The trashing of Molly Ivins

[dsc]

It is bad enough that a cadre of people on this board see fit to trash candidates they don't like. There are Dean 'supporters' who live to post vile garbage about Kerry and Clark. There are Clark 'supporters' who live to post vile garbage about Dean. And there are Kerry 'supporters' who live to post vile garbage about Dean. I don't like it but this is the primary. But the trashing of liberal icons like Ivins must stop. It is shameful for us to do this. Here is what I am talking about.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=835334&mesg_id=838472&page=

If the media want to address Bush’s character, then they should address his character, not his sex life. The main thing about Bush is that there’s not much there there.

This is not a person of great depth or complexity or intelligence; he does not have many ideas. (Actually, aside from tort reform, I’ve never spotted one.) I don’t think he knows or cares a great deal about governance. Nevertheless, he is a perfectly adequate governor of Texas, where we so famously have the weak-governor system. Bush was smart enough to do what Bob Bullock told him to for four years, and it worked fine.

Bush is also a pretty nice guy. I really think you would have to work at it to dislike the man. His best trait is self-deprecating humor.

He’s above average; he’s more than mediocre. He has real political skills. If you separate the political part of public life (i.e., running for office) from the governing part (i.e., what you do after you get there), Bush is much better at the politics. This is true of many people in public life – in fact, a genuine interest in governance is relatively rare among politicians.

As proof of his political shrewdness, I submit two pieces of evidence: first, his careful wooing of the Hispanic community in Texas (such a refreshing contrast to that fool Wilson in California); and second, an extremely difficult balancing act keeping the Christian right, which controls the Texas Republican Party, from being perceived as the face of the party. (Most of Bush’s money comes from precisely the kind of rich Republicans who are horrified by the Christian right; anyone who has covered Texas Republican conventions during the past ten years knows how deep that split is.)

The single worst thing I can say about George W. Bush after five years of watching him is that if you think his daddy had trouble with "the vision thing," wait’ll you meet this one. I don’t think he has any idea why he’s running for the presidency, except that he’s competitive and he can. On the other hand, most Republicans don’t want government to do much anyway, so Bush is perfect for them.

Anyone who thinks Bush’s sound-bite slogan "compassionate conservatism" actually means something programmatic should study the latest reports on poverty in Texas. Hint to national media people (courtesy of the Center for Public Policy Priorities):

• Texas has a much higher percentage of poor working families with small children than other states.

• More poor Texas families have a full-time, year-round worker than similar families in other states.

• Texas’ poor families are more likely to rely on earnings for a majority of their income, and less likely to rely on welfare, than similar families in the nation.

• Poor working families in Texas are much less likely to be covered by health insurance. They are less likely to receive unemployment benefits. More than half the poor families are headed by a married couple. One out of six Texans is below the poverty level. The child poverty rate is 24.2 percent, compared to 20.4 percent nationally.

enf of my quote of Ivins' work (not the link I gave but that link is in there). The sentence in bold, and only the sentence in bold was quoted in the post I cited and given as Molly's opinion of Bush. Her crime. She had the audacity to support Dean. No reasonable person should contenance this behavior. This wasn't an honest mistake but a deliberate trashing of a great lady who is one of our few voices out there. Shame on those who would contenace this.

[alarimer]

1. I agree

While I really dislike Bush, it is because of his policies. I have never met the man and so don't know what he is like as a person. I think Molly has met him so she may have more to go on.

I think there is too much trashing going on here of other democrats too. A lot of very negative attacks on other candidates. As far as I am concerned they are all good people who will lead us back to where we should be. I may disagree with Dean or Clark on some things but that doesn't mean I have to call them names. We need to stand together and defeat Bush- that is the main thing here.

[KFC]

2. I believe she was a Nader supporter

So she's liberal, but misguided. The article you quoted definitely flatters Bush, but was obviously written before 2000.

[Terwilliger]

3. oh fer criminy's sake....who are you?

Maybe Ivins is correct and YOU're misguided...think of that?

[opihimoimoi]

5. Molly is the latest messenger to be attacked and hung out to dry

Fuck the message, kill the messenger. Distraction, Distortion, and Deception, Thats the Pubs way.

Oh well, Come, we look for Helen Thomas get her ice cream

[Terwilliger]

16. We should give Ivins and Thomas their own newspaper

Opihi! I hope all goes well with you :hi:

[opihimoimoi]

28. Thanks, same to you Ter

:hi:

:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:

[dsc]

4. flatters Bush?

are you insane? She says he has rotten policies, no interest in government, and hates the poor. Good Lord, if that is your idea of flattery then you are nuts.

