Tag: liberals

The Newsroom is Aaron Sorkin's sad attempt to win an argument by rewriting history and coming up with all the comebacks that his side couldn't think of two years ago. It's the sad and pathetic spectacle of an ideology creating its own fantasy version of its reality in which it won the argument.

O’Donnell says that “liberal” should not be a dirty word but a badge of honor. I agree. It should be, but it has been tarnished far less by conservatives’ attacks than by radicals who have hijacked that word and use it for an agenda that is bankrupting the United States, reducing liberties, and making a mess of U.S. foreign policy.

The difference between the Muslim Brotherhood and “Salafists” is purely tactical. The Brotherhood has learned how to maneuver politically, an advance similar to what Lenin instituted for the Marxists of his day. You can’t just declare a revolution and change everything overnight. And just as Lenin planned to get the capitalists to sell him the rope with which to hang them, the Brotherhood plots the same course with the infidels.

When Sarah Palin burst upon the national scene and the liberal media attempted to destroy her, I observed on my blog, Seraphic Secret, that she was being transformed into a hated Jew. Each rhetorical bombardment against her was and is reminiscent of the Arab strategy to demonize Jews and Israel.

Our column week before last, "No Hate Like Liberal Hate," drew a number of interesting responses from readers, many of whom submitted their own favorite morsels of liberal hate speech. A few noted that for many years Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby devoted a column every December to the year's most egregious examples of liberal hate.

Need further proof of how hopelessly liberal the mainstream media really are? Just consider the coverage of the accusations of incivility and incitement hurled at Republicans and conservatives by Democrats and liberals in the aftermath of the December shootings in Tucson.

The common wisdom is that CNN's Rick Sanchez was fired because he made anti-Semitic remarks. That's an understandable assumption, but it's also untrue. Sanchez was fired because he attacked a celebrity more liberal and more popular than he is. That he did it with racial overtones made it easy for CNN to pull the plug on him. But his real crime was that he had become an embarrassment, from a liberal perspective, and that's the only perspective in the media that counts.

Every so often an issue arises that seems tailor-made to give liberals an excuse to parade their supposed moral virtues while denigrating the poor benighted rednecks, bigots and ignoramuses foolish enough to disagree with the received wisdom of The New York Times editorial page.

Five years ago this week, the Monitor learned firsthand just how the mere mention of Richard Nixon is enough to turn even the most mild-mannered of liberals into screaming viragos. In that particular case, the words about Nixon that so provoked them - their tortured heads no doubt filled with the sounds of werewolves howling and fingernails scratching blackboards - appeared not in this column but in a front-page essay for this paper penned by your humble scribbler.

"It's been a long time since American Jewry has been [so] shaken," declared the Israeli newspaper Haaretz in its July 9 Magazine cover story. Judging from the volume of chatter thundering across the upper firmament of the media heavens, this is no exaggeration.

The confrontation at sea this week between pro-Palestinian activists seeking to end the international blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza and Israeli forces seeking to enforce the closure has put Israel in a difficult position.

The brouhaha over the July 21 New Yorker cover illustration of the Obamas as the epitome of terrorist chic extended well beyond the abbreviated news cycle to which we’ve become accustomed.

Reminders of the mainstream media’s egregious political double standard vis-à-vis liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, come on an almost daily basis – the latest being last week’s New York magazine, the cover of which features a head shot of John McCain smack in the middle of a concentric-ringed bulls-eye board accompanied by this charming teaser copy: “Target: Bush-Backing, Surge-Loving, Economically Clueless Geezer.”

This summer marks the 25th anniversary of Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon. For those who labor under the mistaken assumption that media liberals and leftists turned against Israel because of its handling of the two Palestinian intifadas, or because of what they perceive to be the neoconservative hold on the Bush White House (particularly during Bush’s first term), or because they lay the blame squarely on Israel for the collapse of Oslo and the failure of the Clinton initiatives at Camp David and Taba, it might be instructive to take a brief look back at what liberals and leftists were saying about Israel a quarter-century ago.

Bush's Stance     President Bush's strong support for Israel's efforts to defend itself against the Hizbullah terrorists is crucial. Given this, you may want to...

Ann Coulter is the author of five New York Times bestsellers, including the current Godless: The Church of Liberalism.

Controversial pundit Ann Coulter's best-selling book Treason has raised the ire of liberals, and not a few conservatives, who feel she wields too broad a brush in painting Americans on the left side of the political divide as unpatriotic - even, as the title implies, treasonous.

Events in Iraq have forced the Monitor to put off until next week a column devoted to the late Michael Kelly. This week's offering is something of a meditation on liberals, America, the war, truth...call it the Monitor's way of thinking out loud.