Just landed back in the U.S. and find in my e-mail a link to something truly foul by a columnist for a newspaper I normally admire, the Guardian in London. I won’t pass along the link, but the columnist in question has not-so-obliquely called out the assassins against George W. Bush. Shameful.


Posted by: on October 24, 2004 07:47 AM

Dan wrote: “Please don’t feed the troll”.

I guess he meant, let *him*. Only this time, he says disingenuously that he agrees with me. (This posting is, of course, a reply to an item I posted on the below Open Thread).


At least he admits that the Guardian is a paper he “normally” admires. Par for the course for this trash extremist Left Kerry bag handler, that he admires a paper that calls for the assassination of the President for his compassionate conservative views, which takes the rug out from under vacant liberals like John F. Kerry.

Posted by: on October 24, 2004 09:07 AM

Query, you should try English occasionally.

Posted by: Dan Gillmor on October 24, 2004 09:24 AM

Please don’t feed the troll.

Posted by: on October 24, 2004 10:55 AM

I read the article and I, too, was disgusted. The sad thing is I think it just puts into words what a lot of the lefties actually feel – a seething hatred for the US and Bush.

Posted by: on October 24, 2004 12:25 PM

Looks like that article has been removed from The Guardian website.

Posted by: James Salsman on October 24, 2004 12:34 PM

I find it interesting that there has apparently been an $8400 reward to the first person, journalist or otherwise, who asks Bush how many times he has been arrested, and it has been unclaimed since August: http://onesimplequestion.blogspot.com/

What does this say about journalism?

More info, and a link to a Knight-Ridder story: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/24/133116/97

Posted by: on October 24, 2004 01:12 PM

James Salsman, are you unaware that Guccioni has been throwing around a number in the *millions* for comparable information? Last election, he offered large amounts in PRINT advertisements, although it’s more quiet this time.

Do you seriously doubt you could get at least that, if not a figure ten times that amount, at the door of George Soros?

The money being offered and expended by the ultra-rich on behalf of a radical, extreme Left agenda this election cycle is unprecedented, and goes against the spirit and often the letter of McCain-Feingold.

And the mainstream media, so gun-ho for campaign finance reform, sit in shameful silence!

Posted by: Rand Careaga on October 24, 2004 01:33 PM

I’m reminded of a poster I saw about a dozen years ago, featuring a photograph of the notional candidate:

“John W. Hinckley for President:
He’s had a shot at the man—Let’s give him a shot at the job!”

I can’t recall the Secret Service being summoned forth on that earlier occasion, and while I strongly disapprove of the “lone crazed gunman” approach to regime change (if you undertake to eradicate a country’s president you should employ cruise missiles like a normal person) I don’t know that the Guardian’s lame quip really merits query—or DG. come to that—getting his knickers in a twist.


Posted by: on October 24, 2004 01:44 PM

Query is absolutley correct about the media giving the Dem’s a big pass for all of the Soros-type money flowing in. Yes, the Republicans collect money from wealthy people, but Soros stands out as an outsider interferring with the elections. (I know he is a citizen, but he calls himself a citizen of the world. With his money, he’s like a US multinational corporation headquarted on some tax haven – who knows who he cares about.)

Even if his efforts are legal, I don’t hear a peep from the usual organizations (ACLU?, various democracy organizations, etc.) who supposedly look out for this kind of crap. And, as far as I can tell, the media hasn’t said a word.

With Dan’s interest in the media, I would think he would want a strongly worded post on the massive problems that this type of concentrated money can have on our democracy. Dan is good at using adjectives like “shameless”, “inexcusable”, “phony”, “blatant”, “incompetent”, etc, which can apply to the players around this Soros-type moeny story. How about it?

Posted by: on October 24, 2004 02:27 PM

Rand, my opinion is the line has been crossed by a number of people. The author’s uncivil behavior is a microcosm. The various “protestors” who express such hate are aweful. If it was Republican protestors expressing such hate, there would be calls for hate crimes. I find the left’s claim for tolerance of other’s ideas to be profoundly hypocritical. Yes, the right plays hardball, but this seething hatred by the left is terrible.

Posted by: on October 24, 2004 03:07 PM

On September 13, 2001, Ann Coulter published a column that lamented the death of her close friend Barbara Olson, wife of U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, who was a passenger on one of the hijacked planes.

After a touching, very personal tribute, full of anger over the loss of her friend, Ms. Coulter closed out her column as follows:

“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.”

Put *that* alongside Charlie Brooker calling for the assassination of President George W. Bush.

Will the Left — which led a vicious, persistent and ultimately successful campaign to get Ann Coulter fired from her journalistic job at the time — now pounce upon Brooker and insist that he be run out of journalism?

Brooker is a two-bit hack, in the eyes of many on the Right. There’s very little chance that he’ll rise up again, like the Phoenix — as Ann Coulter did — to become one of the most effective fountains of biting demagoguery for his side.

Will Dan step forward and proclaim that Charlie Brooker has no business writing *EVER AGAIN* for a serious news outlet?

