Centerfield

Here's one from each party: Walter Jones and Charles Rangel.

Brian,

I've been very proud of our little community here for the same reason, so thanks for posting.

But I don't know that we need the list of whackos... um, I mean loose cannons... to keep us out of trouble. If we focus on issues rather than personalities, and if we worry only about particular comments or speeches by politicians which pick up noticable support by their fellow partisans, then we'll stay on the substantive path, I think. We should ignore stories that are primarily partisan and media-hype, as well.

It's much harder to debate policy substance rather than process, and harder to do either of those than to merely denounce the people who don't agree with you, but I think the contributors to this site have demonstrated that we are more than up to the challenge.

Still, it is difficult to take the "nutjobs" with a grain of salt. They feed so much fuel to the fire of polarizing politics. Their idiocy breeds anger and further separation. I'm not so sure a list of these folks is necessary...I mean how can you really contain a list with the lunatic fringes apparently breeding faster than ever? But it should be noted (and perhaps it has been) that the Pat Robertson's and Michael Moore's and the Alec Baldwins etc...do NOT represent popular opinion. The problem is that Centrism, by the confines of its own definition, simply isn't glamorous enough for mainstream media..at least not with any significance anyway. But poop-heads Moore and Mr. 700 Club absorb the attention.

Pat, we can count on scenarios such as this playing out over and over. They're bound to get substantial play each time, right?

So we could choose to sit them out, avoid jumping to conclusions, and so on, as you suggest. I think anyone serious would admit that this approach has some merit.

OR_ we could view such dust-ups as perfect opportunities to display a centrist take on them. In other words, we could participate in such BS-storms by calling attention to what they are, how they work, what script they follow.

Opting out means not participating, which may limit our audience. If centrism is to grow, maybe we have to acknowledge the nature of PR and how the media works. So I'm suggesting that we should consider finding a way to participate instead of just opting out. I grant that a nutjob list may not be the best way. Just throwing stuff out there. Just my $.02.

Funniest line on television last week, and I think it is relevant here... From "American Dad":

"You can't have an abortion. We are conservatives, and that is the only kind of killing that we don't like. "

Or something to that effect.

The irony is that the statement by Robertson that inspired this thread is getting him into hot water with conservatives and Christians, not just moderates and liberals. On second thought, perhaps it's not ironic at all. Perhaps it's etirely appropriate in that it doesn't "just go to show" anything wrong with anyone but Robertson himself. I was criticized for calling Robertson "un-Christ-like" on a thread a while back. I think I'm sticking to that.

WHQ, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Robertson is a modern snake oil salesman who fools a lot of people with his faux Christianity. He is a fraud and this country will be better off when our leaders start to think that way. However, he has money for politics, so pigs to the trough.

I forgot to add liar to Mr Robertson's qualifications. You are on tape, Pat. I guess he does think his followers are that stupid.

Every time Robertson says something stupid, the media finds plenty of serious, thoughtful Christian religious leaders who denounce him as a hypocritical fraud. Several have been on TV the past few days pointing out the hypocrisy of "pro-life" Robertson supporting communist China and particularly giving them cover for their policy of forced-abortions by noting that well, they have to do something about their overpopulation problem.

Yet somehow he's still considered a leader of the religious right (just as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are considered leaders of the religious left, despite frequent evidence to the contrary).

Brian,

Good points, and worth continued thought and discussion. Of course, one man's foolish publicity side-show is another man's revealing anecdote of the true corruption of the evil other side. As I have argued before in the context of the flap over Howard Dean's statements and "Plamegate" and several others, I think to some extent when we get caught up in those stories-of-the-hour, even to debunk them and show they are silly, we are letting others set the agenda. I'd like to begin to force others to react to us, rather than vice versa.

True Pat. I think this all points at what we should talk about, which is "who are these people that the media and partisans try to give wide audiences to, and why are they being chosen?"

Pat Robertson doesn't deserve his audience, to be taken seriously. Now granted, he HAS a wide audience to some extent so that's the basis for reportage. But there's a higher calling for journalists than, let's face it, standing watch over A-holes like him.

I quote Tom DeLay. "The last refuge of extremism isn't religion - it's Fox News". That station's perpetual chicken little complex provides a complete compendium of my "people on the right who shouldn't be taken too seriously" list. (video).

I wouldn't put Moore and Robertson on the same plane. After all, Moore is a jester whose comments are taken seriously. Robertson thinks he's a wise man, but his pronouncements are jokes.

