Redstate

Hackett was almost foaming at the mouth.

I think the written transcript left out much of Hackett's rantings, perhaps because he kept talking over Kasich. The clip, if it becomes available, should be kept handy in case Hackett ever again seeks elective office.

Meanwhile, Kasich kept turning to Senor to spout his favorite "stop the name-calling" mantra, when it was Hackett doing the name-calling. (Kasich seemed to be under the impression that Rummy had called somebody "appeasers.")

Democrats on Iraq: "We don't want to win. We just want to quit."

You're missing the context in which the radical left regularly bashes religion, bashes Israel, and fights for ultra-PC speech.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

If it's anti-semitic, it's anti-semitic ("discriminates against or is prejudiced or hostile toward Jews"), never mind the "context" of the radical left in general. We're talking about Hackett's specific statement. I sincerely don't understand why a Nazi comparison is automatically anti-semitic. Is it because it was directed at someone who happens to be Jewish?

If Nazi references in general are de-facto Jew-baiting then why is RedState supporting the apparently anti-semitic Rick Santorum? This gets a little silly, no?

Not defending the view of religion or Israel held by the radical left, but one can be anti-religious without being anti-semitic, or anti-Israeli-governmental-policy without being anti-semitic. The sudden sensitivity here is surprising to me.

How else can we determine mindsets without looking at a complete pattern of behavior?

And how does the Santorum example fit in with what I said? Does he show the pattern of behavior I listed above or not?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Where am I?!

Either the remark was anti-semitic or it was not.

How do you feel about hate crime legislation?

Remarks aren't Jew-hating, people are.

And hate crime legislation is irrelvant. As far as I know, neither I nor Moe has called for anyone to be imprisoned for such comments.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

How do you propose to judge? If not based on actions, such as statements made in interviews, upon what would you ground your (hypothetical) assertion that Hackett is Jew-hating? That some of his supporters are, so he must be too?

Hate crime legislation is very relevant, as it seeks to judge intent and "mindset" rather than actions exclusively. Surely you see the parallel, it has nothing to do with whether you would call for anyone to be imprisoned in this particular case.

So I can't judge a behavior without wanting the government to intervene? Come on.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

It seems my analogy has drawn more heat than light.

Put it this way, upon what would you base your (hypothetical) judgment of Hackett as being "Jew-hating"?

Me, I look at what he's said, and done. Not what the more extreme of his supporters have said, and done, and not what I think his "mindset" might have been. I would have thought this to be the conservative approach, once.

Look upthread, right around where you were getting confused about what site you were on, and throwing up your attempted changes of subject, and you'll see where I described the pattern of behavior that leads me to suggest that the far left hates Jews (and devout Christians for that matter).
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Niel, you're infuriating me! You're not just trying to spike my blood pressure in some diabolical plot here, are you?

and you'll see where I described the pattern of behavior that leads me to suggest that the far left hates Jews (and devout Christians for that matter).

Leaving aside the generalization, what does this have to do with judging Hackett? Is this really the most objective way in which we can ascertain whether Hackett is anti-semitic, and whether he was engaged in Jew-baiting? Why not just look at what he actually said...

...and, by the way, Paul Hackett was certainly acting as if he was familar with the man and his work, so I have no qualms about assuming that he knew - a name, not compared his tactics. Insult direct, in other words.

And who's trying? I'll say it outright: the antiwar movement supports anti-Semites, works with anti-Semites, gives anti-Semites a voice at their protests and a say in their overall goals... and, most damning, gives anti-Semites a very useful cover for their activities. I've been watching this for going on half a decade now, and it just gets worse every year.

If this observation bothers you, then I suggest that you contemplate that the solution might not be due to anything that I can - or need to - change.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

that Hackett knew Senor was the son of a Holocaust survivor?

So if you had chosen to assume that Hackett hadn't known Senor's family history, would his remark have been anti-semitic Jew-baiting?

Certainly there are those on the left who are anti-semitic, but this is a very specific accusation here, directed at one individual. The suggestion that he was "Jew-baiting" is one that ought to be backed up with something more than vague references to the beliefs held by other people.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Obviously, you've figured it out. And that is indeed a nuanced way of looking at Hackett's comments, and I'm thinking of following his example. So from now on, I'm going to start referring to people that I don't particularly like, or whose expertise I don't particularly value or respect, in the Democratic Party with references to people from the Third Reich also. In fact, I think that if I do a little homework boning up on the key players in the Reich, I can probably cast virtually everyone prominent in the Democratic Party in the role of an actual Nazi.

