|
Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 14:48:30 PM MST
|
( - promoted by Fong)
Something occurred to me today that has little, if any, bearing on any policy. But it was interesting to me, nonetheless.
A few years back, I decided to take David Harsanyi, one of the Denver Post's right-wing extremist op-ed columnists, to task for writing about global warming (it was mostly nonsense filled with right-wing talking points, of course) in a post at SquareState. He decided to email me in response. Among the items in our resultant emails was something he seemed pleased to point out: I couldn't possibly know what I was talking about because I was posting pseudo-anonymously. If I wanted to play ball in the big leagues, I had to ditch that asap. For long-time blog readers, you'll recognize that this tactic was a favorite of published editorialists for a while. As they, and their "journalist" counterparts, have proven so often since then to be incorrect about a great many things that pseudo-anonymous bloggers got correct, the charge has mostly been abandoned. I found it humorous then (and still do) that yet another winger was reduced to name calling and trying to denigrate someone instead of addressing the original issue.
I was reminded of that exchange today during yet another talk radio discussion of how the Supreme Court's Citizens' United over-reach was impacting races this cycle. Why would that discussion jog my memory? Well, what do you think the chances are that Harsanyi has penned a piece ripping on unaccountable anonymous donors to political entities who are trying to directly influence democratic elections? |
| WeatherDem :: Another Case of Pundit Hypocrisy? |
| Perhaps he's had a change of heart on the value of anonymity. Or maybe when people with similar ideological bents want anonymity, he doesn't feel quite so strongly about the issue. For that matter, it is conceivable that he has engaged those anonymous donors by email and shared his strongly held views with them the same way he did with me. Oh, except they're anonymous donors, aren't they? Well then, that's the occupational hazard accompanying pseudo-anonymity.
No, I haven't found an instance in which Harsanyi publicly takes these anonymous donors to the woodshed. He made a stirring attack on objectors to Citizens' United, citing a 'skewed moral litmus test to First Amendment protections', back in August. Which is interesting, because he sure didn't tell me I had a First Amendment protection to call him out on his talking point trash pile. Call me a wild-eyed liberal, but tens of millions of anonymously donated dollars probably have a greater influence on the state of our politics than my pseudo-anonymity.
Like most every other right-wing zealot out there, his arguments based on First Amendment protections, states' rights, etc. are only valid when they support their rigidly ideological views. And when it looks like they can get away with being a bully, they'll jump at the chance. It's certainly a lot easier to email some blogger than it is to email a billionaire donor. |
Squarestate.net is owned by Open Communications Colorado, LLC. and is not responsible for the opinions expressed outside of our own.
|
|
SquareState.net is owned by Open Communications Colorado, LLC
