From Mr Frey, Esquire [emphasis mine]:
I know: when [Limbaugh] says he hopes Obama fails, he doesn’t mean he wants to see Americans suffer. He just doesn’t want liberal policies enacted because he thinks they’re bad for the country. I get it. I agree with that.
But, you know, that’s nuance.
The problem is, Americans have short attention spans and don’t always do nuance well. Just by writing the title of this post the way I did, I’ll get an angry reaction from some — even though, if you read the post, I haven’t said anything particularly negative about Limbaugh. As Allahpundit says:
“It’s Republicans who are suffering from having to thread the needle between defending Limbaugh and rejecting the “I want him to fail†rhetoric. What harm has Rush suffered? His stature’s never been greater, as he himself acknowledges right here.”
Indeed.
Indeed?
Well then. Here’s my considered (and no doubt extremist) response:* In suggesting that the trouble here is that Republicans are straddled with the burden of having to explain Limbaugh’s nuance, Patterico (and Allah) are not only conceding the linguistic ground to the left, they are now actually helping perpetuate what, at least on Patterico’s part, he knows to be a lie** — an out of context quote whose real meaning he admits to understanding, but whose complexities will be lost on those of, well… let’s just say lesser intellectual stock — in order to avoid confusing people who can’t be bothered to get the actual context correct, or who aren’t at all interested in getting it right. All so these folks might find it more difficult to despise the right for the way the left has decided to portray it.
Is that about the gist of it? — that it’s just too damn difficult to demand that what we mean be presented honestly, and so rather than fight that kind of complicated battle, it’s best just to learn to self-edit in a way that placates those who don’t do nuance well — while simultaneously castigating those willing to do the work of fighting the difficult battles?
My. Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations…
I fear if this is the counsel conservatives take, the game is already lost.
****
[*] actually, “considered” is an overstatement. More like “dashed off just as my takeout Mexican food got here.” Not that the end result would be terribly different.
****
update: Arriving in the comments, Patterico writes:
I’ll ask the same question I asked at Hot Air. If you could have a well-known conservative say:
1) “I want Obama’s terrible policies to be voted down so America can succeedâ€
or
2) “I want Obama to failâ€
which would you have them say?
#2 is pithier, sure. But it’s also WAY easier to twist in a way that will repel voters.
Do you want to phrase things in a way that makes it EASY or HARD for media cretins to distort what you’re saying?
I post daily on Obama’s reckless spending, ethically challenged nominees, broken promises, and other shortcomings. I have no illusions about how disastrous his policies are. I believe we have to take the fight to him.
But I want us to fight smart. You can say things in a way that’s easily distorted, or not. Rush says provocative things because it will benefit his career, and meanwhile, Republicans get put on the defensive. We spend days talking about whether Rush wants us to have a Depression, rather than talking about how Obama is mortgaging our children’s future and passing budgets amounting to $25,000 per taxpayer. Deficits of close to $2 trillion. That’s where our focus should be.
Instead we have this prominent guy make a speech and double down on a formulation that he KNOWS the drive-by media will distort. If it were necessary to phrase it that way, fine. But it’s not.
I want us to take the fight to the enemy and stand up for what we believe in. But I want us to do it in a smart way.
When you say “I hope X fails†then some people are going to hear that and nothing else you say.
My response, point by point:
I’ll ask the same question I asked at Hot Air. If you could have a well-known conservative say:
— first, let me stop you right there. I don’t want to have to measure every word I say with the thought in mind that somebody is going to take me out of context. Instead, I’d like to be free to say what I mean, and when my meaning is obvious, I would like to know that honest people have my back — and will tell dishonest people to stop being dishonest, and stupid people that they need to smarten up before they presume to join the conversation.
But back to your example:
1) “I want Obama’s terrible policies to be voted down so America can succeedâ€
or
2) “I want Obama to failâ€
which would you have them say?
You’ve left out the context of number 2. With the proper context, they two mean the same thing, so I don’t much care how it’s said — and I certainly don’t expect a person who talks for a living to pre-think every utterance as if he’s a lawyer so that nobody looking to take him out of context will. I suggest you read my link to the Bennett piece again, and that will make things clearer.
#2 is pithier, sure. But it’s also WAY easier to twist in a way that will repel voters.
Yeah. They could have gone with “I want Obama”. So? You are on the wrong side. You shouldn’t be concerning yourself with how easy it is to twist things. You should be working to make it less productive to do so.
As it stands, you’re part of the problem.
Do you want to phrase things in a way that makes it EASY or HARD for media cretins to distort what you’re saying?
I want the freedom to phrase things my own way and have them mean what they mean. Again, you’re fighting the wrong battle.
I post daily on Obama’s reckless spending, ethically challenged nominees, broken promises, and other shortcomings. I have no illusions about how disastrous his policies are. I believe we have to take the fight to him.
But I want us to fight smart. You can say things in a way that’s easily distorted, or not. Rush says provocative things because it will benefit his career, and meanwhile, Republicans get put on the defensive. We spend days talking about whether Rush wants us to have a Depression, rather than talking about how Obama is mortgaging our children’s future and passing budgets amounting to $25,000 per taxpayer. Deficits of close to $2 trillion. That’s where our focus should be.
Instead we have this prominent guy make a speech and double down on a formulation that he KNOWS the drive-by media will distort. If it were necessary to phrase it that way, fine. But it’s not.
Says you. Me, I say fuck the drive-by media, and fuck letting them frame what it is we say. And no, we don’t do that by carefully self-filtering. We do that by calling them on their dishonesty.
You want to fight them on their terms. I’m arguing that to fight on their terms is to have already lost the battle.
I want us to take the fight to the enemy and stand up for what we believe in. But I want us to do it in a smart way.
When you say “I hope X fails†then some people are going to hear that and nothing else you say.
Some folks are going to hear what they want to hear. But you know what? It’s time to make them feel stupid for being stupid — not empowering their stupidity by pandering to it.
The sad part is that I suspect that Patterico is right. The Powers That Be will make sure that Rush’s “I want Obama (and by extension, this nation) to fail” will be the message that sticks with John Q. Public.
I really don’t know what can be done about it, except carry on.
Excuse me, but your gauntlet crushed my toes.
Shorter Patterico: “The truth is hard, so we must accept our opponents’ lies.”
Patterico’s position, in effect, merely cedes ground. It says that the media is always going to be dishonest and disingenous with regards to the right. The problem is, it doesn’t matter WHAT we say. As with Sarah Palin, they will be perfectly OK with making shit up.
Democrat party.
I love those linguistic exercises in the kids’ playground
Time to go fishing with Fredo, Pat. You’re dead to me.
Or, “If it don’t fit on a bumper sticker, it ain’t important.”
I don’t understand why Patterico is so intent on being a politician and demanding that Rush Limbaugh follow suit. If you want to hedge, equivocate and put up a false front, run for office.
Patterico is obviously suffering from rhetoric fatigue. Perhaps what he needs to do is take himself out of the game and leave it to those — like, for example, Limbaugh — who are willing to take the battle to the enemy and win back all that ground we’ve been giving up over the years.
“Sheesh, you want them to understand the Constitution? Yeah, like that’s ever going to happen. Look, Madison, why don’t you just quit while you’re ahead?”
Patterico joins the battle
I haven’t been to his site since the “nice man” post. I see I haven’t missed anything.
In a world full of short-attention span idiots, the nuanced
ah, fuck it. You guys going the midnight screening of The Watchmen?
been thinking about it…
It doesn’t take any special nuance to understand what Limbaugh said and meant. It just takes an average amount of intelligence and a lack of presumption of calumny.
ain’t that the problem jeff? these folks like climbing back into the warm anal canal of proggdom. ask c. young and her smear of liddy
whoa, it’s close to three hours long. maybe not.
That quote and the meaning behind it isn’t all that damned complicated, if you listen to more than the 4 words and the spin the Hopenchange Administration is putting on them. They’re giving Rush a bigger platform than he had to start with, and he knows what to do with it. This gambit is a pending FAIL.
Worrying that the left and the legacy media will misquote, twist, and maliciously misrepresent anything a conservative says gets you nowhere. Say what you want, keep saying it, don’t apologize, and stay on target. They’re going to do it no matter what you say or do, so who cares? Treat them as if they don’t exist and keep working. Again: whether you succeed or not is irrelevant, whether what you’re doing is right or wrong is all that matters.
And no interest in the Watchmen movie.
How about refuse to accept it, and, posting a united front, call those who repeat the lie, you know, liars?
Yeah. It ain’t complicated, which is why I’m surprised the “pragmatic” brigade has picked such a soundbite over which to feign the vapors.
Question: How come all those numbnuts what can’t understand and thus are offended by the frenchified nuanced bits CAN understand and NOT be offended by Patterico & Co. straight out calling them retards?
OK “are not offended by”. Bite me.
In the manner of Crocodile Dundee says Obama: “You call that nuance? This is nuance”
Rush Limbaugh is an economic success, and he didn’t get that way by taking *freebies* from criminals.
Of course, if Patterico and Allah, et al, don’t respond or pay me any attention — the tack PJM took — it ain’t like this kinda argument will get much play.
Which is why I’ve been talking with somebody in the know about putting together an organization for OUTLAW thinking. Something with a masthead, even. And speakers. I guess I’m tired of relying on a network of “allies” who aren’t much interested in my taint.
— Of course, as outlaws, wingtips and suit pants will be replaced with snakeskin boots and Steve McQueen jeans.
In case you feel that Limbaugh needs assistance in defending his name, a website has been established to track attacks on Rush:
http://readytorumbleforrush.blogspot.com/
I cannot understand why those I usually respect, Paterico, Allah and others, are so gayly marching to the gas chambers of triviality. Fighting lies, smears, and falsehoods are their stock-in-trade when they are being effective. So why do they cede the linguistic ground when the case is both easy to make and necessary to make.
I hope we lose Bush’s fucking war – just the nuanced dissent of a true American
I hope Obama’s plan fails – treason
On what planet?
With towering bastions of courage like Patterico and Allah on our side, how can we possibly remain in the minority?
These guys are the types that bring knives to gunfights.
Franklin once remarked (IIRC) that it was unwise to pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel.
Rush is a big boy, he took on Clinton and “won”, so to speak. He can take care of himself, and I look forward to the battles.
What the lefties never realized that really “speaking truth to power” was never popular and bumper-sticker material. This is the real thing, and it’s going to be hard work.
In defense of Allahpundit — he does know he’s beta.
Rush is the one speaking truth to power. Evidently, he is denied the right to face his accusers, too.
#19. I agree with C. Taylor
me personally
I wanted Bush to succeed at having the Iraqis welcome us as liberators so we could get the hell out.
I wanted Bush to succeed at bringing peace to the Middle East.
I wanted Bush to succeed at finding and destroying WMD’s he said were there.
I wanted Bush to succeed at being a uniter, not a divider.
I wanted Bush to succeed at being the Education President, and leaving no child behind.
I wanted Bush to succeed at developing clean alternative energy.
I wanted Bush to succeed at spreading freedom around the world.
I wanted Bush to succeed at having some humility.
I wanted “adults” to be in charge.
Those were his stated goals and positions.
I didn’t want him to succeed at lying to and deceiving the American people, trashing the economy, furthering intolerance and hatred, and killing over 4 000 American soldiers for bullshit reasons and 100,000 innocent Iraqis in his mad rush to glory
But then, he didn’t promise to do THOSE things, did he?
Have something to contribute to THIS conversation, sashal? Because in case you missed it, this is about YOU.
You’re free to start a site and post about what you want, though. I’ll be sure to drop by. I promise!
One other thing: where were the erudite voices of reason on the left that helped bring it back to power? The public voices and faces of the left were people like sasha: brain-dead, Kos-reading, talking-points spewing schmucks who railed endlessly about Chimpy McHaliburton. Oh, I guess Keith Olberman was the voice of reason that helped bring the Dems back to the promised land. Somehow the left managed to win the last couple of elections even with this mass of inhumanity at the forefront – somehow I doubt the GOP is threatened with continued decades in the wilderness because of the likes of Rush Limbaugh.
And really — if you think Bush “killed 4000 American soldiers,” you should be off representing their families in court, not wasting your time on a blog site.
Any of the military guys here want sashal’s help? He cares about you, really. Even if you’re too stupid to know it.
No doubt it’s a matter of “picking your battles”. The problem with that is, if you never accept the battle, it’s no different than an endless retreat.
It strikes me as funny/odd/coincidentally peculiar that sashal shows up just when the troll field happens to open up, doesn’t it? Funny old world, it is.
Is there some sort of rotation I should be aware of?
They didn’t pick it. Rahm did. Fuck Rahm is what I’m thinking. *stabs knife into table* DEAD!
You’d think a lawyer would better understand the power of words and the nature of making (and winning) an argument.
Well, if the trolls don’t stay on point, they’ll have their oeuvre vaporized. My new policy. I can go back years.
Fighting fire with fire. SIZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZLLLLLLLLE!
I have some thoughts I think. I shop now. We talk later.
You know what’s pragmatic? A good old fashioned beatdown, that’s what.
It’s a good post, Jeff, but it would be better if it started with “I say” and ended with “old boy!” or alternately with “old man!”
You got that automated now? Sweet.
Pablo, did Rahm pick that Dead schauspiel up from the Untouchables and that great scene of DeNiro shouting, I want him Dead! I want his family dead! etc, or somewhere else, you reckon?
Oh, and in keeping with tonight’s theme.
Sashal is a liar.
Animal House, I believe.
Niedermeier, DEAD !!!
THANK YOU.
I’m hoping that in the future blogs will look like this: http://tinyurl.com/8yz8vx
it would be better if it started with “I say†and ended with “old boy!†or alternately with “old man!â€
Quite.
Recently, there was a flap locally when a member of the local Republican Party forwarded an e-mail asking why the same people who could not get themselves out of New Orleans ahead of Katrina were able to get themselves to DC for the coronation. The e-mail was, of course, portrayed as “racially insensitive ” by the media. Of course, the Republican leadership meekly accepted the narrative fashioned by those who will never support them and apologized to those who will never be appeased.
I’m sure Patterico would approve – he probably doesn’t use the word “niggardly” any more either.
Because being pragmatic means ceding control of your expression to the biased, dishonest and ignorant.
I bet all the big rightwing sites will hurry to pick this post up. I do!
I mean, bless Dan, he still tries — linking Dr Helen and Glenn and PJM and Ace. In return he gets a Stacy McCain-alanche.
