"Go fuck yourself" is their creed

"Go fuck yourself" was said by Dick Cheneythree years ago as he passed a Democratic Senator in the hallway of Congress.
It's an ugly phrase for an ugly sentiment.
And its now clear that its much more than just a singular insult from one man to another. Cheney was leading the way for the conservative movement -- "go fuck yourself" has become their creed. Its their response to anyone and everyone who disagrees with what they say or do.
While the actual words may not be said, it is a sentiment you will find even in our own Canadian House of Commonsthese days.
[more in Extended]

Here is Glenn Greenwald talking about why the Conservative Political Action Conference wildly cheered Ann Coulter for calling John Edwards a faggot in her speech yesterday:

This is a movement propelled by an insatiable hunger for more slaughter and more wars. It is centrally dependent upon hatred of an Enemy, foreign or domestic -- the Terrorist, the Immigrant, the Faggot, the Raghead, and most of all, the Liberal. As John Dean brilliantly documented, that is the only real feature that binds the "conservative" movement at this point, the only attribute that gives it identity and purpose. It does not have any affirmative ideas, only a sense of that which it hates and wants to destroy. So to watch as the crowd wildly cheers an unapologetic hatemonger is perfectly natural and not at all surprising . . .
This is a movement driven by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity -- who, along with Bill O'Reilly, are by far the most popular and successful right-wing pundits. Shouldn't every rational and decent person convulse with anger or at least scornful laughter whenever this movement claims to find offensive or upsetting indecent remarks coming from others or when they accuse others of being angry and hateful?

All this conservative pearl-clutching over Librull "swearing" is just another example of the Karl Rove Principle in action -- always attack your opponent for whatever is your own greatest weakness.

•  War, Paranoia, Fear, Hate

  The wiches brew of ills courtesy of the Right the world over.

  I think we can expect American fascism to be a particularly ugly strand once it reaches full strength; brandishing a bible, waving that stars and stripes and spreading human misery on a global scale.

  by Near Vanna on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 01:36:21 PM PDT

  •  Murder, torture, rapine ...

    ... the suspension of the rule of law, widespread corruption across all scales of commerce, weapons flooding across national borders to profit the dollar-fat international merchants of death, willful destruction of the public sphere, Babels of propaganda drowning thought and rationality ...

    ... termites in our age-old wooden home, chewing chewing chewing.

    by Yellow Canary on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 02:12:18 PM PDT

•  They depend on us to be "nicer" than they,

  and they're usually right.  We are unprepared to counter ridiculous attacks, unwilling to be as vicious and cruel as they.  But they've made some crucial mistakes with this approach.  Most people are not stupid, and they're not wingnuts.  The fear cloud is lifting, and most are seeing these people more clearly now.  Would the SwiftBoaters be tolerated in '08?  I don't think so.  Rove-style smear is looking more and more like what it is..mean-spirited, destructive, coarse, and un-American.

  by sherlyle on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 01:38:05 PM PDT

  •  We got to set the standard

    as a catholic I am angry John Edwards didn't immediately fire those 2 lady bloggers. There comments were hateful. No different then had it been directed at gays, jews, blacks, etc. Democrats can't be hateful like republicans. And wanna show what tough guys they are either. Example: Obama just gave a speech saying Iran is a dangerous nation and we might have to use force v. them. Hey, had a republican said that, we'd be calling him a reactionary or neocon. But it was Obama who said it.

    by nagaer on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 03:18:14 PM PDT

•  You know what

  I don't know why the Democrats have not linked Coulter to the GOP the way the right has tried to link Michael Moore to the Democrats. Even though Moore voted for Nader in 2000, helping Bush become president, even though Moore attacks Democrats in his books, the GOP links him to the Party.

  The Democrats should start asking GOP politicians to repudiate Coulter. They need to ask them if they agree with her calls for violence against the elected officials and Supreme Court Justices that she dislikes. They need to ask them if they support her calls for violence against media outlets that don't report the way that she wants them to.

  It never ceases to amaze me that Coulter still gets so much exposure in mainstream media outlets. It still surprises me that this woman still has not faced accountability. It amazes me that she has not been repudiated.

