AND he calls the ones from whom he wants to TAKE, “fat cats” and other terms of derersion. Now is that a good way to encourage “giving”. Suppose some ACORN worker came to my door asking for donations to the poor and said “Hey you damn fat cat, pork some of it over to me and my organization”. HA! How much would YOU give him/her?

    For two years now we first began and seem to be increasing the intensity of pure Class Warfare, have versus have nots in the worst way. The have nots blame the haves, the President calls for more sacrifice ONLY from the haves and of course the haves start to get angry. Now even some of the “half haves” are mad and getting madder. Now whose fault is that I ask.

    We are in the midst of a huge class distinction. Just read this blog and many of the supporting comments. Read some of my rebuttals and I am for sure not a “have” or even a “half have” now.

    I see the “injustice” suffered by some and want to help. But I also see a heavy handed attempt to GIVE such help directly out of the pockets of others. When I suggest showing the poor how to move up and stop GIVING them handouts, I get called das boot Commandant, racist, etc. right here in River City. Most recently I have been called passive-aggresive in making a counter argument.

    Now name calling bothers me very little so I stick around with my passive aggressive arguments. Though I must say how anyone can call most of my comments on this blog or the manner in which I write my own as “passive”, I just don’t understand the term I suppose.

    Maybe it is the tense of some verbs that I learned in high school and have since long forgotten. Who knows.

    One final “sports” thought. If the quarterback is leading a losing football team with all the “starters” very much in his support and doing all that he directs, then when the quarterback blames the kids on the bench for the failure,,, Well I hope you get my gist.

    The Republicans on the bench for now two years have hardly been allowed to play in the game, thanks to the point guard named Pelosi. A little extreme perhaps, but with some element of truth I believe.

    Now we may see what happens if the quarterback must remain but we change point guards. Ouch.

    Anson

    Like