Still, he’s a trooper — and when this movement grows, I’m giving him a very nice expense account.
sashal, really dude…don’t waste your time.
Have you seen my antique Asian-from-the-East rug?
I heard Rush call Allahpundit an “oddball” today. I wonder if anyone else heard that. Yes, it was by inference as he was praising Hot Air’s Michelle Malkin and Ed Morrisey and, “they got some oddballs there too.”
Heh.
Jeff @ 26
Don’t tease us.
I was answering to Taylor….at # 19.
As far as prosecution?
The process is just starting.
We already seen what Yoo admissions has been….
I just donated enough for you two order 2 pizzas from Papa Johns. If you really cared though about traffic and links you could write an article about Holly Madison joining Dancing with the Stars.
After all, what’s a Stalinist movement without show trials?
No tease, PJ. Talked about it today. I need to pull the networking abilities of the regulars here together and get the portal right, but this is something that needs doing. I don’t mind being called an “oddball.” I don’t even mind if nobody knows who the fuck I am, ultimately.
But I do think these arguments are important to make, and I’m sick and tired of watching mouthpieces for classical liberalism / libertarianism / legal conservatism lose the fight without even realizing they’re in it.
Hell-to-the-yeah! Keep us posted. Maybe even us lurkers can aid and abet.
As far as prosecution?
The process is just starting.
You can take the boy out of the Commie…
COME ON BITCHES! TAKE ME ON! YOU AIN’T GONNA FREEZE ME OUT MUCH LONGER!
I’ll ask the same question I asked at Hot Air. If you could have a well-known conservative say:
1) “I want Obama’s terrible policies to be voted down so America can succeedâ€
or
2) “I want Obama to failâ€
which would you have them say?
#2 is pithier, sure. But it’s also WAY easier to twist in a way that will repel voters.
Do you want to phrase things in a way that makes it EASY or HARD for media cretins to distort what you’re saying?
I post daily on Obama’s reckless spending, ethically challenged nominees, broken promises, and other shortcomings. I have no illusions about how disastrous his policies are. I believe we have to take the fight to him.
But I want us to fight smart. You can say things in a way that’s easily distorted, or not. Rush says provocative things because it will benefit his career, and meanwhile, Republicans get put on the defensive. We spend days talking about whether Rush wants us to have a Depression, rather than talking about how Obama is mortgaging our children’s future and passing budgets amounting to $25,000 per taxpayer. Deficits of close to $2 trillion. That’s where our focus should be.
Instead we have this prominent guy make a speech and double down on a formulation that he KNOWS the drive-by media will distort. If it were necessary to phrase it that way, fine. But it’s not.
I want us to take the fight to the enemy and stand up for what we believe in. But I want us to do it in a smart way.
When you say “I hope X fails” then some people are going to hear that and nothing else you say.
#24 Sdferr
Paul Ryan is about as close as we currently have to an OUTLAW in the federal government. He’s definitely one of the good guys.
What language is that?
Beat it. You bore me. This is a site for individual freedom. You should be fucking ashamed of where you’ve wound up.
This is entirely my stupid opinion but Pat and certain other people on the right seem to think that if they play nice enough or don’t use certain language they will prove that they are worthy of discussion with certain people. They want to be “one of the good ones” with yellow fuckin stars on their jackets. Well fuck sorry to be the one to inform you life ain’t fair and that is not going to happen. These same assholes you are trying to court sat by and watched people wish death on Tony Snow. These same fucks said on HBO the world would have been better off if the VP would have been killed in a terrorist attack. Those are just two of the many incidents that are much worse than this bullshit. They said this without condemnation from their own side. That is funny to me considering that our side tears ourselves up, not over semantics, but over how the people that hate us twist our words to fit their narrative. Jesus christ guys grow some fuckin balls.
Limbaugh said both, and #2 clearly incorporated #1. I don’t have a problem with that, and I have no problem saying the same things. This isn’t complicated.
Pablo,
He prominently said #2 knowing it would stir up controversy. It’s smarter to say only #1 if the whole country is paying attention.
And they said it again and again and again about Bush. They insisted that it, Bush’s failure, needed to happen for the good of the country. And then they said McCain was Bush. And then Obama got elected.
oh heavens!
Do you want to phrase things in a way that makes it EASY or HARD for media cretins to distort what you’re saying?
Since you’re going to be distorted anyway, Pat, why not go with something that is compelling rather than bland? #1 is more nuanced but it’s also a yawner, forgotten in a moment.
Phil, he certainly is. I’d be damned proud to be represented by him in Congress. Instead I’m stuck with Cornelius McGillicuddy the IV. Makes me wanna take an IV of morphine, he does. Sad thing about Ryan is that his best ally with a brain to matters of fiscal sanity on the Senate side is Judd Gregg, who just had to go and shoot his own foot with that be-pleasant-gun he found. Sigh.
“And they said it again and again and again about Bush. They insisted that it, Bush’s failure, needed to happen for the good of the country. And then they said McCain was Bush. And then Obama got elected.”
So is it good to phrase things in ways that unnecessarily piss off short-attention-span voters? Because at least it shows you have balls and you’re tough and all that? Or is it bad because it loses us elections?
This isn’t about being nice or abandoning principles, Pablo. It’s about playing the game in a smart way.
Do we care about losing elections?
Patterico, he doesn’t take to the microphone without knowing he’s going to stir up controversy. Everything he says is controversial, as there are those determined to make it so and they’ve been doing it for decades now. He didn’t make Rahm and Friends decide to pick that statement, make it the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. That was Alinsky/Obama.
Oh noes! You called our fellow Americans “the enemy”!
The media is going to tear you a new asshole over that one.
Wanna try again, or maybe just not say anything?
That would probably be safest.
You don’t need a terribly long attention span to grok Limbaugh’s meaning. And if it’s too short to bother with that, you’re probably going to forget to vote anyway.
‘Since you’re going to be distorted anyway, Pat, why not go with something that is compelling rather than bland? #1 is more nuanced but it’s also a yawner, forgotten in a moment.”
I can see that argument. That’s the only decent argument for the way he phrased it. I happen to think that the risk of misinterpretation is bad enough that when the country is paying attention, you find some other way of making your argument compelling. But I wouldn’t say your argument is terrible; I just disagree in this particular case.
I don’t want us to be David Frum, who makes my skin crawl at times. Fight hard. But smart.
— Let me stop you right there. I don’t want to have to measure every word I say with the thought in mind that somebody is going to take me out of context. Instead, I’d like to be free to say what I mean, and when my meaning is obvious, I would like to know that honest people have my back — and will tell dishonest people to stop being dishonest, and stupid people that they need to smarten up before they presume to join the conversation.
But back to your example:
You’ve left out the context of number 2. With the proper context, they two mean the same thing, so I don’t much care how it’s said — and I certainly don’t expect a person who talks for a living to pre-think every utterance as if he’s a lawyer so that nobody looking to take him out of context will. I suggest you read my link to the Bennett piece again, and that will make things clearer.
Yeah. They could have gone with “I want Obama”. So? You are on the wrong side. You shouldn’t be concerning yourself with how easy it is to twist things. You should be working to make it less productive to do so.
As it stands, you’re part of the problem.
I want the freedom to phrase things my own way and have them mean what they mean. Again, you’re fighting the wrong battle.
Says you. Me, I say fuck the drive-by media, and fuck letting them frame what it is we say. And no, we don’t do that by carefully self-filtering. We do that by calling them on their dishonesty.
You want to fight them on their terms. I’m arguing that to fight on their terms is to have already lost the battle.
Some folks are going to hear what they want to hear. But you know what? It’s time to make them feel stupid for being stupid — not empowering their stupidity by pandering to it.
So is it good to phrase things in ways that unnecessarily piss off short-attention-span voters? Because at least it shows you have balls and you’re tough and all that? Or is it bad because it loses us elections?
Leave the elections to the politicians, Patrick, we have enough mealy-mouthed equivocators around. Or do you think those short attention spans are going to listen to your professorial lecture on the nuances of Obamian policy?
“You don’t need a terribly long attention span to grok Limbaugh’s meaning. And if it’s too short to bother with that, you’re probably going to forget to vote anyway.”
You have more faith in the hordes who voted for Obama than I do. I think a lot of mo-rons made it to the polls for him.
“It’s about playing the game in a smart way.”
No, it’s not. What you are doing is playing the game by their rules.
Pat again I repeat, it is funny how you say Obama is a “good man doing what he thinks is best for his country”, but do not extend the same courtesy to a random radio talk show host because he says 5 words that can make people that do not like Obama look bad to people that hate us anyway.
“Or do you think those short attention spans are going to listen to your professorial lecture on the nuances of Obamian policy?”
I ain’t runnin’ for squat and I don’t have the nation’s attention. I wish we had another Ronald Reagan. He never backed down but he didn’t go around saying he wanted people to fail either. He always made people feel optimistic and positive. He wasn’t about generating controversy, but about persuasion.
Some people seem to think persuasion is for pansies. It’s not. It’s how Ronald Reagan won elections. It’s the only way we will win elections.
Or is it bad because it loses us elections?
Evidence that this is what “lost the election”?
Can you provide examples of the lefties engaging in the sort of soft rhetoric you favor?
‘Cause what I remember is eight years of non-stop screeching obloquy against Chimpy McBusHitlerBurton.
That type of faux compromise is what got a loser like McCain nominated in the first place.
McCain was into “collegialism” and “reaching across the aisle”. He refused to go negative until it was too late.
How well did that work out?
Patterico,
You’ve missed the forest for the trees.
If he had said #1 instead, this post wouldn’t exist, and none of this would have hit the light of day.
For every short-attention span voter out there who only heard #2, there may be another who went out and really checked the context. Or heard it after they tuned Rush in to see what it was really all about.
The word got out BECAUSE he said #2; it’s what the Democrats and their allies in media did for the past 8 years. It works.
It’s about time our side did it instead of shrinking off to the corner like a just-beaten stepchild.
TV (Harry)
*gasp*
You said voters have short attention spans!
I think that kind of contemptuous invective is shameful and, well, just mean!
You better apologize now, and quit trying to screw us up by painting the party as ADD children.
Why are you taking the mantel of communications director anyway? You are obviously much too mean for the task!
“Pat again I repeat, it is funny how you say Obama is a “good man doing what he thinks is best for his countryâ€, but do not extend the same courtesy to a random radio talk show host”
Bullshit. Read my post. I praised Limbaugh.
You didn’t hear it because all you heard was “I want him to fail.” Thanks for making my point for me.
Me, I say fuck the drive-by media, and fuck letting them frame what it is we say.
Ditto.
You have more faith in the hordes who voted for Obama than I do.
Obama got 52%, including fraud.
Hint: it’s not necessary to sway all 52% of them in order to win the next election.
Misinterpretation isn’t a risk, it’s a fucking guarantee. You can either cede that to the liars, or you can engage in straight talk and stand by it. I prefer the latter.
Patterico,
While I certainly understand what you’re saying, I think it caves in too much and treats voters as idiots. Perhaps you’re right and we should treat them as such if we wish to win elections, but I also like keeping my integrity. And in the battle of winning elections and keeping my integrity, I’ve devised this simple equation: integrity > elections.
If that means “my team” loses the election in 2010/2012, I’m ok with that since it’s going to be hard for
the mediathe Left to defend annual multi-trillion dollar, plummeting stock values, and the general malaise of everyday life as we strip away more and more freedoms. Perhaps you’re correct and the electorate is a bunch of fucking idiots (they did vote for the One after all), but at a certain point, even they’ll get tired of the “Change” meme when all that’s left of it is the remaining change in their pockets.In the meantime, I’d like to keep my integrity and be honest with people about what I believe. Thanks much.
And thanks to Baracky and Rahm, you can’t expose yourself to virtually any media today and not be exposed to….Rush Limbaugh.
OK, Jeff, I concede. I[ll return the language, like an overdue book. Good luck with keeping the the thing in your personal library.
I ain’t runnin’ for squat and I don’t have the nation’s attention. I wish we had another Ronald Reagan. He never backed down but he didn’t go around saying he wanted people to fail either. He always made people feel optimistic and positive. He wasn’t about generating controversy, but about persuasion.
Some people seem to think persuasion is for pansies. It’s not. It’s how Ronald Reagan won elections. It’s the only way we will win elections.
Exactly, and Reagan was running for something. Rush isn’t. He’s under no obligation to soften the message. He’s teaching, he’s educating. And to do that, you need someone to listen to you. People are paying attention to him, and that’s the first step.
He won. And Rush ain’t running.
voters as idiots
Heh.
Indeed.
It strikes me as funny/odd that sashal, the dirty little Bolshevik, has managed to get dummerer.
“While I certainly understand what you’re saying, I think it caves in too much and treats voters as idiots. Perhaps you’re right and we should treat them as such if we wish to win elections, but I also like keeping my integrity.”
Me too. I say what I believe and I try not to say it in ways that are easily misinterpreted. I don’t always succeed but it’s stupid not to try. You’re posing a false dichotomy; to say what you think, you don’t have to say it in a way that’s easily misinterpreted.
It no doubt makes you feel better to phrase it as a choice between what I’m suggesting and integrity. That way you don’t have to take what I’m saying seriously. But it’s a false choice that you pose.
When I was in the Navy, those of us who were haters would write the simple but effective FTN wherever we could whenever we could. I realize that was sort of ridiculous now in reference to the navy… but I have this urge to start spray painting FBO everywhere. It’s so much more 2009 than “tea party” is.
“Misinterpretation isn’t a risk, it’s a fucking guarantee. You can either cede that to the liars, or you can engage in straight talk and stand by it. I prefer the latter.”
Me too, Pablo. Where did you get the idea I don’t?
As an aside I appreciate both Pat and Jeff actually discussing this.
Thanks.
FBO mother fuckers!
RoA – here you go.
Well shit! Now you’re saying Rush is stupid, along with the rest of us!
Every time you open your mouth, you insult conservatives. You should learn to self censor more effectively.
Oh – you must’ve been in back in the 80s, I take it
Patterico’s out of luck on this one in my book. I’m in favor of seizing the middle ground, not conceding it.
“Exactly, and Reagan was running for something. Rush isn’t. He’s under no obligation to soften the message. He’s teaching, he’s educating. And to do that, you need someone to listen to you. People are paying attention to him, and that’s the first step.”
People listened to Reagan. But I get your point. You’re making an argument for being provocative. That’s a respectable argument.
I didn’t say that. But I’m tempted to.
