After a week of efforts to equate the controversial remarks of two particular members of Congress, I pushed back a bit at New York:
It looks like House Republicans are going to deal with outrage over their perennial problem child Marjorie Taylor Greene by finding a Democrat to punish. That would be Minnesota’s Ilhan Omar, according to Politico’s Huddle:
“’I think that Ilan should receive the same type of punishment as Marjorie because if it’s good for one, it is good for another,’ Rep. Maria Salazar (R-Fla.), who voted to remove Greene from her committees, told me. ‘Anti-semitism is the same thing as anti-semitism. It’s just that Nancy is afraid …'”
There are others who want to push for Omar’s removal as well as those looking to censure her over her war crimes remarks — and a few Dems may join them.
The idea of equating Omar’s complaints about unequal treatment of countries in investigating military misconduct with Greene’s comparisons of mask and vaccine requirements to the Holocaust is deeply satisfying to a lot of people. Republicans can continue their now-ancient habit of waving away extremism in their ranks by claiming it’s more prevalent on the other side of the aisle. Nervous centrist Democrats can document their nervous centrism by firing thunderbolts left and right. And most of all, accusing both parties of harboring those prone to “false equivalence” appeals to the false equivalence many Beltway media folks want to draw between Democrats and Republicans, who are engaged in the mutually assured destruction of partisan polarization.
There’s only one problem: Treating what MTG and Omar have said as equal expressions of false equivalence actually is false, as any honest evaluation of their words quickly shows. Greene bluntly compared COVID-19 precautions to the Holocaust, analogized vaccine documentation mandates to the Nazi practice of making Jews wear yellow stars, and, for good measure, said Democrats are like Nazis because they are “socialists.” Omar said this in the midst of a virtual exchange with Secretary of State Anthony Blinken over investigations of the brief but intense war between Israel and Hamas:
“’We must have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity,’ she wrote. “We have seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban.’”
Her point wasn’t to say the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban were equally culpable in their commission of atrocities, but that all should be equally subject to international investigation. I suppose there are superpatriots who would dispute the idea that America has ever committed “unthinkable atrocities,” though the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear attacks, and of countless genocidal assaults on Native Americans, among many examples, suggest otherwise. But in any event, when challenged by Republicans and Democrats alike to make it clear she was not imputing equivalent culpability to these various nations and coalitions of fighters, Omar complied instantly:
“U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar said Thursday that she was ‘in no way equating terrorist organizations with democratic countries with well-established judicial systems … ‘
“’To be clear: the conversation was about accountability for specific incidents regarding [International Criminal Court] cases, not a moral comparison between Hamas and the Taliban and the U.S. and Israel.’”
MTG, meanwhile, kept doubling down on her comparisons of public-health measures with the slaughter of many millions by Nazi Germany, and finally, after more than three weeks and a tour of the Holocaust Museum, she issued an apology that betrayed little understanding of the full scope of the Holocaust, and then refused to apologize for the Democrat-Nazi analogy.
Looking more broadly at the two women and their records of controversial utterances, Ilhan made an unfortunate and erroneous reference to “the Benjamins,” in a gratuitous comment about support for Israel in the United States, for which she “unequivocally” apologized:
“Anti-semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-semitic tropes. My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole. We have to always be able to step back and think through criticism, just as I expect people to hear me when others attack my identity. This is why I unequivocally apologize.”
Greene lost her committee assignments earlier this year after media focus on an almost incredible blizzard of incendiary statements she made on social media before coming to Congress (barely anyone even noticed her practice of brandishing an AR-15 when discussing her enemies in campaign ads). In February, she apologized for claiming that school shootings were fake and for promoting QAnon conspiracy theories. She never apologized for happily contemplating violence against congressional Democrats (including, very specifically, Ilhan Omar) and the Speaker of the House, or for her unusually aggressive support of Trump’s electoral big lie and the effort in January to overturn the presidential election results, or for her own subscription to very weird anti-Semitic claims.
If you cannot discern a qualitative difference between Omar’s “outrages” and Greene’s, and between the speed and coherence of their clarifications and apologies, it may be time for some remedial work in logic and rhetoric. These two members of Congress aren’t alike at all, and as much as I sometimes disagree with Ilhan Omar, treating her as a left-wing MTG is lazy and just plain wrong.
I think independents voted for Bush because they believed the propaganda that he would be a real conservative and not expand the government. During the debates, he said he was against nation-building. Both turned out to be lies. It is a switch to hear that the Democrats are for fiscal responsibility while the Republicans spend like “drunken sailors.” And its a switch for the Republican party to be taking us into limited war adventures.
We are headed in the wrong direction – away from what the founders wanted for this country and towards socialism. The only difference in the two parties is the flavor. Government tells us we’re obese and need to go on a diet? That’s hypocrisy. We are supposed to be a Republic of very limited government. Independents are looking at Kerry. But can he bring back the jobs lost due to China PMFN or NAFTA? No more than Bush can. So we’re stuck between two choices – bad and worse. Independents want a strong third party but we’re not getting one.
Well that makes sense. You have to make sure the consumers are solvent enough to continually consume or things go south real fast.
What’s wrong with spending? Under the label “spending” lives are saved, schools are financed, the military is kept equipped, health care is provided. There is nothing wrong with spending, as long as it’s efficient and motivated. To spend you’ll have to tax. This is common sense.
I don’t but into all these ideologically motivated (rich people who want’s to keep their inherited wealth) lies about taxes and government spending. Noone else should.
