further adventures in free speech
And the McCain kerfuffle just keeps going. Luckily, it looks like good is triumphing.
Jean Rohe, the graduating speaker at The New School, who took visiting speaker John McCain to task in her speech, explains at HuffPo why she spoke up. One of McCain's staffers replies to this post and tells her she made herself look like an idiot and otherwise disparages her character. She chides him for his bullying, refutes several of his assumptions, and generally comes off looking like the classier party all around. (Thanks to fishsanwitt for that last link.)
I find it particularly interesting, though, that after McCain gave a speech in which he touted the importance of dissent and disagreement, his aide Mark Salter lambasted Jean Rohe for voicing her disagreement. (I suppose it's is only a virtue when it doesn't dispute McCain?) McCain has said he feels sorry for people who can't hear the other side of a debate, but Rohe's remarks were made directly in response to the text of McCains standard stumpgraduation speech. She did listen (or read), and then she respectfully disagreed with what she'd read. And this made Salter make a post that, frankly, is surprisingly vitriolic and tone-deaf for a longtime political operative at such a high level. His comments do not have the hallmarks of a well-thought-out strategic reply. Simply put, she made him lose it. The question is why.
I think there are several possible answers. One is that Salter mistook her principled objections to McCain's stances for an attack on McCain's character. This seems likely, given that he brings up McCain's bravery as a POW, a matter which is completely irrelevant. I think this situation merits a derivative of Godwin's Law - the first person to bring up McCain's POW experience when it has no bearing loses the argument. He may have behaved honorably under terrible suffering in the past, but that doesn't mean he's right about everything now. And while there are certainly people who could trump McCain on the brave endurance of suffering score, I'd be tempted to break Godwin's Law in listing them.
So why can't Salter distinguish between honest debate and an ad hominem attack? Maybe because he's gotten too used to what Republicans do: linking Representative Max Cleland, who had maybe a limb and a half left after serving in Vietnam, to Osama Bin Laden; condemning Jack Murtha for telling the truth about a Marine massacre of children. Or maybe he's just pretending not to know the difference, like that tired old "criticize Bush and OMG YOU HATE AMERICA" bullshit.
So why did Salter lose his shit? Either McCain's people have started to adopt Bush's sense of entitlement and superiority, and are angered by any commoner who dares question him, or he's upset because this young woman made McCain look foolish. Neither says anything positive about McCain, and with his hissy fit, Salter's just digging himself in deeper. He's making it evident that McCain's lofty words about dissent are hollow, and that even this "maverick" Republican prefers others' freedom of speech removed from his vicinity when it becomes inconvenient.
I hope Salter responds to Rohe again. ::grabs popcorn::
**
On the evil triumphing side... AT&T's been tracking EVERYTHING we do online, and turning that info over to the government. That's emails, IMs, websites visited...
That old joke about AT&T being the evil empire (their logo is the Death Star!) is either funnier or a whole lot less funny now. But since they're watching... AT&T? CIA/FBI/NSA? Do feel free to bite every inch of my ass.
**
On the topic of our ongoing fangirling of Al Gore, you can see the An Inconvenient Truth trailer here and find a theater near you here. Gore also told Bush off on climate change. It's amazing how kickass former politicians can be when they don't have to worry about votes or corporate donations.
Jean Rohe, the graduating speaker at The New School, who took visiting speaker John McCain to task in her speech, explains at HuffPo why she spoke up. One of McCain's staffers replies to this post and tells her she made herself look like an idiot and otherwise disparages her character. She chides him for his bullying, refutes several of his assumptions, and generally comes off looking like the classier party all around. (Thanks to fishsanwitt for that last link.)
I find it particularly interesting, though, that after McCain gave a speech in which he touted the importance of dissent and disagreement, his aide Mark Salter lambasted Jean Rohe for voicing her disagreement. (I suppose it's is only a virtue when it doesn't dispute McCain?) McCain has said he feels sorry for people who can't hear the other side of a debate, but Rohe's remarks were made directly in response to the text of McCains standard stumpgraduation speech. She did listen (or read), and then she respectfully disagreed with what she'd read. And this made Salter make a post that, frankly, is surprisingly vitriolic and tone-deaf for a longtime political operative at such a high level. His comments do not have the hallmarks of a well-thought-out strategic reply. Simply put, she made him lose it. The question is why.
I think there are several possible answers. One is that Salter mistook her principled objections to McCain's stances for an attack on McCain's character. This seems likely, given that he brings up McCain's bravery as a POW, a matter which is completely irrelevant. I think this situation merits a derivative of Godwin's Law - the first person to bring up McCain's POW experience when it has no bearing loses the argument. He may have behaved honorably under terrible suffering in the past, but that doesn't mean he's right about everything now. And while there are certainly people who could trump McCain on the brave endurance of suffering score, I'd be tempted to break Godwin's Law in listing them.
So why can't Salter distinguish between honest debate and an ad hominem attack? Maybe because he's gotten too used to what Republicans do: linking Representative Max Cleland, who had maybe a limb and a half left after serving in Vietnam, to Osama Bin Laden; condemning Jack Murtha for telling the truth about a Marine massacre of children. Or maybe he's just pretending not to know the difference, like that tired old "criticize Bush and OMG YOU HATE AMERICA" bullshit.
So why did Salter lose his shit? Either McCain's people have started to adopt Bush's sense of entitlement and superiority, and are angered by any commoner who dares question him, or he's upset because this young woman made McCain look foolish. Neither says anything positive about McCain, and with his hissy fit, Salter's just digging himself in deeper. He's making it evident that McCain's lofty words about dissent are hollow, and that even this "maverick" Republican prefers others' freedom of speech removed from his vicinity when it becomes inconvenient.
I hope Salter responds to Rohe again. ::grabs popcorn::
**
On the evil triumphing side... AT&T's been tracking EVERYTHING we do online, and turning that info over to the government. That's emails, IMs, websites visited...
That old joke about AT&T being the evil empire (their logo is the Death Star!) is either funnier or a whole lot less funny now. But since they're watching... AT&T? CIA/FBI/NSA? Do feel free to bite every inch of my ass.
**
On the topic of our ongoing fangirling of Al Gore, you can see the An Inconvenient Truth trailer here and find a theater near you here. Gore also told Bush off on climate change. It's amazing how kickass former politicians can be when they don't have to worry about votes or corporate donations.