Media Matters is all you need to look at. See what they do and look at who parrots their lies. You can either walk on rhetorical eggshells hoping that they won’t find a way to twist your necessarily vanilla statements, or you can say whats on your mind and argue with the liars when they lie, you can defend your words and their meaning.
Lots of people don’t get the pulpit to make that defense. Rush isn’t one of those people.
So, apparently “Change” meant a return to the Clinton war room, complete to all the original players, Carville, Begala, etc.
Patterico avers:
Persuasion, in the conventional sense, is only possible as long as empiricism is intact. Otherwise it’s not persuasion, it’s demagoguery and rank populism. This country’s founding principles are not tactical and as the founders were at great pains to point out repeatedly, it’s lost when we collectively lose the ability to appreciate it.
Granularly parsing language to avoid the appearance of impropriety is not tantamount to defending liberty; it is the diametric.
FUBO is too long. I am a engineer. I demand that my acronyms be as short and meaningful as possible.
Pat – why not just accept it as part of the conservative culture and adapt?
What Rush said wasn’t easily misinterpreted. It was easily taken out of context for the purpose of allowing it to be misinterpreted. Those two things are entirely different.
It is you who is providing the false dichotomy. And it is yet another reason why you are contributing to the problem.
But which got more of your attention and effort, CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry’s bullshit set-up question about Limbaugh’s statement to Press Sec. Gibbs and Gibb’s bullshit response to the question, or Limbaugh’s initial statement itself?
Straightforward, not provocative. It’s only provocative when taken out of context.
Patterico,
I think all of us “get” what you’re saying, and perhaps you are right. Maybe we can only get out our message through a media focused lens where it will naturally be distorted through a leftist prism.
There really isn’t too much we can do about that but a couple of points are in order:
A) How’s the MSM’s credibility doing these days? Their approval ratings are slightly south of Darth Vader at this point.
B) The electorate is pretty dense right now, and was looking for a saviour. Eventually, they’ll realize they’ve been had.
At that point, “I hope he fails” is going to start sounding pretty good to them….ie “Because of that fucker, I’ve lost my entire savings and haven’t had a job in 2 years. I don’t give a shit if he gave me community organizing job training benefits. I hope that fucker fails and gets booted out of office.”
Keep in mind, Carter had higher approval ratings than Baracky does now. And Reagan had much lower approval ratings.
How’d that work out again?
Anyway, McCain’s campaign was ostensibly predicated on precisely the kind of tactical strategery you seem to be affirming here and would seem to belie the supposed electoral superiority of same.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=FBO
Give number 3 a thumbs up.
Malaclypse —
If I remember, Patterico seemed to think McCain was running the dirtier campaign. Or at least, his was no cleaner than Mr Obama’s.
This whole debate is stupid. “I want Obama to fail.” The ” Obama’s policies” is unnecessary to the statement. What the hell else would Rush have been wanting him to fail at? Tying his shoes? Picking the bestest puppy in the whole wide world for his daughters? Finding the door to the Oval Office?… oh wait. Anyway, what else are Presidents remembered for if not their policies? Isn’t that what a President is judged by at the end of the day? Nitpick superfluous words all you want, Mr. Paterico. “I want Obama to fail” stands as is.
That was somewhere between a flying elbow off the top rope and a figure-four leglock.
We’ve had enough of letting them frame the argument. It’s time to grow some balls and call them on their lies. The rank-and-file American can discern the truth when given context. Even Joe the Plumber.
um…
Anyway, I’ve said what I had to say, and on this question there really is no middle ground. We are talking about communication here. For it to work, we must have shared ideas about how it works.
If we’re now going to insist that a person not only has to mean what he says, but he has to make sure that what he says can’t be taken any other way by those intentionally hoping to distort the message, the best option is to pull a later Sam Beckett and just say nothing.
Ceding the ground means you’ve already lost the battle.
Oh, look. Rush is just a gangster/clown.
Who wants to reel from the sting of Timothy Egan’s words? Who wants to stuff them down his throat? Which does he deserve?
“Straightforward, not provocative. It’s only provocative when taken out of context.”
No, no, no. Rush knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he said “I hope he fails.” He was deliberately stirring a controversy.
Jeffersonian makes the best argument I’ve seen for that, by saying that Rush is trying to build a greater audience for his ideas. Not a bad argument.
But let’s not pretend that this is about poor Rush just saying what he believes and, shock of all shocks, being misinterpreted in ways he never expected. He knew exactly what he was doing.
I believe in saying flat-out what I believe. I have people threatening to file complaints against me with my State Bar, having letters delivered to my home insinuating that they’re going to sue me, writing my office claiming I’m a racist, etc. etc. etc. More of this goes on than I talk about publicly. And that’s fine. It’s part of the game of having a blog. I keep saying what I think — and I respect the idea that you should be able to be straightforward and have people have your back.
I think you’ve read me long enough, Pablo, to know this.
All I’m saying is that Rush was being deliberately provocative. It’s like (not as bad as, but similar in some ways to) opening a conversation by saying “You know, Hitler (or Stalin or Mussolini or whoever) did one thing right . . .” and then going on to praise how they made the train run on time or whatever. You’ll get people’s attention, for sure. But you also KNOW you’ll alienate some people.
“BURN NOTICE” FINALE!
OUTLAW!
Hi there!
Man, that’s one scary broad, Pablo
#132 LOL, you have a point. But looking at Mrs Obama, I don’t think that’s ever gonna be an option for poor Baracky.
I think that’s garden variety Limbaugh. Now, I grant you that he knew they’ve been trying to make him “the face of the Republican party” before he made that comment, so he might have considered it a bit of red meat for the oppo’s. But it doesn’t strike me as being the least bit out of the ordinary for him to say. It’s the truth as he sees it.
>>All I’m saying is that Rush was being deliberately provocative
Not very sound-bitey.
Sashal is free to take a long one off a short one anytime afer he pays up on the steak dinner he’s going to owe me.
If Rush was being deliberately provocative (and I’m content to cede that he was), then what was Ed Henry doing? What was Robert Gibbs doing? Are neither of these two Obama men interesting at all? Aren’t their deliberate distortions interesting enough to be hammered until the cows come home?
Hi there!
Pretty sure I’ve seen that doll in the window of a porn shop.
So what? Awareness doesn’t make him any less right or wrong. In fact, if it helps flush out arguments like the one you’re making, he should do it more often.
That’s what I’d do.
Because the argument you are making is the death knell of free speech. It necessarily gives the power of language to any group willing to insist it means what they say it means, regardless of what its utterer intended — and regardless, even, whether or not they even believe their own bullshit (which half the time they don’t. See, eg, here).
You response? Be more careful how you say things and those groups will have a harder time reframing the meaning. My response? Tell them that’s not what I meant, and you don’t get to decide what I meant.
I like my way better.
It’s more American.
steak dinner
What was the bet? I must’ve missed that one.
Well, that’s just intolerable. Let’s smack him on the wrist. That’ll teach him!
I can certainly see your point Patterico.
(BTW, anyone else digging this “red-on-red” fire, while the British leave Washington in a huff and the economy decides to fly south for the spring?)
…and of course muzzle him, lest the poor retards think he speaks for <gasp> <shudder> US!
Now, you have to worry about such things, because you’ve got a job and a reputation to protect from people who would seek to hurt you by twisting things you’ve said. I can respect that you need to be more careful in order to protect yourself, and I can see that you are as you go out of your way to be even handed and respectful in your commentary. But Rush doesn’t have that problem, so why should he worry about it? He’s not going to get hurt here, so why cede anything to the liars?
Remember what happened the last time they tried this?
I completely missed Gabrielle Anwar’s epc performance in the finale of Burn Notice. Surely, it will be on again, hopefully tonight.
It’s not as though this is the first time that the MSM and the left has taken Rush out of context. The morons that I have lunch with despise Rush and yet they never listen to him. Never. Because they “know” all about him from a variety of sources. It didn’t really matter how Rush phrased this. It was gonna get twisted into whatever the left needed it to be. Perhaps they can get their followers to focus on Rush and forget what a royal monkey stomping Wall St. is taking.
No, no, no. Rush was responding to the meme of the day, back shortly after the inauguration, when we were all being told “we need to get behind the president in this time of crisis”, “just give him a chance”, and “this is a time for bipartisanship”.
Rush said screw that, Obama wants to implement socialist policies, and I want him to fail.
Now, if you want to get on the side of the disingenuous liars that twist his words to make him look purely self serving, along any other person that wants to stop Obamas agenda, you are free to do that.
I’m not though, and I’ll think you a dickless wonder if you do.
My, how EVER did we get to such a place…?
This was a calculated move on the part of the White House. Limbaugh could have said exactly what you said in your #2 quote upthread and it would matter not a whit. No matter what Limbaugh says or how he says it, the left will hate him. He understands this and more importantly, doesn’t care.
This is a classic example of the war room tactics of the Clinton era. Sad to say, Pat, you have played along with it.
I want him to not only fail, I want him to fuck off. FBO!
SBP,
Sashal beleives that Obama will “make great strides in combating terrorism.” If couse, Obama makes it hard to collect. Despite how obviously excremental President Bush’s policies vis terrorism were, President Obama isn’t changing any of them for the next 12 months or so.
“Media Matters is all you need to look at. See what they do and look at who parrots their lies. You can either walk on rhetorical eggshells hoping that they won’t find a way to twist your necessarily vanilla statements, or you can say whats on your mind and argue with the liars when they lie, you can defend your words and their meaning.”
Still a false dichotomy. You can say what’s on your mind and be deliberately provocative, or say what’s on your mind and not be deliberately provocative. Rush did the former, with premeditation — and Jeffersonian mounts a decent defense for it (the best argument for Rush’s approach I’ve seen).
Sorry if this has been mentioned already, but isn’t this likely to increase Limbaugh’s ratings? They may turn in to hear the “hate monger” (or, more likely, tune in to find out what all the shouting is about). Obviously this is good for Limbaugh, but isn’t more people listening to conservative sources a good thing for all of us?
There’s a famous story about Digital Equipment Corporation and Data General (two rival minicomputer firms, now both defunct/absorbed).
DEC was the big dog in the field. Data General was an unknown startup.
Data General placed a lot of extremely aggressive ads in the trades, and DEC responded by having their salesmen bad-mouth Data General to every customer.
The deal is, most of those customers had never even heard of Data General.
According to one source the customer reaction was something akin to “What’s Data General’s address, so I can be sure not to go there. What’s their phone number, so I can be sure not to call it?”
So, there’s that.
Yes. It takes effort on the part of the listener.
‘No, no, no. Rush was responding to the meme of the day, back shortly after the inauguration, when we were all being told “we need to get behind the president in this time of crisisâ€, “just give him a chanceâ€, and “this is a time for bipartisanshipâ€.”
lee, are you honestly denying that Limbaugh knew the VERY FIRST TIME HE SAID IT that he was saying something very controversial?
Sashal beleives that Obama will “make great strides in combating terrorism.â€
Ah. He’s going to do that with the massive defense budget cuts he’s got on the burner, I suppose.
Well, I have to say that I wouldn’t be sorry to see you lose that bet, but I’m afraid you’re going to win.
“Sorry if this has been mentioned already, but isn’t this likely to increase Limbaugh’s ratings? They may turn in to hear the “hate monger†(or, more likely, tune in to find out what all the shouting is about). Obviously this is good for Limbaugh, but isn’t more people listening to conservative sources a good thing for all of us?”
I mentioned it in my post. Obviously he chose the way he framed his message in a way designed to stir controversy. The interesting question is whether that’s productive.
Jeffersonian makes the best argument I’ve seen for that, by saying that Rush is trying to build a greater audience for his ideas. Not a bad argument.
Exactly. Keep in mind, also, if you’re talking about electoral politics, he has 20 months to expand on that “hook” and more than 600 radio stations to get the message out.
One last time. Ed Henry. Liar. Robert Gibbs. Liar. But focus on these two foul players?
Oh, no. No, no, no. Must focus on the guy who at least tries to tell the truth about the world. Must show him to be wrong. That’s the way to grace. Cripes.
Okay. I see that Patterico is pointedly ignoring my arguments — both in the post and in answer to his questions in the thread — so I’ll retire for the time being.
Keep pretending you’re debating, Patrick. But you’re wrong — and your argument is an argument for a way of looking at language that will cripple any ground for establishing meaning outside of pure mob rule.
OUTLAW!
(you can go ahead and tweet all your buddies on twitter with that last bit. it’s to giggle!)
>>I want him to not only fail, I want him to fuck off
Heh.
I would like him to resolve his inner demons and not be as angry as evidently is, b/c he is taking it out on us.
I mean, you can all tell that he’s an angry angry man, can’t you?
Is that an incendiary remark? I don’t think so.
Yes and no.
Rush did indeed know exactly what he was doing. He was trusting the “drive bys” to be true to their establised MO and to deliberately, calculatedly, take him out of context. To that extent, he was being true to himself. It’s the tried and true brand model he’s been using for 20 years. Were he to quit, he’d quit being what he is.
You want that. I don’t. Not that I relish the distractions (as Techie points out the least productive of which is arguing with each other about how to speak when we all agree on what to say). But because, it’s an effective illustration,if we use it, of the deliberate calculation of the media and their willing talking point distributors. I’m not willing to walk away from a fight. Especially where I know I’m right.
The “red on red” fire is healthy and necessary. Like competition, let the best ideas move to the forefront.
But in the meantime, don’t let the dirty, rotten socialists get away with it. The Republicans (god, I can’t even say that right now without cringing) need to start getting their balls together and not just oppose Baracky’s Third Way Marxism, but ARTICULATE specifically what the opposition’s policies would be. And if that means using strong language, so be it. You can’t not say something because you’re afraid someone else will twist your words.
Newsflash: the Left will twist your words. Particularly now since their policies are a complete and utter failure for all the world to see. So they need enemies. And that means you.
So you might as well be honest about what you mean and not mince words.
Patterico, he knows that EVERYTHING he says is controversial because there’s an industry dedicated to making it so. And he knows that he’s the administration’s target and has been since they figured out that Bush bashing was played out, which happened several weeks ago. So, in order to be noncontroversial, he’d have to just shut up. Which is what they want and they’re not going to get.
This backfires on them. Mark my words.
Sorry to interrupt one last time, but this needed addressing.
I don’t find this at all unproductive. This is crucial. If the right begins to adopt the linguistic assumptions of the left, the game is over. Period. I don’t know how to make that any more clear.
Here’s the quote:
He knew he was stirring up controversy.