I’ve worked in the private sector for 20 years and boy, talk about inefficient spending… all image, no content. More money on propaganda (advertising), less on product quality. Unfortunately this is often the truth about free markets.
(This is not to say that taxes can be negative, for example when they stifle growth and entrepreneurial efforts – however this is not so much about the levels of taxation as who you tax. I’m all for lesser taxes – for people with low
incomes)
Give me a “tax and spend” liberal who at least pays for what he spends rather than a Republican who maxes out his credit card like a drunken bum in a liquor store.
Fiscal conservatism fiscal conservatism fiscal conservatism. Nyah!
Tim with a capital “T”: Why get on my case when the public perception of Democrats is “tax and spend”? You didn’t tell me anything I didn’t already know, but if you read what I wrote, you would see I was talking about public perception. Reagan tripled the national debt while spouting off about “tax and spend Democrats.” And he made the charge stick even though it was false. That perception has been worked and reworked since FDR.
As a loyal republican,I must say that Bush has been horrible about limiting the growth in government spending.It is an institutional problem IMO.The democrats are no better on spending and I would argue that they are worse.Electing Kerry is just re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic.We are not under taxed in the US and especially out here in California.
Tim, I believe you posted to the wrong site. You probably want “Free Republic”.
fiscal conservative?!….. Clinton was just lucky in his timing – sitting on the top of a cycle. I just don’t trust Kerry. Too many constituents make up dem party – so much of the base is blindly for a democrat (minorities for example) Then to justify their selection, they sieze on the hate bush wagon
Dean.. the Dem’s have been out in front on the fiscal responsibility issue since Clinton. Furthermore, Bush is backed into a colossal corner on this issue. He’s racked up historical deficits that dwarf even Reagan’s record. There’s absolutely no way that Bush can turn the tables on Kerry on this front.. if Robert Rubin has anything to do with it.
The issue of fiscal responsibility is an important one to me. As a young person, I view deficits as essentially future taxes on me. It is a burden on our government and our economy that will only materialize many years from now.. when those politicians responsible are retired or dead. My generation will be left with higher taxes and a government that is a drag on future growth in the economy. It is a legacy that will shame both Repug’s and Dem’s.
At the same time.. I wouldn’t put it past Bush to try and seize this issue. Nothing is past this admin. I think the release of the torture memos is evidence that the WH hopes that people aren’t paying attention to the details.. that they just see the headlines.
Go to this link to see coverage of Kerry’s proposals for fiscal responsibility..
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2004_0408a.html
Opinion on Bush has soured because of the lack of job creation. That is not likely to become a positive for Mr. Bush in time for election.
Why do we call it “fiscal conservatism”??? Conservatism should not figure in any positive statement whatsoever. Fiscal responsibility is the word to use! Please
As I look at the article, I am struck by the passage regarding Bush’s ability to turn his numbers around because of his hard-line conservatism. I think we need to look at what must be done if he does take a different tactic in order to turn those numbers around. Suppose he begins to play the fiscal conservative (fiscal responsibility is NOT a mark of his conservatism). On that front, Democrats remain, because of perception but not reality, vulnerable. It is helpful if the Democratic Party got out in front of fiscal conservatism right now, to prevent a move in that direction from Bush. There are other areas in which the party needs to get out in front to prevent Bush from stealing the center. Bush has already attempted to steal Kerry’s position on Iraq and make it his own by calling for more international involvement. The only thing preventing Bush from really stealing that position is that the international community despises Bush. Even so, he did score a coup in the way of perception by getting his four bogus UN resolutions passed. Only the rush of failures in Iraq prevented him from fully capitalizing on that.
Paul,
Bush has been mixing the optimism ads with the ‘war president’ ads in Ohio. The negative ads about Kerry stopped a couple months back. But I haven’t seen too many Bush ads lately. Maybe he’s holding back his money, or running his ads in other states.
Kerry has been running a health care spot and another one where he talks a little bit about why he wants to be president. It’s not really very optimistic, though, IMHO.
MoveOn.org has been running many ads as well, probably more than either Bush or Kerry. Guess they have all the money! I haven’t seen any GOP advocacy group (is that the correct term?) ads, but I’m in Columbus and that doesn’t mean they aren’t running in Cincy or Cleveland.
I was visiting my mother in Pennsylvania this week-end and caught some of the campaign ads (we dont’ get them here in Massachusetts). Bush’s ad was focused on his optimism regarding the economy. Is this a significant change in focus from being “the war president?” Or has he mixed in this type of ad all along? I would love to hear from anyone in a swing state.
“asshat.” you must be a fark.com reader.
I think that if W had to deal with the same press attitude that Clinton did, you would be seeing more than half the Republicans voting for Kerry.
I really don’t want a close win for Kerry. The Republicans have been shown more than willing to consider any such executive “illegitimate” and further willing to use any extra-constitutional means to unseat them. Can just the independent vote deliver a decisive win?
Not all of us independents are chickens. Until recently, I had the luxury of being able to vote like it was the NFL draft – go for best athelete, not considering the position (yes that seems like loser language to me too).
However, I used to be able to be able to vote for the best person for the job, whether they were democrats, republicans, greens, libertarians, or whatever.
Because I live in Washington State, I no longer currently have the option of voting for whomever I want. That sucks, but I can also sign the initiative which will restore the order I grew up with.
Initiatives are like any other tool which is capable of harming its owner: it’s good when the blade is closed; watch out, otherwise.
This is one of the few initiatives I am willing to sign thanks to Tim “asshat” Eyeman, the Satan worshipping liar and “anti-tax” apocolyte. No, I’m not bitter.