Time's Klein at it again: Liberals "hate America"
SUMMARY: According to media critic Eric Alterman, Time senior writer and columnist Joe Klein declared at an April 11 event that Democrats will not be successful in upcoming elections "if their message is that they hate America -- which is what has been the message of the liberal wing of the party for the past twenty years."
According to media critic Eric Alterman, Time senior writer and columnist Joe Klein declared at an April 11 event that Democrats will not be successful in upcoming elections "if their message is that they hate America -- which is what has been the message of the liberal wing of the party for the past twenty years." As Media Matters for America documented, on the June 12, 2005, edition of NBC's The Chris Matthews Show, Klein described Democrats as "a party with absolutely no redeeming social value."
After attending a discussion with Council for Foreign Relations (CFR) fellow Julia E. Sweig, part of CFR's "HBO History Maker Series," Alterman described Klein's outburst in an April 11 post on Altercation, his MSNBC.com weblog:
I went to a breakfast this morning sponsored by HBO and the Council on Foreign Relations where Tina Brown interviewed Julia Sweig, author of Friendly Fire: Losing Friends and Making Enemies in the Anti-American Century, here, before a small gathering of media and foreign policy bigwigs. ... It was a useful discussion with many useful tributaries and give and take with the audience and we all felt better for it.
That is right up until the very last moment when, after someone brought up the question of the whether the Democrats will be able to present an effective alternative to Bush in the next election, Joe Klein shouted out, "Well they won't if their message is that they hate America -- which is what has been the message of the liberal wing of the party for the past twenty years."
Alterman went on to lament that Klein is, in Alterman's words, the "most liberal columnist" at Time, America's highest circulation newsweekly. Alterman wrote:
That's right. The most liberal columnist at the America's largest weekly newsmagazine pretends that the message of liberals for the past twenty years has been that they "hate America," just as if he were reading from talking points issued by Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. (Don't get me started.)
Thats the pot calling the kettle black.
No it's not. Alterman isn't hateful. Switched targets with your misguided false equivelency lunacy?
You are my hero.
Both you and Klein are totally full of it.
Of course, what can we expect from a "newsmagazine" that runs a cover story on Ann Coulter, that is a total puff piece, practically ignoring her racism, and inflammatory rhetoric?
Back until the late 1960's, Time was even more far right than The American Spectator ever was.
Nowadays, they've gone back to "the good old days" of pandering to the right wing.
Any "newsmagazine" that has a puff cover feature on the disgusting Coulter creature has no credibility anyway.
Klein seems to be confused here- it's the GOP PORTRAYAL of the liberal position that "Lib'ruls that hate 'Murka" that he's talking about.
Now be a good boy or girl and go sit in the corner and wolf down some more of those right wing talking points that are based on pure fantasy.
Ah, that's better.
How else can you explain such a dumb comment?
Just flag and move on....it feels good. Try it.
Then like "Jason," they keep coming back, over and over again... :-)
He is a one hit wonder. He comes on with one pointless sentence (well, if your lucky it is structered as a sentence) and slithers back under his rock.
YOU are a moron
Am I the only one waiting for a tell all book, soon to be published after the 2008 election, in which all the neo-con “journalists” talking heads confessed how each had a gun up to their heads and were forced to write against the liberals.
What else could explain this madness?
For the past 20 years, "HATE" has been identified by the Rightwing as disagreeing with their policies of cowtowing to the wealthy while shafting the elderly, the poor, the kids, the ill, and the "different."
If you HATE that Social Security is being "privatized" which will eliminate its benefits, you are a hater. If you HATE that America invaded another land with NO REASON, you are a hater. If you HATE that the wealthiest nation in the world must run deficits in the trillions, that's HATE.
This is the message of the Rightwing: Only HATERS disagree with Republicans or their policies.
Looks like Kline has been listening, and learning like a Pavlovian dog. Coulter's got a new book out describing Liberals as "GODLESS". It's the demonization of the opposition from the Right, they fight against all those "GODLESS HATERS" out there, a crusade they fight selflessly. That's the narrative. And it's total hogwash.
