I'm particularly amazed that no one seems to care that Kofi Annan and some of his "top officials" are on vacation this week (per an article in the New York Sun on Dec. 30 entitled "A Top Kofi Annan Aide Insults Israeli Leader")

Must be because he's not a conservative American.

Annan was indignant when someone asked him about it, saying that he was in touch with world leaders and did his job while on his skiing vacation.

Meanwhile, President Bush was in a house with a high-end communications suite better than most countries could even afford for their presidential palaces, could get full intel from anyone at any time, and he was supposed to be "out" of touch.

Dude... there's a huge difference between a few liberals with hobbyhorse websites and the President of the United States of America.

Just think about it for a bit. You'll get it if you try!

Hypocritical as you may see it, the fact remains that you are just as hypocritical for defending Bush on the subject and then accusing a whole group of people for doing the same thing.

It is especially ridiculous because you are trying to make a point about a whole group instead of individuals (as some on the left did about Bush). I personally have only had only two posts up since December 12, but since the tsunami have had 4 posts up, two praising Americans for their generosity. I think if I wanted to go find bloggers on the right that didn't post things I could, and if I wanted to find bloggers on the left that posted a lot I could.

It was an unnecessary low blow, and in trying to prove others were "wrong" you committed the same fault you accused others of.

Should we all now put up dollar figures at the top of our blog to show how much we personally gave to the cause? Would that prove our compassion?

Discussing the President's charitable and public reaction to a tragedy is far different that that of a random guy behind a computer.

Hmmm...I'm going to call shenanigans on this one. Without conceding anything regarding who is more compassionate in the blogosphere, the fact that a bunch of Comic Book Guys out there may not have jumped quickly enough to express their sadness or whatever doesn't seem that important. But if the President of the United States - our representative to the world - doesn't show the proper respect or sensitivity, for better or worse it reflects on all of us.

You can argue about whether Bush really was insensitive or not, but there is no equivalence here.

Kevin, why I haven't I linked you before this? I have been here before, I know, and I have "seen" you around the 'sphere.

However, henceforth linked.

Attaboy,
Rae

Now Bill don't get ahead of yourself.

I mentioned in the post that many mid-level righty blogs did not mention it much.

You don't find the disproportionate coverage interesting?

I did, so I posted it...

I simply found it interesting that the same "compassion fascists" (lefties) who bash the right for not caring (for the poor, the elderly, the homeless, the children et al) apparently did very little caring about this tragedy.

You can't argue that there was not a disparity in the coverage, I documented it.

The fact remains that (at the time) 60,000 were presumed dead and the same people who routinely claim they care about the poor, sick, children etc etc etc didn't have much to say about it.

You of course are free to come up with an alternative conclusion as to why... Just saying "bloggers don't have much to add" is a poor defense... That would apply to both sides.

It should also be noted that (by and large) the lefty blogs had nothing to say about it until they could bash Bush then they suddenly took interest...

You are free to speculate why that was as well.

Again, feel free to disagree with my conclusions... But then, I'd be more than happy to hear yours????????

OOOOOHHH I get it...

Bush is open to the charge because he is President... But the self appointed "compassion fascists" who routinely vilify the right are immune to all charges of hypocrisy...

Who said they had to have equivalent importance on the world stage to define hypocrisy?

You can be a hypocrite and be a nobody.

The fact remains that the same people who routinely trade on the fact they care more about poor, weak, oppressed etc did very little to show it.

You are free to speculate why. Just saying that they are not as important and the President is meaningless...

At the end of the day, nobody can get me a better answer than the one I came up with. If you can, I'm all ears.

I think as a whole there is probably just as much compassion and caring on both sides of the aisle.

That is not the point really though. You tried to the defend the President's actions by point out others inaction. Unless the "others" part of that equation was another government, your point is without merit.

What Daily Kos does is in no way on the same level with what the President does.

The President has an expectation to live up to in regards to responding to a tragedy. He can't just internalize, click on Amazon, donate, and then go on with his day. Individuals can though.

I think Ezra had a good quote that get's lost by you in the mix: "Compassion isn't frequency, and it's not show."