[KFC]

13. Certainly

As I said, this was witten before 2000. Her articles now are not nearly as flattering. I have re-arranged the article to make my point clearer for you.

Anti-Bush:

If the media want to address Bush’s character, then they should address his character, not his sex life. The main thing about Bush is that there’s not much there there.

This is not a person of great depth or complexity or intelligence; he does not have many ideas. (Actually, aside from tort reform, I’ve never spotted one.) I don’t think he knows or cares a great deal about governance.

The single worst thing I can say about George W. Bush after five years of watching him is that if you think his daddy had trouble with "the vision thing," wait’ll you meet this one. I don’t think he has any idea why he’s running for the presidency, except that he’s competitive and he can. On the other hand, most Republicans don’t want government to do much anyway, so Bush is perfect for them.

Anyone who thinks Bush’s sound-bite slogan "compassionate conservatism" actually means something programmatic should study the latest reports on poverty in Texas. Hint to national media people (courtesy of the Center for Public Policy Priorities):

• Texas has a much higher percentage of poor working families with small children than other states.

• More poor Texas families have a full-time, year-round worker than similar families in other states.

• Texas’ poor families are more likely to rely on earnings for a majority of their income, and less likely to rely on welfare, than similar families in the nation.

• Poor working families in Texas are much less likely to be covered by health insurance. They are less likely to receive unemployment benefits. More than half the poor families are headed by a married couple. One out of six Texans is below the poverty level. The child poverty rate is 24.2 percent, compared to 20.4 percent nationally.

Pro Bush:

Nevertheless, he is a perfectly adequate governor of Texas, where we so famously have the weak-governor system. Bush was smart enough to do what Bob Bullock told him to for four years, and it worked fine.

Bush is also a pretty nice guy. I really think you would have to work at it to dislike the man. His best trait is self-deprecating humor.

He’s above average; he’s more than mediocre. He has real political skills. If you separate the political part of public life (i.e., running for office) from the governing part (i.e., what you do after you get there), Bush is much better at the politics. This is true of many people in public life – in fact, a genuine interest in governance is relatively rare among politicians.

As proof of his political shrewdness, I submit two pieces of evidence: first, his careful wooing of the Hispanic community in Texas (such a refreshing contrast to that fool Wilson in California); and second, an extremely difficult balancing act keeping the Christian right, which controls the Texas Republican Party, from being perceived as the face of the party. (Most of Bush’s money comes from precisely the kind of rich Republicans who are horrified by the Christian right; anyone who has covered Texas Republican conventions during the past ten years knows how deep that split is.)


====================================================================

Considering Molly Ivins, that is almost Bush worship.

[DrBB]

18. An awful lot of that is damning by faint praise

Of course it's considered more powerful, in rhetoric, to acknowledge the strengths of an adversary before damning him, which is what she's doing here; mere invective is a much weaker form of attack. Even so, a lot of this "flattery" looks more like damning by faint praise, one of my favorite forms of irony. "More than mediocre"--woo hoo! "Perfectly adequate"--yowza!

I believe you're right that this is an older piece. A lot of commentators on the left have credited him with governing as a centrist in Texas, and expressed considerable shock and surprise that he has governed so far to the right as *president. Bush has given us lots more reasons to despise him since he seized power.

[louis-t]

22. Il Buce!

[DrBB]

34. Or Busholini, yup

Resemblance is striking, isn't it? But only because of the pose. Actually, I think he looks like a 3rd rate knockoff of the coiner of the term "fascism." Is that steely resolve, or is he about to break out in chin-quivering tears? Hard to tell.

Which is worse, to be an actual insane dictator, or just a wannabe?

[Cleita]

8. A lot of what Molly writes is irony and a lot of

it is very subtle. I don't think Molly ever supported Ralph Nader, really. Sometimes she's in a, "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything" mood. She has also one of the most critical writers of Bush. You should look at her work as a whole and you won't find a Bush lover there. I couldn't imagine anyone trashing Molly. I first discovered her when I was living in Texas surrounded by snake twirling Texas fundies. Her articles were like a breath of liberal fresh air in a very suffocating place. Also I know you weren't trashing Molly. Others were.

[ulysses]

15. erm...

I don't think Molly ever supported Ralph Nader, really.

Here.