If there is EVIL in this land, it comes from a total disregard for TRUTH, it comes from GREED and assumptions of entitlement to riches, and a total disregard for human life evidenced by warmongering and a scorn for people who are not viewed as "successful". THESE are the driving forces behind Republican policies. Republican policies are bigoted, arrogant, lacking in any compassion, and are UNAmerican. Yet, they wish to define their opponents as "GODLESS HATERS".
This, friends, is called "PROJECTION."
Here's the question for Kline: What the hell are you talking about? Where is the Democrat's POLICY which evidences their hatred for America? Be specific, Kline. You can't just throw this crap out there and expect to get away with it.
I love how liberals try to portray that only Republicans are rich. What about this...
In what is an unprecedented case of political profiteering, Terry McAuliffe turned a $100,000 initial investment in the company into $18 million in less than a year and a half—a nifty 18,000% profit.
[link to www.happinessonline.org]
----
Rich Liberals Vow to Fund Think Tanks / At least 80 wealthy liberals have pledged to contribute $1 million or more apiece to fund a network of think tanks and advocacy groups
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
------
According to public record, one of every three members of the Senate and one out of every four members of the House are millionaires. Despite popular stereotypes of Republicans as the party of the rich and Democrats as the party of the working class, the wealthiest member of the Senate (John Kerry of Massachusetts) and the wealthiest member of the House (Jane Harman of California) are both Democrats. Of the top six wealthiest senators, five are Democrats.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California, worth $16.3 million
[link to www.worldnetdaily.com]
--"I love how liberals try to portray that only Republicans are rich. What about this..."--
No one has said that it is only Republicans who are rich.
Dave:
The ISSUE is policy which is heartless and geared towards the rich. Republicans have such policy, and Democrats do not.
With this as the issue, of COURSE Amy of Ohio will take the controversial stance of pointing out that some Democrats are rich. As if this rebuts the argument.
There's not a THING wrong with having rich folks, in fact, it's GREAT. What's WRONG is having government POLICY which gives every advantage to those with already the most, while shortchanging those in need in ways that are detrimental to society and America. Amy does not wish to address THIS issue, she'd rather argue with whoever said there are no rich Democrats (an argument that NOBODY has ever made!). Congrats, Amy! Missed the mark entirely, once again!
I'll go ahead and say that policies that advantage any group are unfair. What government policies are benefiting the rich? Rich people pay a higher percentage of their income on taxes than middle class or poor people. I don't see how that is an advantage to the rich.
Our country was founded on Lockean ideas of life, liberty, and property. These days it's okay for equality of life and liberty but not property. Money and possessions are your property. The government should not be in business to advantage anyone.
If rich or poor people want to give to charity that's great. That's the beauty of our country; you can voluntarily give what you want. Forcing rich or anyone else to pay more in taxes is fundamentally unfair and un-American.
Common-sense:
Are you serious? 1. How about the no-bid contracts that go to rich, well-connected (read: Cheney) companies? 2. How about the relaxing of laws on globabl effects (e.g., warming) that make it easier for rich companies to make more money? 3.How about the laws that try to limit the liability of tobacco companies and doctors for ills they may cause? 4. How about the allowance of drilling in wildlife preserves? 5. How about the patent system? Its guaranteed in the Constitution, yet it takes tens of thousands of dollars to GET a patent. 6. How about the increase in interest rates of education loans, which rich kids don't need anyway? 7. How about allowing businesses to write-off such things as Yankee tickets? 8. How about the access lobbyists get because of their money?
All these things exist and easily favor the rich.
How about it, huh?
“I'll go ahead and say that policies that advantage any group are unfair.”
Your fundamental premise is wrong. Why? It’s because your statement is not true in ALL cases in our society. Of course it is true in SOME types of government policies that specifically advantage/disadvantage an ethnic, cultural, or some other types of groups. News flash: But, advantaging certain groups can be and is fair. The group that should ALWAYS be advantaged is the DISADVANTAGED. The only things that should be a matter of debate are what the priorities are.