Now, when I do so, I expect you to agree that it's regrettably common (after all, as a regular old blogger, I'm regrettably common) but do try no to label me and my supporters as anti-Semitic. In fact, to make it easier and strengthen your point, I'll make sure I become an equal-opportunity Nazi namecaller -- whether the target is Black, Jewish, WASP or what have you, I'll find someone from Hitler's regime they resemble. The list of potential names and roles is extensive, so it shouldn't be too hard. The problem really is that Hackett wasn't specific enough.

Now, don't be angry when I do this. Don't be offended. And most of all, don't bring it up in any mainstream editorial reports or hard news pieces, either. It's just regrettably common electoral politics these days, right? Especially coming from someone like Paul Hackett -- who, after all, is the *candidate* and not just some schlub from the rank and file.

Brendan98, how can you apologize for this kind of blatant idiocy when its one of your own who does it, and attack it when it's not? How do you live with yourself, man?

I am a hawkish warmonger with a crusty demeanour and a heart of steel. But I have a softer side.

Where did I apologize for it, or defend it? The remark was offensive, and Hackett should apologize, as I explicitly stated.

Every offensive remark is not automatically anti-semitic, and it's this aspect I was seeking to clarify.

I don't appreciate the last paragraph in your post.

He called Senor "Herr Senor" and "The Unterfuhrer" Brendan. Senor's mother was a holocaust survivor. Do you really want to argue with me that Paul Hackett didn't do any research whatsoever about the person he was going to be debating on national television? This is the person Rahm Emanuel and Markos Moultisas Zuniga thought was so hot, such a great candidate? Kos called him part of "the future of the Democratic Party" back in June. Now he's offhandedly calling Jews whose parents survived the Holocaust Nazis. Some great candidates you guys have there.

It's no secret that I look to the Mountain West for the future of the Democratic Party, people like Brian Schweitzer and Jon Tester. But I also look to candidates like Jim Webb in Virginia and Paul Hackett in Ohio.

I don't appreciate most of what you've ever written here on RedState, but you're still here, aren't you? I'd say that's tolerance enough.

I am a hawkish warmonger with a crusty demeanour and a heart of steel. But I have a softer side.

labeling Hackett anti-semitic based on your belief that he conducted research into Senor's family history before doing an interview? You think Hackett has a history of carefully scripting his remarks?

Brendan98, how can you apologize for this kind of blatant idiocy when its one of your own who does it, and attack it when it's not? How do you live with yourself, man?

You know, if I mischaracterized a post by you in such an egregious and insulting fashion, I'd man up and apologize. That's just me though.

Look, Brendan, I'm not calling you an anti-semite. But you're being very wishy-washy about this, and you're trying to avoid a "label" for Paul Hackett that seems pretty richly deserved based on those comments. It actually worries me more that they were unscripted -- and I'm not comfortable with it at all. It disturbs me greatly that Paul Hackett, darling of the nutroots, made extemporaneous remarks that are best characterized as anti-Semitic in a debate with a well-known commentator on Fox News. This person was a Democratic candidate who rose to national prominence and was featured and profiled and discussed and ballyhooed and fundraised extensively on the largest and most frequently-trafficked liberal and leftist websites in the country. He's not some Johnny-come-lately, out-of-the-woodwork nobody that people haven't heard of, and who doesn't understand what he's saying. Whether that apparent anti-Semitism applies to the rest of his supporters, eh...time will tell. Actually it already has.

Here's the New Republic on Hackett. This piece really provides a better picture of who Paul Hackett is and criticises Rahm Emanuel for not doing enough to help his candidacy. I have to hand one to Rahm here -- he may have actually had his party's best interests at heart on that one, given Hackett's recent words.

This sort of thing made Hackett a rock star in the world of liberal blogs--a figure who combined the defiant rhetoric of Howard Dean with the military credentials of Max Cleland.

is that Bren has a tiny sliver of ground on this...after seeing the Fox cut, it seems that Hackett, in his assinine remarks, might have been suggesting a "warmonger" type of mindset and nothing along the lines of anti-Semitism.

however, i agree with everything else you say about this tool.
let's hope they keep churning guys like him out.

And again, I'm not defending Hackett's remarks.

Look, Brendan, I'm not calling you an anti-semite.

Gee, thanks. It's a serious charge, we wouldn't want to throw it around lightly.

It disturbs me greatly that Paul Hackett, darling of the nutroots, made extemporaneous remarks that are best characterized as anti-Semitic in a debate with a well-known commentator on Fox News.

But my question is simply why are his remarks "best characterized as anti-Semitic" when deplorable Nazi comparisons are used way-too-often by both left and right to try to score political points but are rarely (if ever), as far as I can tell, intended as slurs against Jews.

In other words, you need to get to B from A, and asserting repeatedly that B is true doesn't qualify as a logical argument. It's also invalid to say that X thinks B, and X supports Hackett, therefore Hackett thinks B.