Do you not miss the hypocrisy of you defending the president for inaction and then calling out the left for the same thing?

Paul -- yes, there's a better answer. This whole discussion is moronic. Go read Crooked Timber right now. They've got a whole series of posts on how to help flood victims through Amazon purchases. It may not be the most effective effort around, but they obviously put a lot of thought into it, and it's pretty clear that they care. If your only point is that they didn't get on this quick enough, then whatever.

At any rate, I don't think you understand what hypocrisy is. The bloggers criticizing Bush are all faulting the president for shirking his duties as world leader. If those same bloggers were to shirk their own duties as world leaders, they would indeed be hypocrites.

But I suppose if you haven't grasped the difference between hobby website and president by now, you never will...

"You tried to the defend the President's actions by point out others inaction"

No I did not. At that snapshot in time he had not received any criticism for not speaking out yet... or at least I did not hear it if he did.

If you note in the post, I linked back to a similar walk thru the blogosphere I did after Nick Berg. I was interested in the phenomenon then as I am now. (I often follow stories thru the left and right blog world but I don't always post it... This time I did.)

Conclusions could be drawn from either "walk." I drew some. If you don't like my conclusions you are invited to provide your own.

Your whole thesis is fatally flawed.

Further, for all your protestations about my post, you have failed to provide an alternative conclusion. If I am wrong, surely you can tell me why?????

Nine times out of ten when someone calls someone else a hypocrite they are being equally hypocritical in the opposite direction. Perhaps Paul is the tenth.

Is it important that the outside world thinks Bush showed compassion and action in response to the tsunamis? If yes, did Bush achieve the desired result?

I guess only hypocrites would ask such questions.

Brad, I gotta tell ya - and this is high praise coming from me - you make some of the best arguments I hear from the lefties... Assuming you're a lefty.

You are wrong on this one, but at least you make decent intellectual points... (not that you don't Bill ;-)

But I digress...

Here is my point Brad.

THE SAME PEOPLE who routinely criticize the right for not caring invite themselves to be held to a higher standard in the "caring" department. (sorta like preachers who sleep around get extra condemnation)

Certainly you can appreciate that if liberals want to PREACH how much they care for the victims of the world then perhaps their behavior should back it up, lest they be charged with hypocrisy.

Your defense of them is; "Sure, they don't give a shit about the victims but the President is more important."

That's fine and dandy... But then those same people lose all right to criticize others for not caring.

KnowhatImean?

By the way Paul, the link under the word "bashed" in your original post leads me to a Daily Kos page in which someone named "Armando" simply offers coverage of the tsunami. (And he updates it at several points during the day, making it essentially the equivalent of three posts.) No Bush-bashing whatsoever.

Hmmmm...

I disagree with you whole heartedly, but even if I didn't I would think it was a crass and unnecessary way to try to make your point.

well, crud Brad-- I linked it wrong... It was one of the commenters being a jerk... tell ya what, you read the thread and tell me which one I missed and I'll link it. LOL

In all seriousness, I could give you 10 more examples. And if I went to DU 50 more. BTW- Read my DU post... It's a riot.

Paul, I do see what you mean. The problem is that I don't think Kevin Drum has been accusing anyone of not caring, so he's not really a hypocrite. Neither has Josh Marshall. So these people aren't hypocrites. MyDD seems to mostly talk about technical details surrounding political horseracing, so I think it's a bit unfair to bash that site. They don't seem to accuse conservatives of anything.

In order to prove hypocrisy, you'd have to do this.

1) Find a specific instance of a lefty blogger accusing someone else of not caring about something because that someone neglected to post on an important topic. (Which is very different from accusing the president of shirking his duty.)

2) Show that this exact same person neglected an important topic, like the tsunami victims.

Now in order to show that this is true of "the left" in general, you'd have to find a LOT of such examples. You haven't really found any.

Okay, fair enough. But you do have to admit that Armando's post was updated three times, which effectively makes it equivalent to three or four separate posts. So bump up your Daily Kos total!