If he will not, it just shows that Dan Gillmor finds the proselytizing of Christianity more abhorrent the than advocacy of President George W. Bush’s assassination.

Posted by: Rand Careaga
on October 24, 2004 03:42 PM

query can scarcely contain himself for very outrage over “Charlie Brooker calling for the assassination of President George W. Bush.”

Charlie Brooker didn’t actually call for anything. He asked “John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr – where are you now that we need you?” I’m happy to help out here. The answers are (A) Baltimore MD; (B) Fort Worth TX; and (C) Washington DC. The first two are not generally considered to be at present a danger to anyone and the third, who is in a locked and guarded facility, was a lousy shot.


Posted by: on October 24, 2004 03:58 PM

Well, the article link now shows an apology and clarification.

As for the Als and other stump-jumpers, let me contrast that tasteless joke with another: “I have just signed legislation outlawing Russia forever. The bombing begins in 10 minutes.” –Ronald Reagan, while a sitting president. Al, when you heard that you probably thought “Ha! Good one.” Never mind that the preznit actually can get thousands of people killed on a whim.

Posted by: on October 24, 2004 04:13 PM

A Democrat flipped the switch to start transmitting Reagan’s weekly broadcast while he was warming up doing a comedy bit, because he knew it would make a good soundbite for the pathetic Mondale campaign.

But I suppose you were in diapers, then, Peter G., or you would know better than to make such an arse of yourself with that comment.

Posted by: on October 24, 2004 04:56 PM

Apart from there now being an apology in the place of the column, “columnist” is an inappropriately grandiose word for what this really was. The piece was a page filler in the TV guide distributed with the Guardian, not any part of the main newspaper. And yes the humor’s rough, and the last sentence went over the limit, but whoever is sending this around is looking for some manufactured outrage, and seems to be getting it.

Posted by: on October 24, 2004 06:48 PM

Peter G: Yes, I remember hearing Reagan’s comments, but his were done in jest. Many of the hardcore left seems to have this seething hatred ingrained. Maybe I’m wrong, but the hatred for Bush and the US by these people seems almost maniacal.

It seems much deeper than the right’s intense dislike (or hatred) for Clinton.

Posted by: on October 24, 2004 08:01 PM

Whenever I hear or read radically extremist views from these so called “Journalists” (whether it’s Booker, Coulter, O’Reilly, etc…) it reminds me of how far politics has gone down the abyss. These people don’t talk about the real issues facing the country… I surmise that’s because it’s much easier to spew hatred and line your own pockets being a controversial talking head. It’s incredibly sad that this nonsense passes as “the news” in today’s political discourse.

Posted by: on October 24, 2004 08:08 PM

“…but his were done in jest.”

Of course they were. As was the TV reviewer’s column in The Guardian. It’s a humor column, fer gawd’s sake. As for projecting American centrist and leftist agreement with an exasperated minor columnist published in the United Kingdom, give me a break. Hate crimes, my ass.

So tell me, have you stopped hating Clinton now that you no longer can blame him for US government screwups, or is it a wistful longing for the days (all 8 years, not just the late boom) when an investor below the level of hedge fund could make money? Or perhaps a dim, dawning realization that faith-based policy is an awful substitute for an intelligent, engaged leader?

Posted by: on October 24, 2004 10:56 PM

Wake up, this is one of 30-40 disgusting actions taken by Democrats or those supporting Democrats.

The Democratic party is going to split in the near future. The hardcore, win at any costs left, and the more moderate and centrist group near the middle.

If Kerry loses, watch out.

Posted by: adamsj on October 25, 2004 06:19 AM


I’ve heard exactly the same prediction about the Republican Party after Bush loses. That strikes me as likelier (not the Bush loss–that’s a given, unless something happens in the next few days–but the split). After all, the Republicans will have a failed incumbent and his backers to snipe at, whereas the Dems would have against Kerry only what they had against Gore: “You lost to _this_ guy?”

Posted by: on October 25, 2004 07:51 AM

adamsj: No, the Republicans are now where near splitting. What is the Democratic Party now? The 527’s have usurped a big chunk of the power. Even if Kerry wins, it will be unclear who is running the party. Clinton boy Terry McAuliffe (even with his Global Crossing stock killing that the press ignores) may survive, only because it will be hard to find someone for the job. Who is going to want to deal with the egos of all of the 527’s? Every one of them is going to be looking for power and payback.

They’re united now, but the backstabbing will start as soon as the election is over and the big payrolls start to shrink.
Watch them before the election: if they think Kerry is going to lose, the backstabbing will start quickly. Not even a friendly press will be able to keep it contained.

Posted by: on October 25, 2004 01:21 PM

In a thread above on Stem Cell Research, a poster who calls himself “Step Back” wrote:

‘what is your position about surgically removing “life” from Rehnquist’s throat?’

What? W H A T ? ? ? ? ? ! ! ! !

The demagoguery of Florida 2000 has gone far enough, but this is ***un-fricking-believable**.