Your analysis is insightful, Jean, but I would (of course) add the following to make it more fully accurate.

Moore is a jester whose comments are taken seriously by the leaders of the party he nominally supports (you're never getting over Jimmy Carter inviting him up at the DNC last year). Robertson thinks he's a wise man, but his pronouncements are considered jokes even by the leaders of his own party (many fellow evangelists have condemned him for some time because of his support for China's forced abortion policy, and most Republican leaders have denounced his most recent stupidity, as they have denounced his previous stupidities).

The Borowitz Report has a good take on Pat Robertson's remarks. Maybe satire is the only appropriate way to respond to extremists from either end of the spectrum.

OK, Blue Jean, you answered our "how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop" question.

How many comments did it take for someone to make my back-patting look undeserved, for us to devolve into "this ___wing partisan is worse than that ___wing partisan?"

13 comments. And then how long did it take for someone to be baited into disagreeing. 0. Next comment. That's how it works folks! :-)

I think the best suggestion so far is that we use our pinpoint bomb targeting systems to drop Pat Robertson on Chavez from a great height....

Oh my gosh, it's happened... I agree with Blue Jean. Michael Moore and Pat Robertson are not the same thing. Robertson claims to be a serious man of God and representative of an entire faith, Moore is very open about the fact that what he does is for the most part for entertainment purposes. Don't get me wrong, he's an idiot, but at least he is not claiming to speak for me.

And I disagree Pat, I don't think the Democrats take Moore seriously. I think they wanted to make it seem that way, which was right up there with John Kerry wind surfing as far as political stupidity goes. However, Moore's relevance to the Democratic Party, whatever it is, pales in comparison to the years of Lincoln bedroom visits and hand-in-hand rallies that have existed between Republican leaders and the likes of Falwell, Limbaugh, and Robertson. IMO, this is something Bush has tried to move the party away from at times. For instance, he booted Gary Bauer out of the 2000 convention when he wouldn't shut up about the Deapartment of Education. The GOP is a far cry from Ronald Reagan's "we are with you" rhetoric to the Moral Majority. The trouble is, I think Bush has toned down the rhetoric while increasing the backroom agreements where Reagan was on high on rhetoric while at the same time very dissappointing to wing nuts on issues like abortion, Sandra Day O'Conner, etc.

Moore is very open about the fact that what he does is for the most part for entertainment purposes.

Matt, I'm interested to see what your source is for this. My impression of those Moore films which I have seen is that he very much DOES try to seem like he's speaking for his audience...

Brian...

I just wanted to prove my point that it's better not to discuss the sillier subjects at all!

Dropping Robertson on Chavez wouldn't be silly. It'd be very practical. Everybody wins.

Ehhh... Brian, that is more or less a matter of opinion. My source is me. The man has said on several ocassions I do what I do for the entertainment value, or something to that effect. I have only seen Columbine and 911, and didn't feel that was the case for either. Michael Moore matters because Conservatives have made him matter by making a bigger deal out of 911 than was probably necessary, and then Democrats tried to capitalize on it. Compared to Robertson in his day, he's a faint blip on the radar screen. Granted, the 700 Club's political clout has faded considerably in recent years.

Robertson makes himself clear... He speaks for Christians, or at least those people he perceives to be Christians. He portrays himself as the leader of a movement. My impression, and again it is just that, is that Moore is pretty much speaking for himself, but I guess I can see how someone might see it differently.

Tully,

Would dropping Robertson on Chavez work since, well, he is full of "hot air?"

Bad joke...

Nevermind...

I am done here.

What he's full of is much heavier than hot air, and the whole package would impact at more than the airspeed velocity of a coconut-laden swallow, with considerably more kinetic energy....

Don't stand too close.

Are you suggesting that Robertson weighs more than a duck?

I have a horrible sci-fi vision of Robertson colliding with Chavez, resulting in an amalgum of their molecular constituency, which would, of course, breathe fire and shoot lasers from its bulging red eyes. It would likely lay waste to most of South America before being stopped with a nuclear tipped warhead.

LMAO. It would die of jungle rot soon after leaving the air-conditioned environs of the Hilton. How much damage would it wreak before melting into a pile of unsavory goo?

Personally, my money would be that Robertson weighs the same as a duck.

I was thinking something else that floats, but isn't wood....but he could still weigh the same as a duk!