It's also a bit weird to say that commenters are doing all the accusing while the bloggers themselves aren't doing enough posting. If Joe says "X is wrong" and then Bill does X, that doesn't make Joe or Bill a hypocrite.

yikes... one at a time....

The problem is that I don't think Kevin Drum has been accusing anyone of not caring, so he's not really a hypocrite. Neither has Josh Marshall.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and furthermore you are wrong.

Go to Kevin Drum's site and search for "income disparity" Not only will you see meaningless statistics skewed to make points they can't support but you will see him bashing the right for not caring about the poor. (alt search: minimum wage) BTW he doesn't have to say "I CARE ABOUT THE POOR." Saying that "Republicans want to steal from the poor" qualifies. As for Josh, I'll confess I don't read him that often so I can't give you an example without looking... But come on... Generically speaking ALL liberals play the compassion card. I'd bet 20 bucks I can find something on his site to back up my assertion. (and you know it)

MyDD seems to mostly talk about technical details surrounding political horseracing, so I think it's a bit unfair to bash that site.

OK you might have a point on this one... I actually had only been there once before. I was thinking of big lefty blogs and he came to mind. In my original post I mention he was the new guy on the block.

BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER. Even if you prove that one guy escapes my exact point the larger point stands. Lefties trade on compassion but in this example it appeared they had none. There is a term for finding one small point of error and using that to throw out a whole argument... I forget what it is, but that is what you are doing. Even if we give mydd a pass, my larger point stands.

In order to prove hypocrisy, you'd have to do this.

1) Find a specific instance of a lefty blogger accusing someone else of not caring about something because that someone neglected to post on an important topic. (Which is very different from accusing the president of shirking his duty.)

NOPE! You are putting words in my mouth. I simply said that liberals claim a monopoly on compassion but here they (or at least as represented by lefty bloggers) apparently were behind the curve. The hypocrisy is that the "compassion fascists" who are quick to claim they care for the victims of the world didn't really give a shit. Prior posting is a completely separate argument that I did not make.

2) Show that this exact same person neglected an important topic, like the tsunami victims.

See above, mine is a meta point.

Now in order to show that this is true of "the left" in general, you'd have to find a LOT of such examples. You haven't really found any.

Golly gee whiz Brad-- Can you tell me with a straight face that the left does not play the compassion card???? Come one, I gave you kudos for making intellectual points, don't make me call you a moonbat.

"Tax cuts for the rich"

"Big drug companies"

"Big insurance companies"

Medicare, minimum wage the list goes on and on and on. The whole liberal platform is that they -- get this -- are liberal.

You know- hence the name "compassion fascists." [Which BTW is a term I don't routinely throw around but here it describes what I mean. They "feel our pain" and "evil republicans" don't.]

Okay, fair enough. But you do have to admit that Armando's post was updated three times, which effectively makes it equivalent to three or four separate posts. So bump up your Daily Kos total!

hmmm

OK should I go back and include every update on the righty blogs??? LOL We had one post with like 5 updates... We are updating so much we started using server side includes. (besides *I think* most if not all of the updates were after my post.)

It's also a bit weird to say that commenters are doing all the accusing while the bloggers themselves aren't doing enough posting.

Well-- I would see your point if those were the only examples. (admittedly those are the ones I linked) there are plenty of others... Atrios did it... Kos himself did it though I did not dig up the link. (OTB has the links if you care) It is all over the blogosphere. I selected that one post because I had read it and remembered it.

You can pick nits but lets get down to brass tacks. Lefties love to play the compassion card. But in this case it appeared that many of them didn't have much.

Once again.... You can draw whatever conclusion you would like for the noted disparity. So far, you have not given me any.

and if you want my meta meta meta point... Which I had not said before but it is what I truly believe....

90% of all "big name" liberals couldn't give a shit about the little people. They strictly use them to gain power... Political or otherwise.

See also: John Kerry pretending to eat at Wendy's but in reality they had lobster delivered from the local yacht club.

or Jessie Jackson showing up on camera is a $2000 suit to talk about how blacks are oppressed.

or John Kerry complaining about tax cuts for the rich but dodging taxes in his home state.

or or or or or

(BTW I'm probably off to bed after this one)

Paul, the only person you have "outed" is yourself for being a heartless asshole who doesn't care a damn for the hundreds of thousands of families who have lost loved ones in this tragedy other than that you can pretend to score political points from their suffering. Before you attack the humanity of others, you had better have some humanity yourself.