I'm voting for Ralph. I'm voting for Nader because I believe in him, admire him and would like to see his issues and policies triumph in our political life. I'm also voting for him because I live in Texas -- where all 32 electoral votes will go to George W. Bush even if I stand on my head, turn blue and vote for Gus Hall, the late communist.

http://affiliate.workingassets.com/article.cfm?ItemID=8841

[Cleita]

19. This was a rant.

She said she had to vote for him because the Democratic candidate didn't have a chance. Even if she did, she wasn't throwing her vote away. It was lost anyway and that was her point. I mean I would like to see Nader's issues and policies triumph, but since he isn't getting them on the table in the way he should by backing a candidate in the Democratic Party who espouses them, then it's really empty promises and lies.

[DrBB]

25. Quite a critical qualification there, yes?

I'm also voting for him because I live in Texas -- where all 32 electoral votes will go to George W. Bush even if I stand on my head, turn blue and vote for Gus Hall, the late communist.

That's very different from recommending that others vote Green irrespective of location or electoral consquences, isn't it. She's explicitly adhering to the "safe state" rule, which was the basis on which a lot of us voted Green last time. I did. I didn't like Gore all that much--not because of the lies told about him, but because he was running as a DLC Democrat. I think he could have done a much better job of defining the difference between the Dems and the GOP. If I'd lived in a contested state I certainly would have voted for him, but the Greens were much closer to my political beliefs than he was. And I had the same "luxury" to vote my conscience as Ivins, though inverted--Massachusetts was as solid for Gore as Texas was for Bush.

[Terwilliger]

17. oh, come on!

You just can't accept that someone supported Nader considering your hatred of him...especially somebody you really respect like Ivins.

[Cleita]

20. I don't hate Nader. I don't know him. I don't like what

he does as contrary to what he says. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not arguing this with you anymore because of your blind support of someone who isn't working in your best interest. Get on your knees and worship whomever you like. You are free to do so. Go away now, and don't bother to answer my posts, you will get no more responses from me.

[DrBB]

14. Flattery? She coined the nickname "Shrub" for the Nitwit In Chief

Title of one of her books: "Shrub: The Short But Happy Political Life
of George W. Bush."

Sheesh.

[AP]

6. Ivins is a career Bush basher, which is great. She has her role to play.

Is anyone surprised she picked Dean? He does as a candidate what she does as a career.

[dsc]

7. Did you read her books

Shrub and Bushwhacked? If so, how can you call her merely a Bush basher? If not, then why did you post about her career at all?

[AP]

10. I TOTALLY respect her career. It's valuable. Notice the subject of books:

George Bush.

Just like every sentence uttered by Dean.

Thus Dean's appeal to her.

It's like if she were marine biologist, and she like the candidate who always talked about dolphins.

[dsc]

11. My point is that the subject of her books isn't Bush

it is what Bush has done to our government which are completely different things. Go and read Bushwhacked, it is clear you didn't. Bush doesn't get much mention. Instead it is about the son of a man who died eating tainted food, a child who died after an accident left him an invalid, a woman who ran out of unemployment, a jewish socialist who runs an insurance company, and many other day to day people who are affected by Bush's policies.

[JohnKleeb]

9. Have no problems with her endorsing Dean

Hell if I dont flip out when my friends pick Dean what makes you think I am gonna flip when Molly Ivins does, even though she endorsed him, I still urge everyone to that simple advice though.

[DrBB]

12. Are liberals idealists or zealots?

Liberals tend to be idealists. But what's the difference between idealism and fanaticism--a self-defeating obsession with political purity? Holding people to some perfect standard and excoriating anyone who doesn't conform to it--or viciously turning on someone you've supported the second you find out he or she holds some opinion you disagree with--that's not really idealism but some form of dementia. It amounts to an assumption that you have some kind of monopoly on wisdom--delusions of godhood.

Too many people are prone to it here, which is why I have been spending less time at DU in general and GD in particular. I need information, not yet another regurgitation of disguised GOP talking points that have already been debunked ten or twenty times. Especially since the claim is often not just that the candidate has feet of clay, or has rethought a position at some point, but that he is in fact the tool of mere evil incarnate and deserves to be standing for a firing squad rather than public office.

Pfffagh.

So now the same nitwits are going after Molly Ivins for supporting Dean? As a more-or-less Clark supporter I was disappointed when I saw that, but hey, lots of people I respect are supporting Dean. I will too, if he gets the nomination.

The cliche about liberals is that we tend to lose elections because any time we are threatened with victory we can be relied on to dissolve into internecine squabbles at least as vicious as anything we direct at our opponents. All in the name of "idealism"--which is really a purity fetish raised to the level of zealotry.

Plenty of evidence to back up that stereotype here, more's the pity.

edit: clarity

[brook]

23. Dr.BB...

Thank you for expressing much of what I feel lately.

