- And btw, I do not live in the 9th District and do not work for the Rothman campaign. Spin-doctoring and sock-puppetry like that is not my bag.
- John from Bergen:
The idea of "manning up" against Scott Garrett is a Pascrell-Democrat talking point. It's not an objective reality. It's spin.
It's pretty clear Rothman has already addressed that the heart of his political experience was in Englewood, where he's now running.
Rothman need not run against Scott Garrett simple because Fair Lawn was excised from the district. If his life and political career was built in Fair Lawn, then that argument might hold water. But it doesn't.
- What about this polling analysis from the NY Times opinion pages?
"GOP Nightmare Charts"
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/g-o-p-nightmare-charts/
- Karen: I think he means "thought crime" insofar as some presume Ravi felt hate in his heart about homosexuals, and that it motivated his actions. (There is basically no evidence for this).
He was certainly callous and voyeuristic.
- In the Dharun Ravi case, the problem was that this was a weak case for a bias/ intimidation/ hate crime charge. It was a weak case for the "bullying" issue b/c Ravi's underlying crimes were only mildly homophobic and voyeuristic, not hateful.
So, I think the problem is "outsized expectations" create in the public by the initial media frenzy about bullying and bias.
Real hatred is out there and needs to be addressed, but the media pushed the centrality of this case beyond the facts to hype up the hate/ bullying issue.
I'd suggest that dissatisfaction with President Obama and perhaps even what might happen with the Trayvon Martin case are due to outsized expectations. The public are right to be excited, intrigued and even aghast or dissatisfied about all three stories. All became truly national stories for which the legal and political ramifications are still unfolding.
Frankly, the media frenzy doesn't make for satisfying outcomes in the public.
- Mommy Psych:
You can't really set a precedent against online bullying when the evidence of online bullying is as thin as this.
Mild homophobia, cultural misunderstandings, peeping-tom curiosity, homoerotic voyeurism, and ... pretty much none of that amounts to online bullying. The media's anti-bullying fervor in the wake of Tyler Clementi's tragic death was, as usual, misguided.
Real bullying and homophobic attacks exist and continues to exist, both on and offline. They need addressing.
The Dharun Ravi case doesn't do that and shouldn't do that.
- LOCK THEM UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEYS! And take their pensions.
Isn't that what white suburbanites are supposed to say about say about brazen, ruthless sociopaths and criminals? Let's hope the "law and order" attitude applies as much to corruption on Long Island as elsewhere.
- It's irrelevant if Brian Lehrer chooses to talk to Mara Liasson or anyone else. Her personal ideological views and journalistic credibility are irrelevant. They are non-factors.
I trust Brian Lehrer has the chops to ensure a proper, thorough, balanced discussion no matter who his guest is. WNYC/ NPR listeners are mature and informed enough to distinguish hacks and propagandists from straight-shooters and reasonable journalists.
Let Mara Liasson stand or fall on her own merit, as Brian Lehrer does on his.
- "The rest is indisputable"?
Wrong.
The ACORN sting was misrepresented and debunked. The NPR sting was misrepresented. Shirley Sherrod's statements were edited and taken out of context. Indeed the full context makes true the point antithetical to Breitbart and O'Keefes.
Those "scandals" were only successful though dishonesty and agitprop. Not journalism.
Thus, because they have been roundly disputed they are not indisputable. Conservatives and the radical the right have long maintained that they are entitled to their own set of facts. They are not, however, entitled to their own set of definitions.
Only Anthony Weiner's tweets were faithful to something called truth, but ultimately that is neither a political nor an institutional failure. It was a personal choice or mistake and one to which Anthony Weiner must only answer to his wife.
Two months on, are you willing to reconsider your eulogy of Andrew Breitbart? Being an apologist for a schill is as bad as being a schill.
Take responsibility for being wrong.
- I hope PunditTracker blog catches wind of your predictions, and everyone's.
They'll repossess your farm and force more astute analysis and predictions out of everyone. (With all due respect, my comments are not targeted at you specifically. Just the punditocracy generally). You at least have the dignity to revisit your predictions and columns to revise, correct, change your stance (Herman Cain, etc) as appropriate.
- More