I remember I first read that when someone at the L.A. Times wrote about it. So I looked for his quote, because I was eager to defend him. “Why, Limbaugh wasn’t saying that he wants Obama’s policies to drive America into the ground,” I planned to write. “He just hopes we don’t enact those policies because he doesn’t think they’ll work.”
Trouble was, I read the whole passage and I wasn’t sure what he meant. Was he actually saying that, assuming Obama’s policies are passed, he still wants them to fail (and see the economy run into the ground in the short term) because he thinks that IN THE LONG RUN socialism is bad for us? Or was he saying just that he didn’t want Obama’s policies enacted?
I couldn’t tell. And while you could make a case for defending either interpretation, the former is a lot harder sell. I couldn’t defend the guy because I didn’t quite understand what he was saying. He didn’t make it clear. And I never did the post.
So I paid attention and I still couldn’t tell precisely what he meant.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html
Try this some time. Go into a room by yourself, and talk to a tape recorder microphone for three hours straight. Be interesting. Be yourself. Talk about what you believe.
Then give the tape to someone that hates you and see if they can find a 5 second clip that they can take out of context to make you sound bad.
Repeat five times a week for 20 years.
You think you could do it “smarter” than Rush?
GM did the same for Dodge once upon a time.
“But because, it’s an effective illustration,if we use it, of the deliberate calculation of the media and their willing talking point distributors.”
See, I think we have enough of those.
“I’m not willing to walk away from a fight. Especially where I know I’m right.”
Nor am I. But I’m not sure this was a fight worth starting. There are enough other fights out there that NEED to e fought.
You have more faith in the hordes who voted for Obama than I do. I think a lot of mo-rons made it to the polls for him.
Sure. But what about the dog that didn’t bark? All those conservatives who didn’t turn out for McCain. Perhaps some of them would have shown up at the polls had McCain not been so cowed by the media and actually said things that those conservatives wanted to hear.
Instead he left Palin twisting in the wind.
@162 – Yes, I can tell he is angry. And I hope that very soon he can tell that a majority of this nation wants him to fuck off. We can be angry as well. It is also our right.
Following your advice? No. Having a bit of courage and standing up to the liars, it can, but it takes a backbone to do that.
Try this some time. Go into a room by yourself, and talk to a tape recorder microphone for three hours straight. Be interesting. Be yourself. Talk about what you believe.
Then give the tape to someone that hates you and see if they can find a 5 second clip that they can take out of context to make you sound bad.
Repeat five times a week for 20 years.
You think you could do it “smarter†than Rush?
Not a chance.
I’m just saying that on this one particular issue, he knew exactly what he was getting himself into. He knew it would benefit his ratings by stirring controversy. You can argue about whether it benefits conservatism generally. I happen to think it doesn’t, because I think it’s a distraction. But I respect Jeffersonian’s contrary argument, which makes sense to me.
Phrasing it as a “either you’re honest or not” argument does not make sense to me, because there are honest ways to say things that aren’t deliberately provocative. I’ve already made the argument upthread.
I see your points Patterico, and I’m not dismissing them out of hand, but I think this round goes to Jeff. When you subject free speech to A)the mob rule’s interpretation of what THEY thought YOU meant, rather than B) what YOU meant, then free speech is pretty much dead.
If we self-censor ourselves in the name of A), then we might as well sing kumbuya and embrace our new collectivist overlords.
“Following your advice? No. Having a bit of courage and standing up to the liars, it can, but it takes a backbone to do that.”
I do it all the time.
It’s only a distraction when you persist in allowing the media to misrepresent what he said.
That’s their version of a distraction and you’ve fallen for it.
“It’s only a distraction when you persist in allowing the media to misrepresent what he said.”
Didja read my post?
Rush had spent months talking about what he thought Obamas goals were as president.
When he said he hopes Obama fails, it was not without massive context.
This didn’t all spring out of a vacuum.
Absolutely. I’m proceeding from an assumption that speaking openly, plainly and without apology is the default condition.
Why are you conflating Obama with America?
They’re not the same, Pat.
“If we self-censor ourselves in the name of A), then we might as well sing kumbuya and embrace our new collectivist overlords.”
There’s enough strawmen in this thread to feed a pack of horses. I have never argued for self-censorship and I don’t know how to make that any more clear. If y’all would engage the argument I actually make rather than the one you’d prefer to engage, you’d find it harder to dismiss.
All I know is I’m done with people-pleasing.
Patterico, is there a word of that quote that strikes you as being wrong? Do you have a substantive argument with anything he said in it? Or is your complaint purely stylistic?
I’m endeavoring to presume the scant (nil) attention you’ve paid my argument is an oversight, Mr. Patterico, Sir. I’ll recapitulate it:
1. Persuasion depends upon the agreement to some kind of system for determining truth between myself and the person whom I wish to persuade.
2. Political language is regularly parsed by those on the left and in the media and cajoled into any interpretation that proves apposite to their general philosophical persuasion and/or temporal agenda.
3. The above #2 is not merely a emergent tactic; it is the result of an assault on the foundations of the enlightenment paradigm, perpetrated by those whose philosophies are in conflict with the enlightenment paradigm or just those with a will to power.
4. The undermining of empiricism scuttles the only demonstrably effective shared system for adducing truth.
5. Persuasion becomes impossible. Political allegiance becomes a function of tribalism and ultimately totalitarianism because words are no longer capable of conveying meaning.
2+2=5
“Oh, look. Rush is just a gangster/clown.
Who wants to reel from the sting of Timothy Egan’s words? Who wants to stuff them down his throat? Which does he deserve?”
Watch it. Timothy Egan is a professional journalist. (He’s the buffoon who wrote a column complaining about Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin getting book deals)
This whole debate isn’t even silly. IT. IS. MORONIC. I understand where it comes from. I live in NYC. Most of my friends are affluent, ivyish-educated liberals and for the sake of getting along I’m a little cautious in the way I express my political opinions. It’s not something I’m particularly proud of, but I understand the liberal mind well enough that I’ve learned how to play David Brooks when the subject of politics comes up. But the difference is that I shed the disease when I’m not around them and its obvious that some conservatives not only can’t do that but they’re stupid enough to think it is winning political behavior against these people. It is not. Wake up.
you are even mis characterizing the argument. Rush specifically does want Obama – and his policies – to fail.
Not be voted down, because that could merely shelve them until some future date.
Rush wants them to go down in flames. Publicly and very obviously an epic fail. See: Dustbin of History
That way lies progress.
Works for me.
See if expanding the Limbaugh quote a bit helps you all out where it seems to have stymied Patrick. I’ll bold the part Patrick provided so you can see what kind of an editorial decision HE made:
I’m not really having a lot of trouble with the actual quote. I think Patrick might have been less confused had he simply included the lines immediately preceding those he excerpted, namely, “Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work.”
All of a sudden, the “this” has a referent. And it is clear what Limbaugh hope fails.
Trouble was, you did know what he meant. You just stated it.
He’s elaborated on it further since then and used language remarkably similar to what you did, even if it really weren’t crystal clear from the graph you quoted above.
So what’s stopping you? Indignation that Rushis being “provocative?” You’re 20 years behind the curve on that one.
Nor am I. But I’m not sure this was a fight worth starting. There are enough other fights out there that NEED to e fought.
I disagree. There’s no need to shun intra-party debates. On the contrary, they’re quite healthy. No one is attacking you personally here Patterico. It’s a disagreement. Nothing more.
But I do agree that we need to spend less time disagreeing with each other and more time disagreeing with the collectivist scum dismissing the “tracking polls” in our country.
Patterico writes:
I’ve engaged you and you’ve ignored each and every one of my comments in this thread.
I’ve answered you directly. Quoted what you wrote and responded.
Like I said, you don’t want to debate. You want to persuade a few people here and call it a night.
“Patterico, is there a word of that quote that strikes you as being wrong? Do you have a substantive argument with anything he said in it? Or is your complaint purely stylistic?”
Pablo,
I definitely have a problem with the style. On the substance, it depends on what he means.
If he means he wants Obama’s policies to be defeated, I’m on board.
We could have a whole debate about the other possible meaning. But I don’t know what he means.
OT: Sanjay Gupta throws himself under the bus.
I always figured him for a smart man.
The trouble with insisting on following Grand Strategy is that the bad guys are out there making decisions too. Sometimes you accept the engagement that’s offered because that’s what’s there. The ones we so carefully plan, never materialize.
>>All I know is I’m done with people-pleasing.
She’s through
being cool
She’s through
being cool
Eliminate the ninnies and the twits
Rush Limbaugh is a big fat meanie !!!
Oh, well of course Jeff said it much better than me, but in my defense I was trying to be pithy.
Really? We’ve managed then, either to illustrate the hypocricy inherent in the mdeia to, at least, a bare majority of the general population so that they no longer listen to them, or to make it so impossible for the media to get away with it that they abandon the practice?
If you’re no longer interested in fighting the fight, I’d prefer you just said so.
I AM A NIGHTMARE WALKING / PSYCHOPATH TALKING / KING OF MY JUNGLE JUST A GANSTA STALKIN’…
Guess what? Jeff without the constraint of diplomacy is a dangerous beast.
Ok Patterico, we’re too provocative. Got it loud and clear. Am I going to tell some liberal granny to fuck off? No, of course not.
But since the election, I’ve been more vocal with friends who sit on the fence that I have been in the past. I’ve pointed out that Baracky thinks a P/E ration is a “Profits/Earnings” ratio (hint: it’s actually a price/earnings ratio) and he said as such during the same press conference as his dismissal of the stock market as a tracking poll.
I pointed out that this is indicative of someone not making a mistake, but rather someone who doesn’t know ANYTHING about economics, finance, or anything having to do with money. I suppose this would not really be a big deal were this said person not the President of the United States.
Then I pointed out that it was probably dumb of the electorate to put such a person in such a position where they were in so far over their heads. Provocative? I suppose, but I meant every fucking word of it.
Pat, he’s said it again and again. He said it when he first made the statement. he said it again at CPAC. He’s been saying it over and over and over. He’s been perfectly clear as to what he means. What makes you wonder what he means? He’s used perfectly clear, perfectly straightforward language to express himself.
Is it possible for America to succeed while Obama fails?
If not what does that say about the relative strength of our nation?
It’s not like Rush is calling for America’s defeat, although some would have you believe so.
Of course some of those actually did call for America’s defeat and I don’t remember much soul searching over any mis characterization of their intent.
When looking for the quote again, I remembered I had seen it in my comments section, here:
http://patterico.com/2009/03/02/does-policy-matter/#comment-466900
Let’s include this part that my commenter had omitted:
“If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work.”
What’s “this”? The enactment of these policies? Or the policies themselves?
Is he hoping these things don’t happen? Or that, if they do happen, that the ecomony still goes down in flames?
I’m not sure which, and I don’t think he made it clear. Like I say, I started to write a post defending the guy — until I realized I didn’t even know what I was defending.
Pablo, tell me which.
#135
I think Patterico is missing the real point. No matter what Rush or any opposition figure says, no matter how “non-provacitively” they say it, the present administration will use it against them. They will misrepresent, misquote, or outright lie to win their point. So we might as well say what we mean in a blunt manner. To do otherwise is to, as Jeff says, allow them to set the rules as to how politics can be debated in this country.
I’m not sure we came to a resolution here. So who “won”?
Somebody pass the popcorn.
What have you done for me lately? Are you just tired? No shame in saying so. I turned down a deployment recently because it was my choice and I was tired. But don’t ask everyone else, much less Rush, who clearly ain’t tired, to take a nap with you.
poppa india,
Blunt is good. Deliberately provocative — depends.
Here’s his CPAC speech:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030209/content/01125106.guest.html
Which kind of failure does he mean, Pablo?
You could always call Rush up and ask him, Pat
“What have you done for me lately? Are you just tired? No shame in saying so.”
I dunno. Do you read my blog? Honest question.
That’s hairsplitting. He doesn’t want the policies enacted because they’re ruinous. Obama wants to enact them and he wants Obama to fail. He wouldn’t have to want the policies to fail as they’re destined to do so without being driven by his desire. Rather, he doesn’t want them to have the chance to fail, therefore, he wants Obama to fail to enact them.
“You could always call Rush up and ask him, Pat”
I think I’m at work when his show is on. I’ve heard him before plenty but I’m not currently a regular listener. Read his speech, listened to some of it, and read his initial comment saying “I hope he fails.” I still don’t know exactly what he means. I know he has the country’s best interests at heart.
You could email him, Pat
Are my comments showing up? Give me a yay or nay, somebody.
ARE YOU READING THIS, PEOPLE?
“That’s hairsplitting. He doesn’t want the policies enacted because they’re ruinous. Obama wants to enact them and he wants Obama to fail. He wouldn’t have to want the policies to fail as they’re destined to do so without being driven by his desire. Rather, he doesn’t want them to have the chance to fail, therefore, he wants Obama to fail to enact them.”
It’s not hairsplitting at all. His comments are being portrayed this way: he knows the policies will pass. He hopes that, once they do pass, they fail — meaning the country goes to shit — so that the policies are shown to be bad. Then, we can go back to his policies.
Now, one could defend that argument. But it would also alienate a hell of a lot of people.
You seem to be confident that’s not the argument he’s making. Could you give me a quote to reassure me that’s not what he means? I might have missed it.
Yay Jeff G.
You don’t wish to. At this point it would mean backing down and you’re too invested in the position. Classic tactical blunder.
“You could email him, Pat”
Yeah, but don’t you already know the answer? I mean, he’s so blunt and everything — certainly his meaning must be crystal clear.
It seems pretty clear to me.
>>I dunno. Do you read my blog? Honest question
Honestly, only sometimes. If you get linked by somebody else and it looks like something either insightful or a candidate for a ‘Real Men of Genius’ commercial. Oddly, its usually both. Never read the comments.
Oh for crying out loud! Listen to what the man himself said!
He doesn’t want Obamas agenda to succeed. He doesn’t want them voted on. If voted on, he doesn’t want them to pass. If passed he doesn’t want them to be implemented. If implemented, we are fucked, which is why he doesn’t want Obama to succeed.
It’s just not that hard.
oh, uh, YAY and all that
Rush’s message, while true, has the added benefit of being like Mencken’s dead cat: “The iconoclast proves enough when he proves by his blasphemy that this or that idol is defectively convincing – that at least one visitor to the shrine is left full of doubts. The liberation of the human mind has been best furthered by gay fellows who heaved dead cats into sanctuaries and then went roistering down the highways of the world, proving to all men that doubt, after all, was safe – that the god in the sanctuary was a fraud. One horse-laugh is worth ten-thousand syllogisms.” And that’s what truly scares Obama: the horse-laugh.