  Finally, if a left-wing commentator like Michael Moore had called for violence against Republicans, the Secret Servce and FBI would have been on him. After threatening Clinton, Justice Stevens, and the New York Times, it surprises me that law enforcement has not called her in for questioning.

  by jiacinto on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 01:39:48 PM PDT

  •  Why Haven't We?

    We haven't linked Coulter to the GOP or taken any sort of action because we are afraid someone will see us in the wrong light. Hence, its safer to cower in a corner and pee down our pant leg out of fear that someone may not like us, than it is to stand up and exert a "go fuck yourself" attitude.

    If Democrats in Congress had any testicular fortitude at all they would have introduced a BINDING resolution against the increase of troops in Iraqnam. Instead, we timidly introduced a non-binding measure. And look what happened.

    I'm so sick and tired of my party its pathetic.  We talk tough in the campaigns. Then we talk tough after we win the campaigns. Then when we take office we turn into a bunch of whimpering children.

    We will have control of the House for 2 more years, we'll lose control of the Senate as soon as Loserman decides to bolt (and good riddance) and then in 2008 we are going to lose to Rudy because we are afraid to take a stand and back it up with spine.

    Pure and simple.

    by Curlew on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 01:44:09 PM PDT

  •  "The Democrats should start asking"

    "They need to ask"
    ...
    "They need to ask"

    Do the Republicans ask Democrats whether they support this or that person? No.

    Republicans just say it, then they say it again and again until it's popular wisdom.

    In order to do this we've got to start telling people what's going on. Of course it's partisan, we didn't set the whole thing up this way but this is how it is right now.

    by mike101 on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 02:07:28 PM PDT

  •  Don't forget even though Moore owns

    Halliburton stock, various oil corp. stock, Boston Scientific stock, and so on. As his income tax return shows in a photo in the book, "Do as I Say, Not as I Do."

    by nagaer on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 03:21:33 PM PDT

    •  So Moore is a hypocrite then?

      It sounds like he is like Nader. Nader also owns stock in mutual funds.

      by jiacinto on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 04:04:06 PM PDT

  •  Michael Moore=Ann Coulter not n/t

    by shaharazade on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 07:53:57 PM PDT

•  "pearl-clutching"

  I love that this phrase seems to be entering the progressive lexicon; it's really the perfect, concise term for the hypocrisy of the right and the punditariat that enables or supports them.

  by dajafi on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 01:40:55 PM PDT

  •  Yes, I love this term too

    I think it originated with The Editors over at the Poorman (but I haven't checked with anyone because I don't want to ruin my amateur status.)

    by CathiefromCanada on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 04:17:10 PM PDT

•  This is an old impulse.

  Older than the human brain.

  The 'other' is always to be feared. They are a danger. After all, they are not us. They want our women, our land, our food, our children, our...whatever.

  It is how the tribe is mobilized and focused outwards (especially true if there is something bad going on within the tribe).

  It's the primal distraction.

  by bablhous on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 01:45:42 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, well,

    we used to hang from tree branches and throw poop at each other, too.  The premise of evolution is that we outgrew that nonsense (not really, but indulge me).

    by Kingsmeg on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 07:33:47 PM PDT

    •  Evolution doesn't say we 'grow out of' anything.

      These basic impulses are all still there, buried deep in our lizard brains.

      Oh, in case you haven't noticed, we still throw poop too. Have you watched Faux News lately?

      by bablhous on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 01:07:42 PM PDT

•  I say to thee....

  "Go fuck thyself!" And I say it with glee.....If you are republican, "Go fuck thyself!"

  There, did that help?  ;-}

  by Rumarhazzit on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 01:51:42 PM PDT

  •  It's

    fucketh.  Go fucketh thyself, not to be confused with Thou suckest.

    by Kingsmeg on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 07:35:22 PM PDT

    •  that's too funny!.....

      yes, I do believe you are correct. However, I think it sounds more forceful to say it as,"Go fuck thyself."