In fact a multitude of government policies advantage many groups today and, guess what, they are FAIR. I’ll give you some examples. People that have just been laid off work presently can receive unemployment benefits (up to 13 months, not forever). This is an advantage and it’s fair. The existence of FREE public schools advantage people that cannot afford to personally pay for private schools is an advantage provided by the government. It is fair. Of course, the example you cited too regarding income tax rates increasing the more one makes also fits here and it is fair, too. LIBERAL policies such as these and many others are the core policies that built the middle class that we have today and will continue to help low income people get there too.
“What government policies are benefiting the rich?” When policies that benefit the poor are removed, that benefits the rich.
Maybe we should get rid of public schools. The founding fathers didn't believe in them. I glad you like public schools so much since they are so successful. Also, how are public schools free? Were does the money come from? Does it grow on trees? No, people (including the poor) pay for them thru taxes.
"LIBERAL policies such as these and many others are the core policies that built the middle class that we have today and will continue to help low income people get there too.”
You cannot prove that. That's called wishful thinking. Liberals are supposed to be about free choice and liberty. Socialists like to use the government as a tool to level income.
"“What government policies are benefiting the rich?” When policies that benefit the poor are removed, that benefits the rich."
LOL! Removing benefits for rich and poor allows both classes to make choices for themselves that will benefit them. Maybe rich people exercise their freedom of choice better. So, we should punish good decisions makers. That's what Karl Marx wanted to do.
Your fundamental premise is wrong. You want societal classes to be the same. "We have today and will continue to help low income people get there too." There will always be people on top, in the middle, and at the bottom. You and Marx both thought this was unjust. Maybe it is but that is not 'classical liberal' thought.
Rich people pay a higher percentage of their income on taxes than middle class or poor people.
I disagree with this... Yes, on payroll income wealthy people pay a higher rate, but unlike the poor and middle class, payroll makes up a small percentage of a wealthy person's actual income. Take Bill Gates for instance, he collects a salary of say $300,000 a year and he pays taxes at a rate of 35% on that. However, he makes much more in capital gains (stock going up) and dividends and on these items he pays taxes at a rate of only 15%. ...which is on par with the average Fast Food worker. How is that fair?
The funny thing is, the bulk of the average person's pay is in payroll so they assume everyone else's is as well. But, most very wealthy people receive the bulk of their pay in stock options, dividends, etc. because it is taxed at a lower rate. Further, the tax code is simplified for the average american (very few deductions...very few ways to avoid paying taxes), but very complicated for wealthier people because they have numerous deductions and many, many ways to avoid paying taxes.
In short, wealthy people do not pay taxes at a higher rate.
Parteepants
I agree with you that the tax system is flawed. All I am saying is that people shouldn't be forced to give more of their possessions than the next guy. We are not forced to give more of our lives or liberty than somebody else. Then why are some forced to give more of their possessions?
Morally I agree that the wealthy have more of a responsibility to support others. But, it must be voluntary. The government should not force inequalities.
"However, he makes much more in capital gains (stock going up) and dividends and on these items he pays taxes at a rate of only 15%. ...which is on par with the average Fast Food worker. How is that fair?"
What's fair is he is paying the same amount of taxes in same situation as a fast food worker. Now just extend that out to all situations and you have tax equality.
The beauty of freedom is choice. Forcing people to pay more of their income to the government than the next guy is not freedom. Redistributing wealth is not freedom.
Are you trying to suggest that because someone is rich they can't have a heart? Wealth isn't generated in a vacuum. Some wealthy people understand that having more money than the average person means that they have obligations to the society that made them wealthy. Some conservatives feel those obligations and have a wonderful record of philanthropy. The real difference is that rich democrats don't trust the compassion of their class as a whole. What is this nonsense about think tanks? People of good conscience can view the same events and have totally different ideas about their meaning. The exercise of power in a democracy is rooted in exciting the hearts and minds of the people and think tanks on both sides of the political spectrum have the right to put forth their views. Is it a death tax or an inheritance tax? Is it warentless eavesdropping or terrorist surveillance? The right has taken the initiative in the rhetorical war, and the left is trying to catch up. Given the shoddy quality of the right's rhetoric, Amy, you should be nervous, but suggesting that the left has no right to try to shape the course of discourse is ludicrous.