Yay! Jeff.
“You don’t wish to. At this point it would mean backing down and you’re too invested in the position. Classic tactical blunder.”
No, getting involved in a land war in Asia is the classic tactical blunder.
RTO Trainer, you know the answer. Tell me and give me a quote.
Read my post. I saw something from a commenter on Hot Air that caused me to realize I was wrong about an aspect of this, so I corrected it. Do it all the time. You assume I won’t but that’s because you don’t read my blog and don’t know me.
And that’s the problem. Or, worrying about that instead of rejecting it is the problem. The man has a right to his clear meaning.
His meaning is clear. You said so in your post. Here, let me remind you, and you can ignore it pointedly. You wrote:
Am I taking you out of context? Because you seemed fairly sure way back earlier this evening when you wrote the post.
Pat, you know Limbaugh doesn’t believe that the policies have any chance of working, don’t you? He isn’t holding out against that possibility. Never has and likely never will. He posits that they will fail, every day he posits that they will fail. Why? Because every time they have been tried in human history, they have proven to fail, often catastrophically. How then could he possibly mean “Hope that the policies don’t work”? According to him, they can’t possibly work. So what’s left? What could he mean, I wonder?
“He doesn’t want Obamas agenda to succeed. He doesn’t want them voted on. If voted on, he doesn’t want them to pass. If passed he doesn’t want them to be implemented. If implemented, we are fucked, which is why he doesn’t want Obama to succeed.”
How do you know he’s not saying: if implemented, he doesn’t want them to succeed, because if they do (and the economy improves) we’ll get more of the same, which will be bad in the long run.
Nope. Should I? Might I be missing some context becasue I don’t?
Sometimes I don’t qualify as a “people” but I can see your comments, yes.
There’s no doubt that he wants Americans to do well in the long run, and he thinks Obama-style socialism will be bad in the long run. Nobody’s saying Rush Limbaugh is evil and wants Americans to suffer.
But let’s assume Obama’s policies are implemented. Does he want the economy to go to shit in the short run so that we’ll be better off in the long run? Anyone know? Anyone have a quote that makes it clear? From Limbaugh?
Oh for pity sake, why would you even bother engaging with someone dumb enough to make the intrpretation you just posted? Talk about convoluted.
Patterico…think about what you just said. If his policies are implemented and then fail miserably, WER ARE ALL FUCKED. I’d rather keep my job rather than lose it just so I can give Baracky a little nyuk nyuk. That wouldn’t do me much of a world of good, now would it?
How do you know he doesn’t simply mean: If implemented, America descends into socialism and no matter if we’re seemingly ‘better off’, in the long run we will have lost our country, our heritage, and our freedom.
B/c that’s what he means.
He’s repeatedly said, and in the quotes in question, that he doesn’t accept the possibility that they could succeed. He thinks they’re poison. What you’re suggesting is that he might not be saying that he hopes Obama fails to drive us off a 1000′ cliff, he’s hoping that we go splat at the bottom when he does it.
“Oh for pity sake, why would you even bother engaging with someone dumb enough to make the intrpretation you just posted? Talk about convoluted.”
That’s how the media is portraying it. Again, he could take more care to exclude that as a possible interpretation, but that would be less controversial.
>>He hopes that, once they do pass, they fail — meaning the country goes to shit — so that the policies are shown to be bad.
So, you think the policies are correct? The best ones to be had?
Seriously?
What the fuck is this onesy-twosy crap? Who are you? Both of these propositions are … unrealistic. I splain. Your dirty socialist piece of shit president is not some notably super-hot George Soros butt boy what America has rallied behind. Not really. No. not even. 52%. Really, really ponder that number. Not even remotely proportional to the marketing what our dirty socialist media produces for the slimy fuck 24/7 is it? No. Not at all.
Ok. So if that filthy piece of Chicago street trash isn’t all that big a deal, what are we talking about? I splain more. This is a story about a script. I know. It’s very meta, but the ending is already written, and Teleprompter boi can’t fail. He can’t fail cause this isn’t really about the shallow deranged America-hating piece of shit. It’s not about his skeezey-assed woman either. It’s about some marxist motherfuckers what have control of my little country’s Congress, my little country’s regulatory apparatus, my little country’s treasury, my little country’s universities, my little countries media, my little country’s foreign policy, and my little country’s economy.
Have we seen this movie already before, boys and girls? Yes. Yes, we have. Just recently people what are moral and kind to animals were hopey and hopeful that Baracky prototype Hugo Chavez would fail, but no he did not, did he? Why? Duh. You’re not stupid. The deck was stacked. Failure was never really realistic.
Dirty socialists what amass the raw power what George Soros has amassed don’t fail. The always bring their little country to its fucking knees. So don’t furrow your brow about that whole hope he fails nonsense. It just looks goofy. What I would say is that your dirty socialist little Chris Matthewses and NPRs and Newsweeks… they are delighted to have the fantasy of a beleaguered neophyte piece of shit what is opposed opposed opposed by “Republicans” what hope he will fail. But what our coddled piece of shit president is most definitely not is beleaguered, and playing into that narrative is unamusing. To me anyway. The rest Jeff said plenty wonderful I thought. I wish I had some cookies.
jeez I have so many comments to read
Y’all are expressing such shock that ANYONE could interpret his comments the way I’ve suggested. But that interpretation is ALL OVER THE PLACE. If you really doubt that, I’ll dig up examples. But do you not realize that? If you don’t, then you don’t understand the problem.
Now, I tend to agree with the interpretation of most here. The problem is, he didn’t clearly say it — so the other interpretation is left floating out there.
“So, you think the policies are correct? The best ones to be had?
Seriously?”
So, you think killing people for being black is correct? Seriously?
That’s about as much of a fucking non-sequitur as what you just did.
Only if you listen to Vizini, who, I’d point out was wrong on every other point he made.
I was perfectly happy with the one you posted. Jeff amplified it. Pablo offered another handful. One more from me is going to drop the scales from your eyes? If it did, you’d admit it?
I’ve seen you conceed nothing here, and there’s been plenty of room for it. As Jeff has said, you’ve been studiously ignoring his points. So I need to go farther afield to find examples of your more upright behavior?
I think you answer me only because I’ve got your dander up by implying that you are a coward, lazy and incompetent. Jeff’s not been provocative, at least not like that.
oh noes! we may have to sacrifice!
In comments here Patterico is coming off like Obama without a Teleprompter.
Does not compute.
He wants Obama stopped in his tracks before he gets to enact anymore policies that are going to ruin this country. And frankly, I think it our duty to do our part in preventing those policies from ever seeing the light of day.
Republicans/Conservatives need to stop eating their own and start watching the backs of everyone willing to stand up. Your Senators and Congresscritters need to know that you will back them up.
And, BTW, it isn’t about wanting failure, we already have failure. We’re tired of wishy washy rhetoric. Like Rush said during the CPAC speech, when the Steelers are on the field he damn sure hopes the opposing team fails. There isn’t a sports fan in the country that doesn’t understand that sentiment.
Patterico, you’re giving way too much credit to the media. The media hates us because we are conservatives/classical liberals/whatever.
We could say “We heart bunnies” and they’d interpret that as admitting to a sexual relationship with rabbits. So rather than constantly worrying about whether Chris Matthews can interpret something we say in a negative light, how bout we tell Chris Matthews to go pound sand, be honest, and say what we really mean?
No, not floating, it is LYING out there. A lie. Get it?
He doesn’t have to “want” the economy to go to shit. It doesn’t matter what he wants anyhow. He simply believes (rightly or wrongly) that the policies cause ruin. Cause it.
Why on earth would he oppose policies that cause joy and contentment and still hope to have even a whisp of public favor?
>>That’s about as much of a fucking non-sequitur as what you just did.
Is it? That was the sense I got out of your sentence.
Should be clearer when you write, I guess.
well, there are elections to be won, Sdferr.
“Trouble was, I read the whole passage and I wasn’t sure what he meant.”
And yet, you know that he meant to be provocative?
Is this selective comprehension a new affliction?
“I think you answer me only because I’ve got your dander up by implying that you are a coward, lazy and incompetent.”
OK, I can stop addressing you. If people are interested in insulting me, I can move on to the next person. Big Internet out here.
Yes, and there’s a reason for that and its name is Rahm Emanuel (et al). I say again: Fuck Rahm Emanuel. You can stand up against it or your can hope you’re not too badly hurt when the treads roll over you.
“And yet, you know that he meant to be provocative?”
Yes: either interpretation is provocative. One is more so than the other.
Jeff, why didn’t you just tell Patterico to blow you? It’s pithier.
Personally, this is going to back fire on the Dems if Rush gets to explain what “I want Obama to fail” means.
I think Rush should quit with his talk show and just start writing dissertations. It’s the only way to be sure.
Nobody has a quote for that, because the policies hadn’t been implemented, and Limbaugh was hoping that Obama’d fail to get them implemented — that he’d fail in his effort to expand government and bring us closer to socialism. Once they were implemented, if they started to work, I suspect he’d have something to say on the matter.
But the context here was joining in the chorus preemptively hoping he succeeds — which Limbaugh wasn’t willing to do if succeeding meant successfully implementing policies that would grow the government and nationalize private industry.
That you and others can now twist and finagle and finesse additional hypothetical potentialities out of his statement and pretend we have an interpretive dilemma — even as, alternately, you argue that most Americans are too stupid to pick up on the “nuance” of the statement in the less complicated form in which you presented it in your initial post — is simply maddening.
You want to win an argument. I want to win a war.
Keep ignoring me. But I’m still here.
“Yes, and there’s a reason for that and its name is Rahm Emanuel (et al). I say again: Fuck Rahm Emanuel. You can stand up against it or your can hope you’re not too badly hurt when the treads roll over you.”
Rush bears some responsibility for how it’s phrased. But you seem hell-bent on viewing me as a coward unwilling to speak my mind and stand up for what’s right. Maybe I’m reading you wrong, but that seems to be the import of every comment you make. And you’re on a site where, if you are saying that, people will line up around the corner to second you. So is that what you’re saying, Pablo?
I don’t think anyone has to be insulted. It’s just hard I think to accept where we are. In big big trouble is where we are. It’s very dark.
“well, there are elections to be won, Sdferr.”
No, fuck elections. You don’t change anything by winning elections. You change things by saying “fuck my enemies” on the Internet. That’s how you do it.
Yes, yes it is.
But your answer to the biased MSM spinning what Rush said to help out their guys agenda is to be less provocative and smarter.
If you can’t see the flaw in that strategy at this point, you are beyond help.
>>Jeff, why didn’t you just tell Patterico to blow you? It’s pithier.
Maybe Jeff thinks Pat is better than this. I dunno.
Good night, everyone.
So you’ll address Jeff now?
Now you’re insulted? That’s a little bit faster than picking up on Rush being (shocked, shocked I say!) provocative.
I click several times daily to both Jeff and Patterico, and both you warriors are unique and irreplaceable in this struggle. Both of you fight the battle in your own way and with your own tools, as does Rush. But the ultimate responsibility lies with the elected officals and the offical spokesmen in their dealings with the media, whether they’re talking to a news reporter or a so-called comedian like D. L. Hughely (or however you spell it.) They have to stop playing defense.
I wish Micheal Steele had come to that show ready to play offense with a list of “incendiary” and “ugly” things D.L. had said about Bush or McCain or Palin in the past. So when DL says, what about Rush? Steele could say, whoa, DL, you’re part of the problem too! You yourself said and I quote — and then fill in the blanks with two or three choice phrases.
Or a Rep or Senator could answer a reporter’s request to repudiate Limbaugh with the line, Why don’t the Democrats repudiate the incendiary, ugly, (and quite short) Bill Maher? Talk about a h8er!
Doesn’t seem that complicated to me. Telling the truth would actually diffuse tensions in the country, because the most incendiary and ugly accusations are thrown out there with no refutation. Would that a pol would say, as Mike at Cold Fury suggested the other day, I reject your premise.
(Mike may have been passing along the idea, not sure right now. Full disclosure.)
Patterico,
You know it doesn’t matter what we say, the media is going to interpret to mesh with Democratic points.
Remember when Palin was asked what magazines she read and since she didn’t get a specific answer, that was interpreted as “Sarah Palin can’t read! She’s a dumb redneck rube! Liberals are smarter than her! We love the smell of our own shit!”
Now, did Palin say something PROVOCATIVE? No, she said nothing at all, which led to the liberal interpretation of events. It simply doesn’t matter what we say, the media will interpret it THEIR way. WE respond by calling them out on their bullshit, not by trying to create phrases that are impossible to interpret in a negative light. Trust me, they’ll find a way.
OUTLAW!
“I don’t think anyone has to be insulted. It’s just hard I think to accept where we are. In big big trouble is where we are. It’s very dark.”
When I read about how this motherfucker wants to spend away my children’s future I want to hit something.
Patterico,
You know it doesn’t matter what we say, the media is going to interpret it to mesh with Democratic talking points.
Remember when Palin was asked what magazines she read and since she didn’t get a specific answer, that was interpreted as “Sarah Palin can’t read! She’s a dumb redneck rube! Liberals are smarter than her! We love the smell of our own shit!”
Now, did Palin say something PROVOCATIVE? No, she said nothing at all, which led to the liberal interpretation of events. It simply doesn’t matter what we say, the media will interpret it THEIR way. WE respond by calling them out on their bullshit, not by trying to create phrases that are impossible to interpret in a negative light. Trust me, they’ll find a way.
Yes, he does. And he’s defending every word of it, it being what he said and not what the narrative says he said. Good for him.
I’m arguing the point, Pat, not making personal attacks. For instance, you’ll notice that I haven’t called you a fat, drug addicted, Viagra swilling sex tourist greedy gangster blowhard. Which is more of the narrative I have no fucking use for.
Patterico,
You know it doesn’t matter what we say, the media is going to interpret it to mesh with Democratic talking points.
Remember when Palin was asked what magazines she read and since she didn’t give a specific answer, that was interpreted as “Sarah Palin can’t read! She’s a dumb redneck rube! Liberals are smarter than her! We love the smell of our own shit!”
Now, did Palin say something PROVOCATIVE? No, she said nothing at all, which led to the liberal interpretation of events. It simply doesn’t matter what we say, the media will interpret it THEIR way. WE respond by calling them out on their bullshit, not by trying to create phrases that are impossible to interpret in a negative light. Trust me, they’ll find a way.
