Tuesday, April 12, 2005

 

Protecting One Of Their Own

The SAEN editorial board had this to say about John Cornyn's recent comments about judges:
Cornyn made news by suggesting a link between recent violence toward the judiciary and people's anger and disgust over decisions by judges. Activist judges have been a favorite theme of DeLay.

The senator did not suggest that such violence would be justified by people's anger, but in the wake of recent violence in both Atlanta and Chicago, this is a sensitive subject to which Cornyn appeared tone-deaf.

Fortunately, there is no evidence of a link between violence against the judiciary and so-called activist judges, as the senator later conceded.

The MSM, predictably, was horrified by Cornyn's remarks, as were some local bloggers, see here and here. Fair enough, but where were these same folks when Paul Krugman implied (registration required) that conservatives in this country might assassinate those they oppose:
America isn't yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren't sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here.

Krugman's claim is much more direct than Cornyn's statement, and yet there was nothing but silence from the left. For the record, soon after Cornyn made his statement I criticized them as, well, stupid.
Comments:
Yeah, yeah, yeah one guy is a Senator and one guy is a columnist, but they are both public figures with large audiences. And if Conryn is to be dragged through the mud for his statement, then it should be doubly so for Krugman.
 
If Cornyn had something along the lines of what Krugman said, it would not have been controversial. If he had said that we need to take a stand against extremists who would commit violence against judges (which is all that Krugman is saying) there would have been no problem. Instead, he warned judges to change their behavior and blamed them for inciting the violence against themselves.

If Krugman had said something along the lines of what Cornyn said it would have gone like this:
Liberal politicians had better change their ways and stop doing things that annoy domestic extremists or else they might be assassinated.
The two statements aren't comparable.
 
Mike,
I don't want to be too techinical here, but hogwash! I think what they both said was inflammatory and indefensible, and yet the left tries to defend Krugman anyway.

Commando
 
I don't recall being "horrified" by Cornyn's remarks, merely disturbed. In my mind, his comments weren't a threat against judges, or a stupid off-hand remark, but a calculated effort to whip up support for Bush's future judicial nominees.

Anyway, I never saw that comment from Krugman until now (I haven't been reading his columns much lately). But now that you've drawn my attention to it, it does appear fundamentally different from Cornyn's. Unless you're suggesting that Krugman was trying to rationalize violence against liberal politicans. Given Krugman's political persuasion, that seems far-fetched.
 
Odd. My previous comment shows up in the popup window that appears when I hit "Post a comment", but is otherwise invisible.
 
Ah, all appears normal now.
 
We shall have to agree to disagree. The point of the post was that in the case of Cornyn's statements a mountain was made out of a mole hill. We rightly ignored Krugman's hysterical musings, and the same should have been done with Cornyn.

--Commando
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

archives