Except to piss people off- perfect troll behaviour.
Amy, like all good propaganda parrots, has a limited selection of talking points. Her mind is capable of only two modes. She listens to Hannity Limbaugh or whoever in record mode then comes looking for a place to switch to regurgitate mode. POINT never enters into it.
only the Rich are Republicans; other than the Religious Right.
I voted for Bill Clinton because I thought to myself..'Man, this Clinton guy sure does hate America! He's on my side!'
The party and philosophy that hates America is the one that has ran up an unprecedented debt, started a war of choice contrary to centuries of foreign policy, trampled its Constitution with blantant disregard for its civil liberty protections, and committed treason by leaking classified information that jeapordized the lives of those keeping us safe. I'll leave it to you to figure out which party fits that description.
Al Franken has pointed out that conservatives love their country like a two year old lives his mommy: "mommy is perfect, Mommy can do no wrong". Liberals, on the other hand, love their country in the same way that an adult loves his parents; he loves his parents, but that doesn't mean they're perfect, and can do no wrong.
At least liberals only "hate" America . . . the party you described seems to hate the entire world as well . . .
Exactly who is this Joe Kline to presume to say that I as a Liberal...and a Progressive at that.....hate my country!!
Hey.....Joe Kline!! Please.....I hope to hell that you have an intern looking this thread up.......
I DARE YOU.........I DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU TO TELL ME THAT I HATE MY COUNTRY!!
The fact that I read books, magazines, Internet searches, go out and educate myself on many of todays issues and then speak out against a president (and certain facets of our Congress and Supremem Court) that BREAKS, IGNORES, BENDS, or REWRITES THE LAW to fit their pathetic little personal agenda!!!
If you ask me......this makes me someone that LOVES my country more than a prince like you that would dare drive a wedge into what this country is supposed to be about......
TOLERANCE! TRUE MORALS! JUSTICE! DEBATE! FREEDOM! DISSENT! (When things are oh so wrong!), LIBERTY!
Whether you like it or not.......this country is a melting pot of nationalities, religions, and cultures.......GET USED TO IT!!
I know that I'll get some in here to tell me I'm wrong, or ranting, or I should calm down.......funny thing is.....I AM CALM!! and I'm definity not ranting!
I'm just sick and tired of jerks like you Joe Kline and so many others from Fox Opinion and certain talk radio heads saying their dispicable opinions on air or in print when regular Joes like me don't get the chance.......
Who loves his country more you jerk? One that blindly follows and believes the obvious BS of the Bush regime........or one that educates himself and speaks the truth?
Or one that writes his thoughts because he is more interested in getting a pat on the head by Karl Rove.....or one that would just as soon slap the little bastard for being the scum he is!!
In response to Media matters point, I just sent the following letter to Joe Klein at TIME.
These points go to the heart of turning around blatant attacks, and using them effectively. That is, turning a negative mischaracterization, into a far bigger negative, for the side or parties who engaged in it. This is something which democrats failed, repeatedly, to do in 2004, and lost an election that should have been won easily regardless of who ran.
"..............I am not a liberal, and I disagree with some liberal positions. And I take issue with a lot of both democrat and liberal political strategies (for a further look at what, in the context of the nsa wiretap debate, see here:
[link to www.pressthenews.com] )
However, the idea that liberals hate America is such blatant, irresponsible propaganda that it prompts the questions: Just what is it that anybody suggesting this is trying to avoid considering by summarily dismissing what may in at least some instance be very valid points, by playing games of rhetoric that not only completely miss those points entirely, but that blatantly mischaracterize as well? And why; because the points of those who make this statement can not stand up to examination, and so to perpetuate them, such grossly manipulative and issue avoiding mischaracterizations are necessary?
