Yesterday, I wrote about how ghoulish liberal bloggers were attacking Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) because his family received social security survivor benefits after his father died at age 55. His father paid taxes into social security for years, and never got back a dime in retirement benefits, owing to his early death. Instead, the Ryan family received a lousy two years worth of survivor benefits for Paul Ryan from the time he was 16 until he turned 18.
They got no special favors.
Yet, Ryan was derided as an “evil hypocrite” and welfare recipient because he once received social security, but now wants to limit spending on social programs. (Ryan’s legislation would reduce the rate of growth in spending on social programs like Medicare to keep them from going broke. It would NOT cut the survivor benefits he once received as a teenager. Under his social security "roadmap," "those receiving survivor and disability benefits will see NO change.").
I really understated the attacks on Ryan, suggesting that they only came from the leading liberal blog Daily Kos.
In fact, most of the leading liberal blogs seem to have made the same hateful argument, as did the liberal magazine The American Prospect in a commentary entitled "Paul Ryan's Hypocrisy."
Today, another blog popular among liberals, “Crooks and Liars” makes a similar argument, referring to Ryan as a “noted Republican hypocrite” for having once received social security while supporting a “cap” on social security taxes contained in current law. Earlier, other leading liberal blogs like Firedoglake made similar accusations against Ryan, while also repeating the oft-debunked fairy tale that he makes his staffers read the novelist Ayn Rand. 100 percent of these blogs’ readers agreed with these personal attacks.
These blogs seem to be taking their cue from liberal columnists like the New York Times’ Paul Krugman, who penned a recent column entitled, “Let’s Not Be Civil.” These attacks on civility are themselves hypocritical.
Right after the Tucson shootings, liberals like Krugman and the New York Times Editorial Board lectured America, and particularly conservatives, on the need for more 'civility,' claiming that the shootings were the outgrowth of a conservative “climate of hate” aimed at groups like “welfare recipients, or bureaucrats.” (even though there was no evidence that the shooter was influenced by any uncivil political rhetoric; and the shooter was not a conservative.)
There is nothing civil about baselessly accusing people of complicity in murder, as Krugman, liberal blogs, and the New York Times did. But incivility from the Left is so commonplace and unremarkable that many liberals don’t even notice it when it occurs, just as a fish doesn’t notice the water that surrounds it. One illustration of this is that liberal newspapers enlisted two trash-talking leftists to lecture America about the need for civility in Tucson’s aftermath.
Liberal activist Al Sharpton preached about the "dangers of inflammatory rhetoric" in the Washington Post, despite his own past history of helping incite a deadly race riot, and a court judgment against him for defamation in the Tawana Brawley hate-crime hoax. Meanwhile, ex-congressman Paul Kanjorski (D) lectured about the need for "civility" in the Times, despite his earlier statement that Florida governor Rick Scott (R) should be shot. No one at these liberal newspapers regarded these men as morally unfit to deliver such a message. To them, only a conservative can truly be “uncivil.”