David- That nerve I hit a little sore buddy?

David, if you want to hit Paul's nerve just mention how often the right pushes the emotional buttons:

Bush, acting all normal by clearing the brush at the ranch.

Ending the "death tax" to save the family farm.

How Republicans seem to own the American Flag, "freedom", patriotism and "the power of pride".

How any criticism of Bush's handling of Iraq isn't supporting the troops.

The list of incomplete sentences could go on and on.... :-)

I'm sort of loathe to get involved here at all, because the whole discussion seems absurd. I read every comment in this thread I read, I have in the back of my head the image of a flood victim looking for his family's bodies in the remains of his house, and not really having time to figure out what the hell a "blogosphere" is.

That said, I want to make a point that I don't think has been made here. Stand made the good point that between Bush and a bunch of bloggers, there is no equivalence - the president of the United States clearly has a higher moral high-jump to clear than the 101st Fighting Keyboarders on both sides. But there's also a prudentialist argument to be made: Bush actually represents America abroad. He is, for better or worse, our face. When he is kind and compassionate, the American vision strengthens abroad; when he is cold and removed, the American vision weakens. Aside from the moral, quasi-aesthetic question of what you'd actually like to see your president do, the point is that the president's performance has real-world political implications that the blogosphere's do not. I can accept a range of opinions about how Bush's performance has actually been. But in this case, charges of hypocrisy are completely nullified - at least to me - by the proportionally tremendous impact Bush's performance has. There's a very, very strong prudentialist case to be made for being very concerned with the quality of Bush's performance and not at all concerned with the quality of the blogosphere's.

I make this point partially because it gets so often ignored in conservative-leaning circles. (Or, more properly, RNC-leaning circles.) Good diplomatic relations are not, as Bush so often likes to deride them, a matter of "popularity." They are, in fact, useful and a good idea. Especially in the midst of what is overwhelmingly an ideological conflict like the War on Terror, there may not be a stronger weapon America has than the strength of its vision abroad. On this score, Reagan had it right; he understood the value of an America that was militarily strong enough to physically dominate any other nation, but the paramount value of an America that was morally strong enough that it could lead the community of nations, not just hijack it by bureaucratic fiat. That may be getting harder these days; certainly, countries like France and Germany are getting no less intransigent. But from "Old Europe," to Abu Ghraib, to baffling impertinence at the UN, to the International Criminal Court, to Kyoto, liberals have spent the last four years watching Bush dismantle our greatest resource piece by self-righteous piece.

So, approve or disapprove of Bush's performance; that's subjective, and probably mostly a product of whatever you thought of Bush before this terribly tragedy struck. It's not just shady to morally raise the import of the blogosphere's performance to that of the president's - it's also prudentially absurd to lower the import of the president's performance to that of the blogosphere's. Liberals are critical of the president, for the most part, because they take deeply seriously the stakes at play when a president portrays the spirit of his nation in the global community. In that light, whatever you think of Bush, comparing him to the blogosphere strikes me as deeply unserious.

Do you not miss the hypocrisy of you defending the president for inaction and then calling out the left for the same thing?

Posted by: Bill K at December 31, 2004 02:37 AM

This entire line of word attack -- it happens nearly consistently by the same reappearing leftists when they try to 'correct' Wizbang -- is based upon the false premise, false assumption that "Bush was inactive" and/or "Bush failed to act" and/or "Bush behaved poorly/badly/wrongly and therefore is being defended" and the like.

No where has it been established, as in, PROVEN, that Bush acted in any way that any one could or should be complaining about, much less in any way that anyone who is confident in Bush should be or is "defending." There's nothing there to defend.