This was a direct insult.

From the transcript:

PAUL HACKETT, IRAQ WAR VETERAN: Well, first of all John, suggesting that the whole bottom would fall out implies that somehow it hasn't fallen out. I mean, to have Herr Senor on your set as a military expert is somewhat of a joke. He knows absolutely nothing about the military, he's never served in the military, he's never been professionally schooled in the military.

KASICH: Who are you talking about Paul, is that me?

HACKETT: I'm talking about your guest, little Unterfuerher of Propaganda, Mr. Senor there who's an apologist for the failings of the CPA. I mean he ought to be ashamed of his service or lack of service with the CPA, because that's what got it all started.

Yeah. Tell me again how Hackett doesn't know what this guy's religion was and wasn't trying to call him a Nazi.

brendanm98, did you even watch the clip?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Why would you ask?

I don't know if Hackett knows Senor was Jewish or not, and I remain baffled by the certainty with which you are able to peer into his soul to ascertain this.

little Unterfuerher of Propaganda, Mr. Senor there who's an apologist for the failings of the CPA.

Obviously Hackett was attempting to cast Senor in the role of a Nazi, albeit a Nazi concerned with propaganda rather than wholesale slaughter, and obviously that's offensive. Full stop.

Now, how is it anti-semitic Jew-baiting?

(Re: comparison -- Moe, he didn't literally mean Senor was a Nazi, obviously, hence it's a comparison (would you prefer metaphor?). I'm not trying to make some sideways point with my choice of wording here, and I'm not trying to minimize the offensiveness of what he said.)

"he didn't literally mean Senor was a Nazi"

"I remain baffled by the certainty with which you are able to peer into his soul to ascertain this."

I take Hackett at his word. He meant that Senor is a Nazi. Hackett is certifiable, and deserves to be cast in the political scrapheap.

If it was jew baiting or not, I really do not care. The more significant point is that Hackett is out of his mind, and it is an embarrassment to Democrats and liberals to trot him out there as some sort of representative of your side.

How could he mean Senor is literally a Nazi? You think Hackett is unaware that the Third Reich met a richly deserved end more than half a century ago? Let's not be silly here.

If it was jew baiting or not, I really do not care. The more significant point is that Hackett is out of his mind, and it is an embarrassment to Democrats and liberals to trot him out there as some sort of representative of your side.

I don't have any problem or complaint with a conservative making this argument. The only thing I'm trying to say is that it seems to me to be a stretch to state with such certainty that Hackett's remarks were anti-semitic Jew-baiting.

I really doubt you're so hopelessly ignorant as to believe that Naziism died in 1945.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

was implying that Senor is a neo-Nazi? That's a reasonable interpretation of what he said?

With respect, I don't think I'm the one here who is making trouble for its own sake.

I do not think Hackett was implying it.

I think Hackett was saying it clear as day without any impication being involved.

One might want to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he was saying one thing but really just meaning it metaphorically, but then one probably should avoid telling others to avoid saying things like "I remain baffled by the certainty with which you are able to peer into his soul to ascertain this."

As for the whole tit for tat on Nazis, I will just leave it at this-- I do not think that Hackett was calling him a Nazi from the Third Reich. But then, I do not think that the only Nazis who ever were (or ever will be) were part of the Third Reich.

I don't get why this point is contentious. If Hackett was saying clear as day that Senor is a neo-Nazi, for what Nazi regime does he imagine Senor is "Unterfuerher of Propaganda"?

Of course I think he meant it metaphorically. Doesn't make it ok.

I really don't think there's any equivalence between my brilliant deduction that Hackett wasn't speaking literally and Moe's assumption (with no qualms, natch) that Hackett was aware that Senor was Jewish, and the son of a Holocaust survivor to boot.

However, my question stands regardless of whether you agree with the previous or not.

I absolutely hate that style of rhetoric, be it from
Hackett or Pat Robertson or Howard Dean or Pat
Buchanan. I think the world would be a better place if
we all took them at face value, that they mean what
they say, and act accordingly. All of them would be
run out of public life, deservedly, if it was not for
way too many people giving them a pass. And since they
have not been run out of public life, the disease
spreads.

Besides, figurative metaphors are an offensive line.

...to think that Paul Hackett is so abysmally ignorant to throw insults around at people that he doesn't know, but unfortunately, that dog won't hunt. That particular bit of information was easily found - and, given the obsessiveness that the antiwar movement has with, say, AIPAC, it is surreal to suggest that Hackett wasn't really aware that his opponent was a Jew.

