ShareThis Page

Relative 'standards'

| Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Funny, but we can't seem to recall very many instances of the liberal intelligentsia criticizing their own for incendiary comments about anyone or anything.

Even with an apology, a plethora of "progressives" continue to be up in arms over Rush Limbaugh employing the absurd to expose the absurd -- in this case, advocacy for at-whim government suspension of freedom of religion.

Only Kirsten Powers, a Democrat political analyst, had the intellectual honesty to document some of the more putrid remarks of the pundits of the left:

• Ed Schultz, who fancies the term "bimbo," once called talk show host Laura Ingraham a "right-wing slut"

• Keith Olbermann, who said commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted, has called Michelle Malkin a "mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick"

• Chris Matthews, in opposing Hillary Clinton's presidential bid against Barack Obama in 2008, called her a "she-devil," "Nurse Ratched" and "witchy"

• Bill Maher's characterizations of Sarah Palin cannot be printed in a family newspaper.

And, of course, Teresa Heinz Kerry was hailed by liberals as some kind of hero when her mouth runneth over.

We guess there are standards and then there are standards. Ahem.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.