I’m a conservative myself, have been a conservative as long as I’ve been thinking on political matters, and have known any number of conservatives over the decades. And while I’m sure there are ignorant, vitriolic conservatives — or more precisely, pseudo-conserviatives — in the land, after 30 or more years of being a conservative I have only met such people in liberal attacks.
Were conservatives as bad as Hinton claims, I’d have become a liberal about 30 years ago. But we’re not. Quite the contrary. In my experience the best place to locate political hate speech is in liberal expressions — Hinton’s letter being a fine example of this.
Granted that a letter to the editor does not provide infinite room for expatiation, but surely Hinton could have spent a few words on issues rather than putting all his effort into sneers and slurs. By restricting himself to such personal assaults, Hinton has caused liberals to appear to be what he claims conservatives are. — Robert McKay
Regarding Robert McKay’s response to my letter (mjh’s Blog: Radical Right Writer Rants), which was in response to Paul Linkenheimer’s letter [“It’s liberals who are whackos (so feel sorry for them),” 9/2/04]: I’m sorry Mr. McKay didn’t read Linkenheimer’s letter. I’d be interested in his response to that letter. It is interesting that ignorant of anything from Linkenheimer’s letter, McKay is still comfortable assuming that I’m the bad guy.
I respect McKay’s pride in his conservative perspective and his subtle disparagement of my liberal view. I think neither of us is truly objective.
I question one thing from his letter: “I’m sure there are ignorant, vitriolic conservatives — or more precisely, pseudo-conservatives….” I understand and share McKay’s desire to distance himself from the Radical Right, but they call themselves conservatives, they win conservative votes, they repel and repudiate liberals — how can anyone call them ‘pseudo-conservatives’? In fact, I have heard people in the Republican Party who would call McKay the pseudo-conservative if he deviates from the narrowest definition. The Radical Right will not become more inclusive and tolerant in the next 4 years — no matter who wins in November. That’s not hate speech; that’s the truth. mjh
Bush has flashed such expressions — and worse — at reporters when they ask him hostile questions. But the public has generally not seen the president’s more petulant side, in part because he is rarely challenged in a public venue. He has held fewer news conferences than any modern predecessor, Congress is in his party’s control, and he has a famously loyal staff. In rare instances when Bush has been vigorously challenged — most recently in interviews with an Irish television journalist and a French magazine — he has reacted with similar indignation.
As questions continued about Bush’s demeanor on Thursday night, his aides have changed their explanation of it. On Thursday night, adviser Karen Hughes said: “On his face, you could see his irritation at the senator’s misrepresentations.” But by Friday morning, Mehlman said: “I don’t know that he was irritated.”