The call for political assassination moves from the U.K. Guardian to the pages of Dan Gillmor’s blog.

Step Back just called the slashing of conservative Supreme Court Justice Reinquist’s throat!

This is shameful, shameful, shameful.

Of course, a Left extreme shrill like Dan Gillmor will say nothing.

Remarkable hypocrisy. Remarkable.

Posted by: on October 25, 2004 01:39 PM

“And, as far as I can tell, the media hasn’t said a word.”

A Google News search for “soros 527 influence” turns up 39 results. Doing a web search returns about 5400. Among the top 25 web results are archived articles from the NY Times and Post, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, Mother Jones, Bloomberg, and the Cato Institute.

Looks like you can’t “tell” very “far”…

Posted by: adamsj on October 25, 2004 02:11 PM

Hi, cog,

I think the in-fighting you describe has already happened, and that some of the activ
ity you mention is it still happening. (The Democratic rank-and-file got pretty pissed off after the 2002 debacle.) 527s and related groups are effectively becoming new leadership of the Democratic Party. Those who won’t cooperate will be left behind, and those who will cooperate, well, they’ll cooperate.

A good thing, according to this Democrat. The party has allowed the right to bash liberals and liberalism for too long. The age of Democratic pusillanimity is over.

In barely related news, I suppose you’ve heard that Rehnquist’s throat surgery–a tracheotomy, I believe–for his thyroid cancer went successfully and that he’s now resting up from it.

Posted by: on October 25, 2004 03:30 PM

I did not know Mr. Brookers affiliation. I just assumed that he was from the “even further right”, and would want Mr. Cheney in power in name as well as fact.


Posted by: Ward Gerlach on October 25, 2004 03:41 PM

I’ve already posted in my blog about the Guardian.

As you might guess, I’m boiling mad.

And, I am serious.

To recap: Due to their (1) attempt to influence elections in the US (in Ohio), and (2) advocacy of the assasination of the President, the Guardian has proven that they are NOT a “news” orgainzation, and should have their press credentials in the US revoked immediately.

No apologies are requested, nor should they be entertained in any way – Ban the Bums!


Posted by: Rand Careaga on October 25, 2004 05:21 PM

Why no, Ward, since none of us have ever heard of you, how could we have guessed you were boiling mad—much less serious—until you told us so?

Best of luck in your crusade to remove the Guardian from these shores. I think it will be a splendid, if not strictly useful, outlet for your boiling, serious energies.


Posted by: koreyel on October 25, 2004 07:52 PM

Bush is the most hated man on the planet.
I suppose that sort of blatant remark comes with that job title.

But agreed–it is pretty horrible example of journalism.

Because if one really hated Bush… the best scenario for the hater is to have Bush win another four years.

After all if Bush wins, Europe will stay alienated, the Iraq-mess will continue to cash drain the US, and not only will the deficit continue to rise, but so well the world’s population of American haters (more and more enemies for America–less foreign investment: delightful!)…

In short–one will have the joy of seeing the US reap the fruits of “banana repulicanism.” Bush will have single-handedly trashed, looted, and debased America.

It’s a wonderfully rosy scenario for those who really truly hate Bush and America.

In fact… being what I call a neo-republican (me first, me second, me third, me fourth, you fifth), I am thinking I ought to vote for Bush with my right hand, and buy Euros and Yen with my left.

Yeah verily, I pledge allegiance to my wallet.
Profit before patriotism everytime.

God bless you all… and good night.

Posted by: on October 26, 2004 05:46 AM

I’m all for assination politics.

Only, we should make sure we do it the democratic way using the Anonymous Cocaine Auction Protocol. At least it would it would be more honest and representitive that the current sham that we pass off to the rest of the world as “democracy” (and believe me, the rest of the world is *NOT* as stupid as we belive they are; they’re currently laughting at us and have been for the last 4 years).

Considering the shear level of mediocrity currently represented by the USA’s “viable” canidates, yea old wild card is the only way out of the hand we’ve been dealt.

I personally would rather see Dick Chaney take the credit and responsibility for the current administration than head money boy presently at the helm (and I use that pharase “head monkey boy” only out of respect and honor he bestoes upon the position).

Posted by: on October 26, 2004 01:18 PM

I will give credit to Dan where due for condemning the Guardian. It’s interesting that some on here still won’t draw the line when a paper calls for the assasination of a US president.

I remember the sixties when the bullets really did fly and I don’t care to return to that time.

Dan, I would really like to see you condemn the NYT (and CBS) for that thinly veiled October surprise that said we left explosives unguarded in Iraq.

Even an NBC report that had their own inbedded correspondents say they had first hand knowledge the report was false didn’t stop Kerry from going on the attack.

Best line all day was the White House spokesman who deadpanned, “So Senator Kerry wanted us to invade Iraq sixty days earlier when the UN said the explosives were there?”

You are watching the wheels come off the Kerry campaign as we speak.

This entry was posted in SiliconValley.com Archives. Bookmark the permalink.