Although I favor Howard Dean, I will not denigrate another candidate publicly, except for Lieberman because I do believe he's a GOPer-Lite.

That said, I pass over a great many threads because their headers clearly signal "Bashing Ahead". Maybe it's because I'm a good bit older than the majority of posters on the board - I dunno - but I feel it's foolhardy to throw out the good with the bad. Particularly in this election cycle, when so much depends on activism and unity. Surely we all want the strongest candidate - and it is yet to be seen just who that really is. Keep up with the tearing down, and we'll end up with a weakened and tattered also ran - and four more years where * will be free to dismantle whatever is left of the once great Republic called America.

edited to add: Molly Ivins is one of the most astute political reporters in this country; especially well-versed in her home territory of Texas. One of the things that sets her apart from a Novak, O'Reilly, Hitchens, etal -is the journalistic integrity it takes to tell both good and bad traits of those she covers.

[blm]

21. Get real dsc. I didn't trash Ivins by repeating something she said once.

I just don't have to trust her instincts all the time just because I like her so much.

What's with you and calling people out for something so overblown?

Did you get the vapors, too?

[dsc]

24. Did I quote you?

Did you read this post? Please point out where I did? But while we are on the subject, do you or don't you have a link where Molly Ivins said "Bush is harmless"? You have yet to give me one. I have asked not once, not twice, but three times. You had time to make up things I haven't said now find the time to back up what you really said.

[blm]

26. I didn't make it up, she said it.

Sorry I was attending to yardwork with a toddler and haven't searched it yet. In the meantime go soak your ....self...in a nice relaxing bath.

[dsc]

29. You always do this

and I am tired of doing your homework for you. You made this charge. This is the first of the four times I asked you for this that you finally gave any kind of answer. You owe it to Molly to provide that link or retract your statement. The made up BTW referred not to your post in that thread but to your post here. You claimed I said you trashed Ivins. I didn't. That is what you made up.

[Jacobin]

27. Anyone who trashes Molly is here to disrupt and is astroturfing

Molly is a bright shining star in the dim state of Texas.

[KG]

30. rather amusing, really

to watch some idiots trash great voices for the dems/left when their particular ox is gored. seen it happen on DU to moore, chomsky, palast and others.

[dsc]

31. I have no problem with citing errors in people's writings

no matter whom they may be. My problem with what happened here is taking one or two sentences, entirely out of context, and basiclly slandering a writer by pretending that is all they said. If you disagree with Molly, fine, do so honestly. Don't clip quotes. Don't put words in her mouth and have the audacity to be pissy when asked for links where she actually uttered them.

[bread_and_roses]

32. Trashing?

I did not read that post as trashing...it merely took exception to one remark. When I read that article, I too raised my eyebrows at calling anyone with as depraved an indifference to human life as Bush "a pretty nice guy." It is possible to enjoy a writer and generally agree with him/her and still take exception to a particular viewpoint or stance, surely? Regardless of which candidate that writer favors? Or are we to abandon any critical perspective when it comes to anything that might even peripherally reflect on one candidate or another?
(edit for typo)

[dsc]

33. If you think that sentence is at all representative of what Ivins thinks

after reading that article I don't know what to say. I really, really don't. I can't see how any honest reader can come away with that impression of that article.

[bread_and_roses]

38. You bewilder me

I said that I too raised my eyebrows at that COMMENT, not the article. I read Molly Ivins regularly, enjoy her commentary, but don't put her in the same intellectual strata as Noam Chomsky or Edward Said. Nor do I think she would put herself in their ranks. The point of my post was not even about Molly I.; it was a merely a comment that I did not find the post quoted at the start of this thread "trashing."

[NashVegas]

35. We Now Have Both "Ignore User" and "Ignore Thread" Buttons

Use them liberally.

[dsc]

36. that does nothing

Not if we care about having progressive writers and having them read. If we trash Ivins like these people are then we won't have Ivins. Go to Freeperville I bet you won't find this kind of trashing of Safire and Will.

[kiahzero]

37. Agreed

I would put forward that this is the similar basis for the smear against Clark being a closet Republican.

I like the politics of civility, and hope that they return someday.

[Moderator]

39. Locking

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum.

1. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

2. The subject line of a discussion thread and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include profanity, excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation. Inflammatory rhetoric should also be avoided.

3. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

4. If you wish to start a vanity thread (ie: a discussion thread in which the sole purpose is to share your personal opinion) you must state your opinion in a non-inflammatory manner which respects differences in opinion and facilitates actual discussion.

5. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
DU moderator