      Thanks.......

      by Rumarhazzit on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 08:07:23 PM PDT

•  I'm not afraid of Dick Cheney, but,

  I do not ever want to be like him. I can not stand this man or anything he stands for. Dickhead stands for everything my parents taught me not to be. I believe when these Cheney's, Limbaugh, and Coulter's continue to shoot their mouths off they are pissed because they are on a sinking ship, and to stupid to jump off.

  by bonesy on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 02:06:25 PM PDT

  •  I confessed to PastorDan

    That I've been having trouble with the whole turn the other cheek thing. (And got my TU status back!)

    But sometimes I think bullies have to put in their place. As I was reading about Cheney's remark I thought it would be appropriate for a little fisticuffs. Maybe that legislator should have punched him or grabbed him by the lapels and got right in his face.

    Incidentally does anyone know who Cheney told to F off?

    by paul2port on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 02:21:12 PM PDT

    •  Wasn't it Leahy?

      by ShaShaMae on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 02:29:43 PM PDT

      •  Thank you

        Yes I did a bit of research after posting. He's told more than one to FO.

        Leahy is relentless, thank goodness. He'd been dogging Cheney for war profiteering by Halliburton but when Cheney dropped the F-bomb. I think Leahy could punch Cheney's lights out.

        by paul2port on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 02:40:59 PM PDT

•  I stole this

  I basically ripped you off, and put it on my blog. However I did credit you. You hit on something I've been thinking about recently. (Not that it's new, but it needs to be repeated.)

  Good post.

  Here's what I did, not that anyone reads it:

  http://360.yahoo.com/...

  by chemsmith on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 02:18:11 PM PDT

  •  And I probably got the idea from someone else

    It was Glenn Greenwald's post that got me thinking about this.  I was pondering when all this "dirty fucking hippy bloggers" thing started, and it seemed to me that it actually did all begin with Cheney's curse.  My 'original' insight, if I may be so bold as to call it that, is that this whole Blame The Profane Left meme is actually just the usual Karl Rove tactic for undercutting legitimate criticism of right-wing extremism.

    by CathiefromCanada on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 04:24:39 PM PDT

•  Please...it's "Go Cheney yourself!"

  We have got to keep it clean here at Kos.

  (snark!)

  by ShaShaMae on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 02:28:43 PM PDT

  •  I don't know

    I think "Cheney" is about the worst swear word you can use.

    by anastasia p on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 03:33:07 PM PDT

•  Speaking of hate radio

  I listened to the CBC radio here in Canada recently describe exactly how hate radio was used to infamous proportions to incite the Rwandan genocide.

  I immediately thought of the hate radio phenomenon in the states, and to a lesser degree, but still just as virulent, here in Canada. The only difference, in my mind, is that what is incited does not lead to mass violence on a physical scale and this, I believe, is only because we, in the west, do not find such killing to be socially acceptable enough that those incited would feel they could get away with it.

  This is not to ascribe to Rwandans, a socially accepted more of killing, but only to illustrate that those doing the killing in Rwanda, did so because they knew they would get away with it, that no one would stop them.

  What is going on here is no different, however. Just because the actual physical killing is not happening does not make this practice more moral. It is just as viscious and ruthless, the intent is the same.

  by Blackstar on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 03:36:29 PM PDT

  •  And we have the CRTC

    I don't know the details but didn't the CRTC recently take away a radio station's license (U think it was a station in Quebec, though I don't know if it was French-speaking or English-speaking) because one of their announcers continued to spew hate speech and the station refused to stop him?  Or am I remembering that wrong?

    by CathiefromCanada on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 04:27:41 PM PDT

    •  I am thinking mainly of the right wingers

      in western Canada.

      by Blackstar on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 05:04:01 PM PDT

    •  Here's a link from the CRTC

      on the non-renewal of CHOI-FM's license: The CRTC decides not to renew the licence of CHOI-FM Québec

      the programming of CHOI-FM has been the subject of numerous complaints with respect to the conduct of the hosts and the spoken word content that is aired, including offensive comments, personal attacks and harassment.

      by Kingsmeg on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 07:30:46 PM PDT

•  Hate radio comment

  Exactly..

  by ohcanada on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 03:43:14 PM PDT