What does loving America mean? Agreeing with the positions of one who claims a political opponent does not? It seems so. (It may also well be that, ironically, that right wing conservatives who say this, or -- even worse, actually believe it -- and who are supposed to dislike government, are confusing love of country, with love of government (or perhaps just love of the government that they voted for.))
Joe Klein of all people should know better. If he is trying to give substantive advice, simply reiterating one of the more inflammatory mischaracterization's of the far right wing's talking points is certainly a bizarre way to do it.
Then again, considering the event, perhaps Mr. Klein, even if unintentionally, was signaling to democrats how preposterous it is to tolerate such blatant mischaracterizations as such ridiculous statements indicate, and more importantly to use it as an effective tool to illustrate just how out of touch those who say this are with any perspective but their own.
And maybe this statement by Klein at this event was in fact a perfect occasion for those present to set the record straight. About how just such blatant manipulations, distortions and ridiculous characterizations are routinely being substituted for actual consideration of the substantive points being made. And how perhaps the positions of those who say and believe such things should not even be seriously considered, let alone followed -- for how can one have an actual understanding of an issue if they can not even understand the views of those who disagree on it?"
I have for some time been asking democrats, and liberals, to please stop using unnecessarily derogative language towards the President (the fact that certain hypocrites on the far right did so with respect to Clinton, but considered themselves patriots for so doing, is only relevant in so far as to further make the point).
It is disrespectful, accomplishes little, alienates those who don't already hold the same view (quite the opposite of attracting them to it) and undermines any substantive message or point. Democrats and liberals then often respond, "well, we need to get tough." Getting tough means not only not taking ridiculous crap like the argument that they "hate America" simply because they have a different point of view as to what is best for our country, but, once again, turning it into an effective toolas well to make the larger point.
Whereas using such ineffective and derogatory laguage, additionally, only helps to enable such blatantly outrageous propaganda, and this is counterproductive as well.
Ivan Carter
It is not so cut and dried that the Democrats lost the 2004 election for president as this book and others note.
[link to www.amazon.com]
...if we disagree with Republican policies we "hate" America.
That is their message. That is their only message. And as long as people like Joe Klein have positions withing the so-called "liberal" media, they will continue to pound in that message.
Republicans have had full control of our government for the past 5 years. Have they accomplished anything noteworthy in the past 20 years, short of getting themselves into power?
Everything they touch, they destroy. And the things they can't touch, they want to destroy.
Funny, I didn't hear "conservatives hate America" when they were relentlessly going after Clinton...
In fact, I don't hear "conservatives hate America" even as they allow the President to trash the Constitution along with the other laws of our land.
I hate the fiscal recklessness, the trillions of dollars of debt. I hate that we've bombed 23 countries since WWII ended. I hate that inequity of wealth is institutionalized. I hate that Americans, largely in response to 9-11, have allowed the current administration to chip away at our Constitution. With all due respect to those that died on 9-11 and their families, only 3,000 lives were lost. 30,000 people died everyday in 1944, but steady hands and loyal hearts protected the Constitution. Bush and his acolytes flinched.
And I love much about America. Of course, I love our Constitution. I love American verve: we are a nation of entrepreneurs and risk-takers. I love that millions of Americans aren't succumbing to nationalism. I love that millions of Americans don't harbor an infantile belief in authority, believing that those that hold office know best. Rather, many Americans are true citizens, with the American verve to challenge authority, even with that authority abuses its authority and deems itself entitled to tap your phone without a court order. I love that as education rises, the likelihood that one will be a Democrat also rises. I love that our most liberal states are also our most prosperous states. I love that capitalism will be the strongest agent of change: one can't provoke maximum profit AND BE a sexist and a bigot.
Word...
Nobody identified the problem more precisely than the natives of this land. The Forked Tongue. After centuries of destruction, no one has yet found a way to neutralize the demon's power to distort and falsify reality by twisting words and labels.