So, the entire attack language that the left wedges yet again and again is simply that of usery: liberals seizing upon any and all significant or even noticable moments in which Bush is featured or appears or even speaks -- but in this awful case, liberals seizing upon one of the worst human catastrophes and tragedies of massive proportions to once again make it all about how 'bad America is' and about "defending Bush (based upon the false assumption that there's been a bad thing happen that needs to be defended, when, what the rest of the world is focused upon is upon the massive catastrophe and trying to help out survivors) -- anyway, liberals seizing upon this awful time to make it again and again about liberals, about how bad liberals perceive President Bush, about "defending" America and all that line of pained, reprehensible rhetoric that is, entirely, liberal authored.

So the news arrived while President Bush was at his home in Crawford on Christmas Holiday. He was riding a bicycle and photographed doing that, while, perhaps, he had ten, fifteen minutes or thereabouts (I am conjecturing here in good faith, trying to be realistic) to wait for some further information from dozens of sources.

So, the liberals everywhere decry that Bush was seen on his bicycle on his Holiday at his home when the news of these terrible catastrophes became apparent. What they don't report is what Bush was doing, had already done, was soon to do, had in place already, had planned, had already set in motion, all of that.

But, to make a horrific disaster as has happened another event upon which liberals can denigrate President Bush, denigrate the United States, even Christians from what I read on a few of those links, well, what it messages to everyone else is that liberals are people with bad attitudes who seem to hate nearly everyone and everything and use human tragedies to wage poltical destruction, or try to.

I was just curious how quickly Clinton or any other Democrat would be able to launch a huge aid response, and I bet that what's been done by President Bush and Cabinet and others affiliated or at least coordinating with them has occured nearly as quickly as possible.

I don't see any "liberal" battle ships and aircraft carriers and massive relief organizations, by the way, who showed up in Southeast Asia ahead of anyone else. Just saying.

Daniel

Ironically, you guys are doing EXACTLY what Bill accused me of -- but in reverse.

You are saying it is OK for liberals be be hypocrites because President Bush did not speak soon enough.

The two are completely unrelated.

If you notice -if you read the initial post- I never mention Bush. (other than Kevin Drum calling him a criminal)

The discussion was never, "Bush speaking vs Blogs speaking" until the people who did not like what I was saying had no other retort so they tried to change the debate.

The observation was that the same people who always claim the "compassion high road" showed little compassion after (then) 60,000 people died.

That was the debate.

People who don't like that fact tried to lump George Bush in. The reason I mention him in the second post was to illustrate the hypocrisy of may of my critics. ie: They get huffy when people question their compassion but they have no problem doing that same thing.

The relative importance of the blogosphere vs the President of the Untied States is a red herring created by people avoiding the original point.

Why do you think the lefty blogs mostly ignored the story?

I gave my guess but after dozens of people attacked me, not a single one has offered a credible alternative. (In fairness The Moderate Liberal offered 3 but none of them held water.)

If you have an alternative theory, I'd love to hear it.

Another thing, however, is that we now know with a high level of assurity that, although Clinton in the Presidency made good camera and often, that the good camera made was what was impressive to liberals and Democrats, not what Clinton did. Same thing applies to the performance earlier referenced here -- Kerry, wife and Edwards and wife performing thier faux Wendy's meal, satisfying liberals as being "real people" while entirely enacting that (and thus being quite unreal, in reality), and same and same and same time and again with highly polished performance artists that impress liberals so long as they pass this strange evaluative process of giving good camera, maintaining big box office, looking good, so to speak.

Funny, but even Michael Moore assumes that everyone will vote for certain celebrities because they have established presence in the media that the left accepts and enjoys.

A lot of this "offense" by liberals about conservatives and Bush and related is based upon the indignity that liberals experience when too many other people in society aren't so vain. Liberals get offended, get 'outraged' and such, just the very idea that everyone isn't fascinated with liberal icons and liberal icon adulation...and there's Bush, not doing the Clinton performance dance, and liberals get angry about that.

Meanwhile, I do agree with Paul's overview about this issue and that is that liberal blogs have been about politics and denigrating President Bush and conservatives and Republicans in the face of this disaster, while those conservative blogs that have covered the tsunami and earthquake disasters have been about the tsunami and earthquake disasters.