,i>Remember when Palin was asked what magazines she read and since she didn’t get a specific answer, that was interpreted as “Sarah Palin can’t read! She’s a dumb redneck rube! Liberals are smarter than her! We love the smell of our own shit!â€
That was a stupid answer. I defended Palin through a lot of the shit she went through, but that was a self-inflicted wound.
There’ve been many dark struggles where the good guys never reached anywhere near this level of consensus I think. That’s really sort of hopeful.
I was trying awfully hard to be subtle and leave statements that could be interpreted that way. Wanted to see if he put the same gimlet eye to eveyone’s utterances, but it looks like he has it in for just Rush.
You do Jeff a great insult, and evince a not insignificant degree of fatuousness, when you characterize his argument as such. It strikes me as rather adolescent. How unfortunate. I should like to have a higher opinion of you.
But you do win elections by saying “McBush! Failed policies! Hope and change!”
Oh, look who’s bringing out the straw men now…!
And I probably don’t need to point this out, my readers being the clever sort, but the question at the heart of things here is over how to win elections, and if winning elections is even important if the people you elect aren’t much different then the people you are voting against — yet you have their stink on you for having voted for them…
Alls I know to do is say “fuck my enemies” on the Internet. Please don’t take that from me.
“I’m arguing the point, Pat, not making personal attacks. For instance, you’ll notice that I haven’t called you a fat, drug addicted, Viagra swilling sex tourist greedy gangster blowhard. Which is more of the narrative I have no fucking use for.”
Agreed. That’s why I said I want Frum to fail too. His post was ridiculous.
I defended Limbaugh when Greenwald pulled that shit on him too. I’ll defend people when it’s merited. I started to when James Rainey got on his case about this. But he didn’t clearly articulate what he meant. I think I know what he meant (I’d like to think so, anyway). But he left it ambiguous — under a provocative catchphrase. Then CPAC gave him a platform to take it to the next level, tarring other Republicans with a controversy they didn’t need.
I’m repeating myself and I want to go for a walk. I can’t imagine there’s much more to say that I haven’t already said.
Patterico,
I sincerely hope you aren’t taking this personally. I am not a regular reader to your blog but do peruse there sometime. I think you are just falling into the trap of wanting the media to like you, to be the “good conservative”.
Newsflash: they will never like you until you join the SecProg club. Until then, you’re a Neanderthal to them. So say what you really mean.
It’s kinda liberating actually. Try it some time.
Well yes, of course. And all because of what, pray tell? A lie I’d answer. A very big lie about the ways of the world, the ways of political economy, the ways of human beings, the ways of Barack Obama’s life, his beliefs, his intentions, his past, his future, lies about what people like Limbaugh says, lies about the meaning of “is” for christ’s sake. Lies that tell people that they can have more just by taking what they are due from someone else, for the sake of fairness. Social Justice!! So special.
BTW, does anyone doubt that Barack was absolutely giddy watching our little economy go in the tank when it meant he could be POTUS?
…as long as it won’t hurt anyone.
Who cares if you have a litany of people you’ve defended? Defend the principle. Otherwise you’re just padding your resume.
I completely disagree with that. Again, I think he’s done so repeatedly, and I think you’d have to be really, really trying to misconstrue what he said.
And, of course, you lose them by letting other people interpret what you meant.
That’s not what you meant? Might we be lacking some context?
To you it was stupid, so you feed the other side by agreeing with their spin. You give credence where none is due.
The truth of the matter is that Palin thought it was a stupid and demeaning question, which it was meant to be. But you advance the spin, rather than the truth to Palin’s disadvantage. Score one for the visiting team.
“You do Jeff a great insult, and evince a not insignificant degree of fatuousness, when you characterize his argument as such. It strikes me as rather adolescent. How unfortunate. I should like to have a higher opinion of you.”
Who said I was characterizing any particular person’s argument? I’m summarizing the general feel I have gotten from commenters on this thread. If you’re concerned about winning elections, you’re a big fraud who doesn’t have the balls to say what you think and a phony who is scared of his own shadow and lawyerly and etc. etc. etc. I’ve seen no evidence of the sentiment that says we should give a shit about winning over some of the people who voted for Obama.
OK, I know you must care about that. I’m just saying that . . . ah, fuck it. I already said it.
It seems striking to me that I offered my position twice in this thread while maintaining (if I do say so myself) a goodly amount of decorum and yet Mr. Patterico seems to have been unable or unwilling to deign to respond. Am I to infer that I do not obtain to high enough station to merit a response? Perhaps I am one of those poor benighted souls incapable of metabolizing nuance?
I feel a little neglected in this thread.
I hope Pat’s not off bashing me on Twitter again. I don’t know if I can handle that kind of rejection.
Ah ha! My least substantive comment is what done it!
BTW, does anyone doubt that Barack was absolutely giddy watching our little economy go in the tank when it meant he could be POTUS?
That’s exactly the response what this merits I think. Baracky’s media was giddy too. They called the recession early and often.
How about using the “the truth shall set you free” approach. I’ve heard that one sells.
I think you make the mistake of thinking “the people who voted for Obama” or anyone else for that matter, are inexorably in the sway of the forces what want to characterize every single thing said by those with whom they disagree as something fey. That’s what Jeff means by “you’ve ceded the playing field”.
um, you’ve seen our current President? really, we should be more like him.
“I am not a regular reader to your blog but do peruse there sometime. . . So say what you really mean. It’s kinda liberating actually. Try it some time.”
See, I have. This is why I came here. For people like you who don’t really know me or my blog, so I could interact with you directly and give you some sense that I actually do that. Have Pablo tell you the story of the woman who wanted to report me to the State Bar. Have him tell you about the other attorney who threatened to sue me for libel, and had the threatening letter delivered to my home by messenger. Some day I’ll tell you about the other shit I haven’t even talked about on my blog, like the UCLA psychologist who wants to do a study about whether I’m a racist as a D.A. It goes on and on. You don’t take on your hometown newspaper day in and day out for six years and not make enemies. I think we can disagree about Limbaugh and that’s fine; the reason I came here was to dispel the notion that I’m just someone who never bothers to stand up for anything. Going for that walk now. Thanks for taking the time to talk to me.
Nope. It’s the merits of TweetDeck.
From this foxhole view: Epic Fail.
In Pat’s defense (a little, anyhow) there are way more of us here arguing against his interpretation of Limbaugh than supporting it.
Still, Pat, you ought by right to have at least focused more on Jeff’s posts, not only because he’s the host here, but also because he does the best job of articulating the primary differences between your two stances. As it is the job is not done.
Is Rush trying to win elections? Or is he doing his best to keep the other side (whose policies he vehemently disagrees with) from winning elections?
I think it is the latter. After all, Rush has been making the same argument for failure since last September. Back then it was a prediction, now it is statement of fact. We are in failure due to Obama’s left wing commie/socialist policies.
Winning elections is going to depend on getting out the anyone but these dirty socialists vote. If we need people to vote for someone or something when there’s so so so very much to vote against then there’s no sense talking about elections anymore, and besides… 2010 isn’t just a political problem it’s a money problem and a math problem. In how he emphasizes the politics Mr. Patterico gets that more better than people like what you see at Hot Air what seem to have this vague idea that 2010 is sort of prospectively hopeful. It just isn’t hopeful at all. We can’t even be sure of losing with integrity.
Ok Patterico, you’re right, I don’t read you much so perhaps you do say what you mean more often and I am being unfair.
Congratulations, you’ve got yourself a more regular reader in me. I’ll be perusing more often. I do appreciate you coming here to say your points, I just think you’re dead wrong on this one.
Oh. And I should add —
More straw men @ 289. The fact that you’re concerned about winning elections is not what makes you wrong. The fact that you are willing to buy into a view of language that will assure the death of classical liberalism to potentially win a few elections (and frankly, I think your strategy is a loser, as the McCain debacle suggests, but that’s a different debate) is what makes you wrong — and what makes your position dangerous.
Too, this intimation that I’ve made you out to be some horrible person, and that you need to come over here to protect your honor, well, that’s your own hang up. I’ve been trying to debate your points, and you’ve ignored my responses. Here on my site. Where I’ve given you free reign to say your piece.
Perhaps your view of yourself should fold that behavior into the mix before it takes its next assessment and declares itself fully noble.
Whose blog is this? Who authored the post what forms the progenitor for this thread? What was the thesis of the post? Whose sobriquet appears in the title of said post?
Wow Jeff, you got more hits on this than Stephen Green gets in a month. But because you are an asshole [amazing guy], they dumped you anyway. Why is that?
Because if you don’t go with the asshole [amazing guy] would be no Patton (well they almost dumped him too), no Don Rickels, no Howard Stern, etc., etc., we could go on and on. This is actually pretty funny…
I wish buttons wasn’t missing this. This thread needs it some buttons.
I like pointing out when stupid people are being stupid. I like pointing out that the dirty little socialist is bringing our economy to its fuckin’ knees, and my friends are arguing about Rush. FWIW, I turned on Rush today for the first time in several years, and then listened to Hannity as well. I am no fan of either, but I want to see that their ratings go up.
I think Obama is weak.
My guess is that least one of his inner circle wanted slip the Zulu Dawn Directors Cut DVD into Brown’s gift basket along with some searingly artistic photos of British caskets being offloaded at Heathrow by jeering Pakistani immigrants.
Failure will strengthen him and force him to cull the fools.
I will say that one of Bush’s major failings was his inability to balance loyalty and duty… so he rarely fired people who screwed up. FEMA heads should have rolled. Gonzales got in over his depth…
That old song that tells the young man you gotta know when to hold, when to fold, when to walk away, when to run.
Obama…. knows how to give a speech and is the front man or figurehead. Obama gets sent out to sell the ideology in sonorous baritone. That dynamic needs to fail
Re-reading a bit of the thread, I was surprised again when Pat bluntly claimed that he still isn’t sure what Limbaugh meant by his full initial statement. I was surprised when Pat first made the claim and I’m even more surprised by it now. It seems, on the surface, more a tactic of argument than a possible conviction.
I’m not arguing about Rush. I’m arguing about language, and about the importance of not accepting a certain (incoherent and dangerous) premise about how it works.
Limbaugh’s remarks, and the way they are being used by people on both sides, is merely the latest and most topical example of what I see as a foundational problem that, if it is not corrected, means there’s no use continuing the fight. The end is already determined.
Patterico — pretending that he won’t countenance such scoundrels as I — steadfastly avoided to engage the argument on those grounds. The rest is just noise, so far as I’m concerned.
Pat,
Like many a commenter has said above, you make a good & reasonable argument that words should be chosen wisely. Jeff, Pablo, Jeffersonian, Phil, et al make excellent arguments of why engaging in the strenuous word selection can be not only foolish but dangerous. The other side chooses the rules and sets a trap, no they wait in ambush.
Think of the political environment as toxic, a really bad venue. You have the facts on your side but you know the populace is plaintiff oriented (or appear to lean that way based on the papers) and you are defense. You don’t just settle out, not if you are in the right.
You use the tools you have, facts, history, jury selection, witnesses, accident reconstruction, bio mechanical and even local counsel. You take the fight to them. Sure you won’t win every time but you will win enough and get a rep. If we spend as much time arguing with the left as we have here we can get the edge (not saying that this debate is a bad thing) over any undecideds/nonplussed.
But think about it, Rush said what he said and instead of lecturing ourselves about the proper way of “communicating” the message we should be hammering the press, leftists, etc with snark, heckling and facts. Accept back (cautiously) any defectors from their side (except for David Brooks, Doug Kmiec and a few others).
Oh, Jeff, Yay I see you. BTW, Jeff did you see that snippet from cynn way the hell upthread? Was s/he the illustrious Nathan K/2, JTF etc from last night’s thread?
This whole Carville-Emanuel conspiracy thing is what gets me. James Carville and Rahm Emanuel thought this up–to go after Rush to brand the conservatives and GOP right now? WTF? Are they kidding? I thought their guy won and had a mandate for change?
I hope Rush jams it down their throats.
Now I do not listen to Rush that often. I often disagree with him. But I agree with him on core issues and I definitely agree with him a hell of a lot more than I do with Carville, Emanuel, and Obama.
Is Rush the savior of the GOP? Probably not directly. Is Rush a significant spokesperson for conservative issues. Yes. The more attention this debate gets the better.
JeffG – You are correct. That was an inartful turn of a phrase on my part.
It’s time to make them feel stupid for being stupid — not empowering their stupidity by pandering to it.
Hear-hear.
Holy shit,
from when I started to type my last comment to when it finally posted, this thread just blew through like 40 posts. It is gonna be another late night, I got some reading to do.
Which is why I said, the job is not done.
Nah, cynn is the town drunk. She occasionally wakes up to slur something grumpy, then passes out again.
It’s ok to poke her with a stick if you want. Or give her a hot foot, that’s always funny.
I agree. Don’t be afraid to say what you mean.
Nah, cynn is the town drunk. She occasionally wakes up to slur something grumpy, then passes out again.
It’s ok to poke her with a stick if you want.
Nah, cynn is the town drunk. She occasionally wakes up to slur something grumpy, then passes out again.
It’s ok to poke her with a stick if you want. Or give her a hot foot, that’s always funny.
On the night after the 1996 election, “Emanuel was so angry at the president’s enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting ‘Dead! … Dead! … Dead!’ and plunging the knife into the table after every name.”
So Rahm Emanuel can do this about Bill Clinton’s enemies, but Rush cannot criticize Obama?
oops…apologies.
Comeon Joe, which one to attack, Loveable-Fuzzball vs. Wiry-Angry-Guy from Chicago with a steak knife?
Who gives a ripe shit which magazines a politician subscribes to and perhaps reads?
Late to this picnic, but I maintain that the same Americans that have short attention spans and don’t do nuance well will be the first ones in the street when the enormity of the social and economic ass rape that is this administration explodes across the breakfast tables of America.
The explosion may be under way already, but events are so insane that nobody notices.
Umpteen bazillion dollars shat into the economic slipstream. Already disappeared to no good effect and tonight FDIC is slated to get 500 billion tomorrow…
… while Barney My Butt Buddy Worked At Fannie (ha)For Years When The Working Was Good But Now He’s Tossing Pots In A Loft Some Fucking Place I Don’t Know Frank is calling for prosecutions of the parties responsible for the economic disaster that is unfolding. I can’t think of anybody else I’d like to see up before, say, “The Committee for Public Safety” than Mr. Frank…
… and on a personal note, here I am at the age of 47 wondering how it is my retirement is being spent without any involvement or effort on my part. And fully intending to take my cash out of the credit union, bank, and ING tomorrow at the opening hour…
… and where in the Constitution does it say that a jack Mormon from Vegas gets to dictate energy transmission policy for the nation?? As near as I can make it out, this undertaking is supposed to happen around the same time we serve up the Jews for Holocaust I as well as while we trade our missile defense technology and existing sensor/basing alliances in eastern europe for a Che tshirt autographed by Putin and Amadinejad’s Greatest Speeches box set of DVD’s.