Their Achilles Heel is Light. When exposed to it, they cry out and gnash their teeth like O'Reilly after yet another MMFA expose.
that the Democrats won't take control of Congress in 2006, is if Karl Rove can convince them to vote against Gay Marriage and Abortion, and for keeping America "Safe" from Iran. It worked in 2002 and 2004. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!
If TRUTH is any guide, how should HATE apply to America?
Simply, Americans should love the truth, and hate LIES.
Was it TRUE that:
Saddam had WMDs?
Saddam was in cahoots with Osama Bin Laden?
Bush was going to "GET" Bin Laden, "dead or alive"?
Iraq would last no longer than six months tops?
Iraq would cost no more than 5 billion dollars?
Iraq's oil would offset the cost of war?
Our intelligence assets gave no warning of attack using commercial airplanes as weapons?
Bush would not engage in "nation building"?
Rove and Libby had NOTHING to do with the leaks?
The list is very long of the things we have been told by this Administration that are flatly NOT TRUE. We Americans should HATE such lies from our government. And we should love the TRUTH.
It's not AMERICA we Liberals hate. It's the LIES (and the destruction which follows) that comes from this Administration that we hate.
If our elected officials would denounce this type of hate speech all Americans would be better off. I have started calling my congress people to tell them to do just that. if everyone did the same maybe this kind of crap would go away and then the ones susceptible to repitition would quit HATING fellow Americans.
People who want fair and balanced reporting on the facts no longer read Time Magazine.
Time went to the dark side during the Carter vs Regan election. By letting trickle down theory got unchallenged Time went for the redistribution of wealth and the expense of America.
Klein is a fellow new democrat.W hy he said that about hate, I cannot fathom. HE ,as he shows in the "Natural" , knows that Pres. Clinton delivered on liberal values. Go , Hillary , go!
capture in word the spirit of liberalism as it has been and has remained in this country for decades. Well done.
Klein is a strange figure. When Paula first hit the big time and was briefly one of the best TV journalists, I began puzzling at the presence of Klein, who sounded like a liberal but said such damaging things about the party, some of them exaggerated beyond reality, that I wondered, what does this guy really believe? As she morphed into Fox2 he was the centrist used to play the liberal for Time Warner’s illusion of fairness and balance in panel interviews. I finally quit watching. It had been years since I subscribed to Time, so when this piece came up I used the link to his web site: the guy can write beautifully, brilliantly (campaign managers as well as the rest of the reading public would benefit by reading his column at [link to www.time.com]
Which finally brings me to my point: Carter up above is right, Klein "should know better." In fact, if he was sober I expect Klein does know better. I have to wonder about the context of the statement and whether it was really even true - I guess time will tell. If he really said that, is he just trying to wake up some politicians that he thinks have abandoned the dreams of King, Johnson, Bobby Kennedy, and Roosevelt? Is he trying to evoke exactly the kind of articulate defense shown by Holly and Tex and others, but among the politicians who wear the liberal label? The like I just posted would suggest that: he discusses Bobby Kennedy's comments to an unpolled audience of King faithful at the time he learned of King's death, how Kennedy respected his audience, how his leadership and character mattered more than what polls and market samples dictated.
I hope that is what Klein was up to.
"the LINK I just posted," not "the like I just posted."
I do consider myself a patriot and I do agree with Thomas Jefferson who asserted: "Dissent is the highest expression of patriotism."
P.S. - And I'm thrilled to be placed in a sentence with Tex, aka Mr. Big Brain.
Why waste time on this wacko He's never said anything that I"ve found interesting anyway
I GET A FEELING THAT THE 'NAME OF THE GAME" CURRENTLY IS THAT OUTRAGEOUS COMMENTS ARE CAREER ENHANCERS AND MORE AND MORE FOLKS SEEM TO BE TAKING THIS ROUTE.
AFTER ALL, WHO WOULD HAVE EVER HEARD OF ANN COULTER OR BILL OREILLY BUT FOR THEIR OUTRAGEOUS DIATRIBE?