Also, given the way that we here at RedState and other Right-wing sites are routinely described as fascists, racists, totalitarians and hatemongers by the Tolerant Left, I fail to see why we should be persuaded that Hackett wasn't being literal simply because you wouldn't have been, in his shoes.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

(1) How do you know Hackett knew Senor was Jewish? Answer: you're pretty sure he looked it up. (Obvious follow-up: why would Hackett make an effort to check whether Senor was Jewish? Obvious answer: because he's anti-semitic! That was easy...)

(2) How are Hackett's remarks anti-semitic, regardless of Senor's background? They are patently offensive and deserving of condemnation, but I still do not understand how they specifically slander Jews. How are they distinct from Nazi imagery utilized by other politicians? As you say, calling the right fascist is a favorite tactic of the radical left -- why search so hard to find anti-semitism in stupidity?

Moe, there's a rather obvious difference between saying someone is literally a "fascist, racist, totalitarian, or hatemonger" and saying someone is literally a Nazi "Unterfuerher of Propaganda" -- the discussion of this point is rapidly becoming absurd.

...that Hackett knew it because it's hardly a secret and going on TV to ranting about the perfidious Right-wingers is what he does for a living; convince me that Hackett's too dumb to know the details of the people he's attacking. Because that's the only alternative to him being so gobsmackingly vile as to pick the absolute worst insult to throw at the son of a Holocaust survivor. Given the filth that gets tossed around at the average antiwar march, I'm going with gobsmackingly vile.

brendanm98, this man isn't worth your good name.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

In your last paragraph. I haven't asserted it repeatedly. I said that his comments could best be characterized as anti-Semitic. If he thinks that using deplorable Nazi comparisons are an acceptable (if regrettable) debating tactic simply because their use is widespread, let's hear Hackett say that. And he can also deny his anti-Semitism in the same breath, if he wants.

As for #2, I never stated that was a fact. It's reasonable to assume that there are a few anti-Semitic Hackett supporters, but who knows how many there are? Maybe they're not anti-Semites, either, but just get a kick out of those deplorable Nazi comparisons too. I'm not a demographer or a pollster.

I disagree that deplorable Nazi comparisons are used way-too-often by both left and right to try to score political points. I don't think that's true. I think they're used very infrequently, and they're used in deliberate ways, and very often as slurs when they are used. And when someone as prominent as Paul Hackett has no compunction about using them in an interview on one of the most popular cable television shows, it's a significant event and a window into how his mind works that should give everyone who has supported him to this point a lot of second thoughts.

I guess we just disagree on this Brendan. I think his remarks are best characterized as anti-Semitic until I hear him say otherwise. He not only went from calling Senor "Herr Senor" but then he didn't pull back from that -- in fact, he extended the slur. He was on a little bit of a roll, there. He'd clearly found a metaphor that he thought was juicy and apt, and he pushed it.

That says a lot of things about Paul Hackett as a political candidate, and a person. Just my opinion.

I am a hawkish warmonger with a crusty demeanour and a heart of steel. But I have a softer side.

I was laying out the tactics I saw used throughout the thread, not referring specifically to you. Sorry for not being more clear.

Naturally you're welcome to your opinion of Hackett or any politician who uses Nazi rhetoric, and of course I don't like this kind of "debate" either. I just don't see how he's necessarily anti-semitic because of this remark, and as you say this brings us to a bit of an impasse.

It's a terrible debating tactic. And the reason that it's a terrible debating tactic is that it instantly wrenches the debate away from the substance of the issue at hand and transports it into a completely different metaphorical domain that has nothing to do with the subject. It's the cognitive equivalent of a punch in the nose.

Would it be that all our politicians or potential politicians would realize that the American public is getting sick of that kind of tactic, which doesn't solve anything, and doesn't contribute to anyone's real understanding. Personally it strikes me as an act of desperation from someone who doesn't have enough mental horsepower to carry the debate forward with his own ideas and acumen. It's a bullying tactic, and it's a desparate tactic. It reminds me of second-grade recess when the playground bully decides to pick on someone he knows he can't outwit by calling him a "fag." And I'll leave it at that for now.

I am a hawkish warmonger with a crusty demeanour and a heart of steel. But I have a softer side.

I flipped the channel when Hackett came on the screen, because he looked really mad before he even spoke and I just wasn't in the mood for a rant. (Star Trek NG and the History Channel are always good refuges when The OReilly Factor goes out of control.)

The Dems are always prating about how sensitive they are. When a man's last name is Senor, chances are that he isn't a WASP. So there's at least a possibility that he might be Jewish, no? Wouldn't you lay off the Nazi stuff out of basic politeness, especially on national TV? Oh, I forgot, we're talking about Democrats. Different rules. Sorry.

"Now that your gasbag is full, why don't you blow away?" - The Honeymooners