The Sec Treas shits DOW points every time he opens his mouth. Today’s gem was his revulsion toward energy producers based on AGW. Robert Reich wants economic stimulus aimed at unskilled minorities, since skilled white males (his words) are over represented in high paying construction jobs.
Fuck him. But he’s not even a standout.
Words mean things. Instead of deconstruction or nuance or context, just look at the words. Look at the people who say them.
We’re so fucked. Obama is about breaking the system. I find it delicious that his most able tools – most of the media and especially the Clintonista warmed – overs – are so totally missing the real story of the One. They are the red shirts in Captain Obama’s away team.
Fucked, but not dead yet.
Short of attention span and not a fan of nuance? How about short of food, no job, and no hope? Sounds like a recipe for change, to me.
What a fucking joke this administration is. It’s exactly what we thought it would be.
Market below 6300 tomorrow before lunch. There’s no bottom where there is no confidence.
But is Obama a Good Man, TmjUtah?
Patterico’s argument seems rather clear: To employ language which can be twisted by the left and media demonstrates a lack of savvy, because in so doing you are offending certain of those people that have voted for Obama, some number of whom are, mathematically speaking, necessary to the future conservative electoral success.
Jeff’s response seems equally clear: By policing language thusly, you may get elected, but without a principled basis upon which to govern. If the energy spent policing language were instead spent marketing the principles, while there may be short-term loss while the brand gets built, there is some hope for the continuation of the founding principles.
What is notable is that Patterico, while demanding that his argument was not being addressed, refused to either address Jeff’s argument or acknowledge that it indeed constitute a legitimate rebuttal to his.
Wasn’t there a saying about wars not being won by retreats? Might apply to politics as well.
There also might be something about engaging people in dialogue instead of pontificating about what you think someone is saying. Not that anyone’s done that on this thread or anything.
Tmj – Long time, no see.
Utes! Good to see you back, man. Even with all that depression stuff it’s good to see you back, but you gotta say what you gotta say. I say, bring it, preach it true brother. At least four, maybe five quarters before we see even a tiny possibility of upside growth. And even that’s likely optimistic.
I don’t rate a response. I’ve been removed from polite society.
Which can blow me.
“But is Obama a Good Man,”
No he’s not. That’s like asking if Hugo Chavez has his good point(maybe 2 points). Sure, his mom may agree but in this economic abyss I don’t give a damn if he makes cookies with his kids and turns water to wine. He is not a good man for this job or the country.
No.
But Left has no room for good or bad. They have “necessary”.
When a man like Obama patiently explains that his motives are aimed at “social justice”, you can suddenly understand how it was that the SS wore belt buckles that were stamped “Gott mitt uns”.
We’re not in Kansas any more.
I can’t work any more hours. Maybe I’ll disable the ‘net app on my Blueberry. Or just drive a frost pin through my truck radio.
I’m pretty angry. Tired, too. And about twenty thousand dollars poorer than I was a week ago. There’s no place left to move any investments to…
Damned glad to see you still toeing the scratch, Jeff. Wish I was more help. Glad to see the rest of you, too, and wish you all the best.
Wars aren’t won by retreating and even Patton (who made that statement) knew that the only thing continual advance would really accomplish are high body counts on your own side.
“Retreat Hell! We’re just attacking in another direction.” (Attributed to Major General Oliver P. Smith, USMC, Korea, December 1950.)
Pat,
This is really simple, so let’s step away from the Rush statement and try another issue:
The NYPost “dead chimp” cartoon
Pure and simple, the cartoonist and the NYPost should have told Sharpton and everyone else “offended” to get over it or STFU then kept on that short message each time the “controversy” arose.
What the Alinsky/Ayers acolytes under Obama are doing is akin to what the Islamists have been doing to anyone that dared print the Danish cartoons.
Compromise is not an option.
By the way, if any of you are facebook friends, check out the nutjob who just went off on me under today’s link to the FDIC story.
Ironically, I’m “PC” and not a real conservative, a cancer, and a “mole” — a soft-hearted kumbaya type who tries to police language, and is afraid of people who use coarse or vulgar terms to PUSH BACK AGAINST LINGUISTIC OPPRESSION!
Man. I sure now how to make pals!
JeffG – I was gazing at that in bewildered awe earlier.
JeffG wrote:
Ironically, I’m “PC†and not a real conservative, a cancer, and a “mole†— a soft-hearted kumbaya type who tries to police language, and is afraid of people who use coarse or vulgar terms to PUSH BACK AGAINST LINGUISTIC OPPRESSION!
…….
Um.
Wow.
Must be nice for this person, not having to actually pay attention and simply make things up as he goes along.
He’s not my friend anymore :(
Well that is a tough choice!
I like the crazy ass Rahm Emanuel. Frankly that candor in going a bit nuts is refreshing. Why he, whose father was in the Igrun, is supporting a guy who would sell Israel down the river?
Now to support Patterico, this all started when he criticized CPAC for having speakers claiming Obama is not really an American citizen. I agree with Pat on that one. Not that I care if people go Connetticut Chimp crazy rhetorically of course on Obama, but that particular argument is rather weak and pathetic. Our attacks should be better, more substantive, more pithy.
Like much of the conservative blogosphere, come to think of it.
Hmmm. Maybe I should just build my own sandbox!
Yeah, it seems there are some that just don’t get you Jeff.
Fuck’em in the neck, I say.
The finale of Burn Notice was quite good. I particularly liked the part where Gabrielle Anwar was shooting a long gun.
Darleen,
You’re dead right about the monkey cartoon — and you’ll note that’s what I said in my posts about the issue. I didn’t think the cartoon was funny, but you can’t sit around worrying about how people might misinterpret you if you have something to say and there’s only one way to say it honestly.
Don’t think that’s true in the Limbaugh situation for reasons already stated. See my example above: there’s more than one way to extol the virtues of making the trains run on time; you don’t *have* to praise Mussolini in the process just to stay true to your ethic of extolling train punctuality.
I think we’re in agreement on principles. It’s their application to the Limbaugh controversy that is the (more minor) point of contention.
This may have been said before, if so sorry, 300 comments is a lot to go through.
Only on the Left is the leader equivalent to the nation they lead. On the Left, saying you want Obama to fail, is saying you want the nation to fail because the two are inseparable in the minds of those on the Left.
On the Right/conservative/classical liberal side, the leader is not the nation he leads. He can fail and the nation survive, it can even be the better for his failure.
The Left is trying to twist the argument to fit their own world view. Don’t help them.
Pat,
In regards to the so-called Rush controversy the correct tact that non-leftists who DO know what he was saying should have just looked at RulesforRadicalsRahm and ilk and told them to shove off. It is this arguing ABOUT Rush’s choice of language that concedes the game to the Left as much as people offering apologies for the Post cartoon.
What you and I have to put up with in our jobs (and I’m banging my head currently over an employee I supervise who is trying to control others by ‘policing’ all conversations and finding “offense” in the most innocuous of things …and the basic county policy is that offense is what the perception of the offender is) we do not have to put up with outside the job. Indeed I would argue it is our obligation to fight back against this insidiousness that elevates passive-aggressive mendacity into inviolate privilege.
So. I wonder if Patterico will ever respond to any of Jeff’s responses. Jeff last posted one 1 hour, 26 minutes, and 12.7 seconds ago.
The Limbaugh Situation sounds like bad Ludlum.
#346 is very smart. I sleep now.
“Wars aren’t won by retreating and even Patton (who made that statement) knew that the only thing continual advance would really accomplish are high body counts on your own side.”
With respect, you are either tired, or simply mistaken.
Look at the Obama administration in action, and you see the distillation of the opus of another famous (and famously aggressive) American general: Nathan Bedford Forrest. Forrest lived for the attack ,but even more for the exploitation of any advantage. He called it “keeping up the (sic) “skeer” “. Once you have an opponent moving away from you, you don’t let him stop.
That’s why the media is covering O! vs. Rush and not the death of the American economy. That’s why Barney Frank isn’t in jail. That’s why Cynthia McKinney is a congress critter. Because they have achieved control of the narrative. For any “friendly” media to dare to go off script is to become The Enemy. I am frankly surprised at ABC’s termity in what is essentially a thorough fisking of a typical example of casual lying in support of socialized medicine on the part of the Best and Brightest.
I do think that Obama is living the campus commie dream. Like the Islamodope who blows up the bus, he will measure his accomplishments by the destruction he leaves behind.
Patterico, I think you are arguing disingenuously. Here is how you tried to make your point:
Your point being that Rush would be easier to defend if he had said the less provocative #1.
Unfortunately, that completely disregards context.
Would you please respond to Jeffs #189?
Pretty please?
I bet there are more posts here than subscribers to Pajamas Media TV.
Also, I will again make the point that Rush talks 3 hours every day. He has said what he said a hundred different ways, and there is NO ambiguity about what he meant. It isn’t about nuance or provocativeness. It is about the political opponents of Republicans willfully misrepresenting (read lying) what he said to gain an advantage.
Your attitude does nothing but give the lie credence.
“In regards to the so-called Rush controversy the correct tact that non-leftists who DO know what he was saying should have just looked at RulesforRadicalsRahm and ilk and told them to shove off. It is this arguing ABOUT Rush’s choice of language that concedes the game to the Left as much as people offering apologies for the Post cartoon.”
Sorry, I disagree on the specific issue of Rush’s language. It’s not a matter of principles but application of those principles to a particular situation. Unless you think it’s never the case that people can say something true in an inappropriate way.
I go back to the Carville-Rahm idea to intentionally draw Rush out. The hypocrisy of all of this is pretty amazing. Rush is more than capable of explaining his position.
As for the rest of us, rather than wasting time debating if Obama is Indonesian or not (which is the post last week during CPAC that set Jeff off in the first place), we might focus if Obama’s economic strategy is nuts.
Patterico says this here:
To which I responded here:
To which Patterico responds here:
It seemed clear to me whose thesis was the predicate for the entire discussion. Jeff called Patterico out by name in the title of the post. And then I remembered this tweet from 2/28:
Which, while it’s not precisely the same thing he says up-thread, it certainly seems to indicate, at minimum, a somewhat profound misunderstanding of the thesis Jeff has been pretty much hammering lately.
I don’t want to quibble about what Patterico’s referent up-thread. I suppose I would just like to know if Mr. Patterico could please respond to Jeff’s argument—the one I think he’s making rather cogently—with some specificity.
Maybe Rush should be executed for treason?
Well, when Rush says, “I hope Obama goes to Manhattan and gets gang-raped by some of my big black brothers…” get back with me.
The contention is that construing Rush’s comments as “inappropriate” requires one to cede that those “who voted for Obama” can only be swayed by pandering to their affection for the left’s linguistic sophistry. Such a contention seems to rest on a rather dismal view of those you’re courting, but also does real damage to the founding principles.
I would rather have Rush try to be pithy, and fail 1000 times, than have to watch this again.
Spot on #360.
“I hope he fails.”
They’re not taking it out of context. They’re having a hissy fit because someone said something negative about their Lord and Master, and they’re trying to turn people against Rush for being so horribly negative about the Obamessiah.
Whether he wants Obama to fail to implement his policies or whether he wants Obama to succeed in implementing his policies, have them fail, and then go down in history as the Worst President Ever is irrelevant.
I still don’t know why conservatives would have a problem with those four words in the first place. The only thing we should have a problem with is the moronic fawning over the WON that their hissy-fit reveals.
Sorry, Pat. I’m with Jeff on this. And that makes it true, dad-gummit!
Forget it, Mal. Patterico will likely claim his studious avoidance of my arguments is over some wrong I did him. But the simple truth is, he has no answer, and all the rest of this is noise.
I don’t care one way or the other how the message gets out. I don’t care that I’ve pissed off a number of people in the conservative blogosphere, and so have been removed from their unspoken traffic exchange agreements.
In fact, somebody else go forth and proselytize, if it means conservatives like Patrick who care so much about the country are forced to answer legitimate and important arguments that speak directly to the future of this country. Wouldn’t want something so trifling as a personality dispute getting in the way of a vital point, one that we as classical liberals simply must embrace should we hope to win out in the long term.
No need to thank me. I’m selfless that way.
Oh. And OUTLAW!
I missed another party it seems. BTW, hf, I agree with your argument upthread that the script has been written such that neither Obama nor his policies will be seen as failures, even when they fail spectacularly like they are going to do. We can only hope for a revision of that script some time soon, but I’m not holding my breath.
Quite frankly, I am totally disgusted with Miller. She’s usually funny and doesn’t say stupid stuff like that. I’m very disappointed with her. She knows better than that crap. She’s nothing like that ugly assed Randi Rhoads. I’m very shocked…
When you disgust a guy like Chuck Adkins, er, Paleo Pat, who made fun of someone’s dead wife, you know you’ve hit rock bottom.
Patterico,
Why is it so important to you that the posters here understand your point of view when you don’t even acknowledge Jeff’s?
As I read down thread I formulated responses only to find others had already stated the obvious including Jeff who pointed out what you yourself were taking out of context.
That you can’t see or admit that you are part of the problem is astounding.
Aside:
104 Comment by Republican on Acid on 3/5 @ 9:48 pm #
“When I was in the Navy, those of us who were haters would write the simple but effective FTN wherever we could whenever we could. I realize that was sort of ridiculous now in reference to the navy…â€
I wish you had realized that it was “ridiculous†then considering it was and still is an all volunteer force. One only had to do their job until their time was up and get out if they didn’t like the service. It wasn’t necessary to deface the ship to get across the point that those of you who disliked the service were not happy, those of us who did already knew through your actions and demeanor.
Obama is succeeding.
Rush isn’t trying to win elections. He articulates the sentiments of a vast audience that doesn’t have any other access to a national media. Believe me, anyone who has listened to Rush for any length of time knows what he meant when he said he hoped Obama will fail. Obama’s failure will actually be good for this country. Hard to believe, I know. I don’t really give a fuck what 52% of the country think of me and my political philosophy. They want to debate an issue? Then they can come up to my level, I’m not going down to theirs just to make myself understood. Fuck em if they don’t understand the jokes.
You lost me too, Patterico. In my opinion, the two most important points in the thread are at 115 and 166 (with 185 closing the argument). You, meanwhile, argue non-points at the very guy’s house who you refuse to so much as address in a complete reply.
Not to change the subject, but let me ask you something. Do you think that when the world loses half its book value, when US gun and ammunition sales accelerate, when socialist law and policy are enacted by fiat, when the talk on the street I hear moves from disgust to revolutionary overtones, when the race wars really start, and when the mean unemployment check period passes, do you think that then might be a good time to state things as they are?
I want this president to fail.
In another thread yesterday I posted one of those hackneyed quotes about the stages of Republics — the one where phases occur and in about 200 years they fall in a heap for want of principle and for want of sound policy. Do you think the fact those worn out quotes are worn out — you know, Jefferson on banks and Henry on freedom and the New Hampshire license plate slogan — make them less true?
Or untrue?
Or so impolite they aren’t exactly what runs through your mind at the moment these pathological criminals — the looters and liars and freaks who would and will run our lives — decide to pull the trigger on the gun of State they’ve put to our temples?
Because I really don’t get that. When you can’t blog because of govt policy preventing you blogging, then will you make it your business to say it like it is?
Because this OUTLAW! thing isn’t really, as it turns out, about being cute and snarky. Meanwhile the leftists I know have no evident concern that they’re licking their lips. And this you would reason with on what grounds?
See? I ceded the computer to my wife yesterday, and look what happened to me. ;-P
I think the point is, there ain’t no movement to protect, unless clap our hands and sing and louder sing for every tatter in our mortal dress.
No, Patterico, what I’m surprised by is that you are naive enough to imagine that the interpretation is being made with any honesty. What I’m surprised by is that you are giving credence to the dishonesty by defending it in any way.
At this point, the only question I’m interested in asking about the Left in this country is How Many of Them Can We Make Die?
Patterico in comment 170:
Me, in comment 37:
But I want us to fight smart. You can say things in a way that’s easily distorted, or not
Has it been mentioned that it doesn’t matter WHAT conservatives say, because whether it’s easy or hard, their words will be distorted. And no matter how egregious the distortion, it will be taken as gospel truth by those who are spoon-fed their news.
Well, it’s not like this is isn’t all purely rhetorical or anything.
I never know when Burn Notice is on. I kinda like it when I’ve seen it (usually re-runs on Saturday afternoons while I work out.)
We could just retool Katrina and the Waves, you know, to boost enthusiasm: “I’m Walking on Eggshells.”
These people are destroying our country. If you don’t want them to fail, you are an enemy of this republic. The problem with the debate is that is about personalities instead of about the ordinary American lives these maggots are tearing apart. This isn’t “change”. It’s destruction for destruction’s sake.
[…] ‘net. Patterico, a practicing Los Angeles District Attorney, and a respected legal blogger; squares off against Jeff Goldstein, a writer, intellectual, and the web’s go-to authority on i… and the use (and misuse) of language and the written word to portray (and, in the hands of our […]
Okay, so this is incredibly late but…
Recess is over and it seems too many people have their tongues frozen to the flagpole. While they’re waiting for the cops and a firetruck to show up they should over and over recite this to themselves:
“You shouldn’t be concerning yourself with how easy it is to twist things. You should be working to make it less productive to do so.”
Thanks, Jeff. This kind of thing heartens me as I’m down here mixing it up with the rubes.
Let me sum up:
#1 If you are going to get in a verbal duel with your opponents, choose the location and weapons.
Isn’t Jeff is correct on that Pat?
#2 Time and exposure are precious, so make your best arguments first. Don’t waste valuable CPAC time attacking Obama’s nationality (it is a loser argument that makes you part of a tin foil hat bunch)–substantively attack his ethics, policies, and associations.
Isn’t Pat correct on that one Jeff?
For #1 it should follow with “Isn’t Jeff correct on that Pat?”
I think the quote Patterico provided was perfectly clear. Rush hopes Obama fails, he hopes liberalism fails. He doesn’t qualify it and he doesn’t apologize for saying it. In fact he hopes he gets quoted far and wide on it. I understand what he means in that quote, he means what he says. Back in the early 90’s when I used to listen to Rush, one of the things he used to say was, “Words mean things.”
If conservatives, or the GOP, are worried about not getting elected because they offended people with words, then they can disown what Rush said and be weaker for it. The GOP should be cheerleading for Obama’s failure. They should be countering all of his spin with clear language like, “I will vote against his policies and I hope that the Obama administration gets nothing done and is a failure.” Or, “I hope Obama fails.”
This guy was good at choosing the right words.
Remember GOP, if Obama succeeds, you’ve failed.
Patterico, in your view, what is the more serious problem: a prominent conservative who states his views in a way that is easily distorted, or a wide swath of conservatives who participate in, and thereby lend credence to, that distortion? Even if one accepts your basic argument, that Rush would better serve conservatism by wording his statements more carefully, you’re focusing on the smaller problem at the expense of larger.
I commented along same though lines at P-rico’s before coming here and seeing this… to which I say: I don’t think Rico got it yet. Don’t use the Left’s memes, even in trying to wrangle out a good defense for a good argument, knothead.
I just got done reading this thread and I have to say bravo gentlemen. I am half expecting Jeff to start channelling his inner gladiator and start yelling “ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED!”.
[…] 6, 2009 · No Comments I’ve stayed out of the Rush/Steele/GOP fray. It turns out Jeff Goldstein says it better than I would anyway noting the bigotry of low expectations and once again bowing to […]
I’ve stayed out of the Rush/Steele/GOP fray.
It turns out Jeff Goldstein says it better than I would anyway noting the bigotry of low expectations and once again bowing to the left because the right “sounds meanâ€.
I’m not fond of Rush – but not because of his beliefs. He’s annoying on a point to the point of gagging and his name calling and bragging do nothing for me. I’m a girl. I suspect that most of his audience is male though of course there are many women that listen to him too. I’m just saying.
But the one thing I do like about Rush is he doesn’t back down. (remember Reid and the phony soldiers))
Someone can call him a meanie or unpatriotic or treasoness and he laughs out loud and points out how that someone is wrong, not him.
The GOP would be smart to listen to Mr. Limbaugh.
http://ithinkthereforeierr.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/rush/#comment-7065
That post is not my comment, but Joe(ann) from Colorado.
OK, so Patterico is mouthy, dull and cowardly.
Is Allahpundit still hiding?
The way I see it, the mealy mouthed in the GOP have been using this “Let’s don’t say anything mean” tactic, if you can call it that, for long enough to get us (conservatives) marginalized to point of being outcast(OUTLAW?). The GOP is DNC lite, and everyone here knows this.
So, I say the best defense is a good offense. Get up in their faces long enough and loud enough that the disaffected out there will begin to internalize the sentiment. Especially now that jobs are being lost, savings are evaporating, doom and gloom is the order of the day.
Why is it that only Illinois NAZI Rahm Emanuel can not let a crisis go to waste?
Hell, this is the time to outflank the bastards, not sue for peace.
Maneuver Warfare!
Oh, and FUBO!
Ace should probably go to Jeff’s Chicago Clinic so he is prepared next time he is in Lebanon with Hitchens.
Oh, it’s not just Rahm. You’re soaking in it, now!
Meanwhile, Patterico keeps digging.
http://patterico.com/2009/03/06/more-on-limbaugh/
Good God. 400 posts and what do I get? Squadouche. Seeing this post, and that Patterico responded, I expected honest discourse but Pat shows up empty-handed.
It’s one thing for the mainstream, i.e. bland ineffectual, conservatives to ignore/dismiss JeffG, but to come into his house and ignore him at every. fucking. turn.?!
Rude fuck.
Sorry, no offense to the regulars here. I enjoyed the commentary (esp. hf and Tmj). The “squadouche” was for Patterico.
First of all, I have never been to CPAC, nor have I ever been invited. I have, however, been told that anybody who matters in conservatism was there, which means I don’t much matter. Hence, what I think is not important. As far as I’m concerned, they can run their own show, and spend their time talking about whatever it is they want. I snigger at the whole thing, the way it’s currently run — and I find it humorous that Roger Simon and, I guesss, Ron Silver, are in part responsible for deciding who gets to be the voice of conservatism, starting with, first and foremost, proud libertarian Glenn Reynolds.
Would I waste time discussing certain topics? No. But again, to conservatives that matter, I don’t rate. In fact, in the whole of this thread, Mr Frey — who is a solid and well-respected voice in the conservative movement — didn’t even deign to answer one of my arguments.
Why you’d ask me, then, if Patrick is right on something I’ve never argued his being wrong on is curious. But if I recall, among those that angered Mr Frey was Mr Bolton. And nobody — NOBODY — gets to diss Regis on my watch.
Right now, Pat’s saying nobody gets to diss Allah Pundit on his watch.
Of course Patterico responded on his own site. I’ve come to expect nothing less. He’s less interested in debate than he is trying to look as though he’s won an argument. Tell me, does he bother even to link to this thread?
I’m not going to waste my time on him, because in 400 comments, he didn’t bother to address my concerns. Not once. And as far as I’m concerned, my concerns are the ones that matter here.
If somebody else who posts here wants to stand up for me, he or she can. If not, whatever. I don’t much care. The argument exists outside of just me and Patterico — and only one of us actually addressed it. As I keep reiterating, the rest is noise.
“…the SS wore belt buckles that were stamped “Gott mitt unsâ€.”
Really?
My irony meter just exploded.
“Comment by geoffb on 3/6 @ 1:04 am #
This may have been said before, if so sorry, 300 comments is a lot to go through.
Only on the Left is the leader equivalent to the nation they lead. On the Left, saying you want Obama to fail, is saying you want the nation to fail because the two are inseparable in the minds of those on the Left.”
I had that thought the other day: Conservatives don’t have Fuhrers.
have, however, been told that anybody who matters in conservatism was there, which means I don’t much matter. Hence, what I think is not important.
It’s larger than that, Jeff. What most of us [here] think is not important. Add to that, Rush’s audience.
I’m not a Republican, so I don’t give a shit about the party. I don’t watch Limbaugh, so I don’t generally give a shit what he says. He doesn’t speak for me – good, bad or indifferent.
That said, I see no good reason for a branch of the US gubmint to go after him specifically. He’s well withing his rights to say whatever he wants to about the Putzident and his stupid policies, short of threatening actual violence. If Barry gets po’d at being called a tax-and-spend neo-commie with all the brains of a dyslexic warthog, hey, that’s HIS problem. Can’t stand the heat? You know what to do.
I had a post at the pub along that line also but it was one of the ones eaten. Reincarnation may occur someday.
I think that Americans don’t have or want Fuhrers. We got one by some obscured means. They all think “this time it will be different”, but it never is.
Just look how well it all worked out for Canada. To quote Mark Steyn … “Look into the face of Canada, and you’ll see our collagen implants are way too puffy.”
Don’t pout … let Rush be your pitbull. If it’s a turd, he’ll call it a turd. It won’t smell any better if you try to redefine it. I’m really not getting why anyone would feel the need to defend him.
Mission Accomplished!
H/T: The Anchoress
I can’t speak for others, Diana, but for me, this isn’t about Limbaugh necessarily. It’s about language and my refusal to accept certain conditions that are, even as we speak, insinuating themselves into our cultural hermeneutic without question, becoming linguistic givens, with the aid of the very people whose beliefs those conditions aim to destroy.
These are not easily removed once entrenched. That some in conservatism would allow that to happen for the chance at pretending toward some imaginary rhetorical high road, well, they are blind to their own culpability for want of celebrating their own self-righteousness.
“Why is it so important to you that the posters here understand your point of view when you don’t even acknowledge Jeff’s?”
TRHein – Because Jeff’s glib dismissal of Patterico’s argument with his usual “if you’ve ceded them the language, you’ve lost the battle” obviates the need for commenters to understand what Patterico is trying to say. My reading of the comments here show that most are unfamiliar with Patterico’s work. Jeff’s simplistic rendering of him into the category of a Kathleen Parker or David Brooks, or his unfair personal attack in their last kerfuffle, l’affaire “Good Man”, do Patterico an injustice.
In this instance Jeff and Patterico are arguing past each other and failing to acknoledge each others’ points. Patterico came here to defend his post because Jeff did not present it accurately. Patterico does not advocate caving in to the language distorters in the media. An honest reading of his work doesn’t suggest that. He’s saying if you’ve got two ways of saying the same thing, why choose the more deliberately more provacative, not hold your fire completely. Jeff is saying any restraint of language is an Epic Fail.
They’re merely arguing past each other.
Rush can defend himself.
But if we continue to buy into the I’m OK, You’re OK bullshit, we lose.
“I’m OK, YOU’RE ALL FUCKED UP”, needs to be said, unequivocally.
When EVERY elected Republican was lining up to court the press with the statement that they want to get behind the president, support his proposals, and were hoping for him to succeed. EVERY proposal Obama has put forward is either a massive money grant to Democrat supporters like ACORN or the pure advancement of the socialist agenda.
What other way COULD Rush respond?
Understood, Jeff. It’s why I like to read you.
He’s saying if you’ve got two ways of saying the same thing, why choose the more deliberately more provacative
As I and others have pointed out repeatedly, that’s how Limbaugh gains viewers.
There are going to be a lot of angry people very soon and they will need rallying points.
If the American people know the media are in the tank for Obama (and they do know that), the most important thing is to let them know that there are alternatives. Having the media screeching about that horrible Rush Limbaugh 24/7 is much, much better than having them ignoring the opposition altogether.
The Patterico commentariat’s position that the typical American is an ignorant rube who need a “voter whisperer” approach is not only elitist, it’s simply incorrect.
And of course Jeff’s main point remains. You can’t allow your opponent to decide what words mean. If they willfully or ignorantly mischaracterize your position, the answer is to get in their fucking faces.
No, daleyrocks, we’re not arguing past each other, and I haven’t misrepresented Patterico’s arguments, glibly, simplistically, or otherwise. In fact, I’ve quoted and re-quoted, and responded to what he’s actually saying. Did I misquote him? Did I take him out of context?
That you can’t seem to understand the argument doesn’t mean that I don’t, which is why I speak for myself and don’t need you to do it for me.
I answered Patterico’s argument about the several ways of saying the same thing. I linked to two past articles of mine — one to do with Bill Bennett and one to do with Tony Snow — that, taken together more than adequately address Patterico’s point, and reach the same “usual” conclusion: you are ceding the language and losing the battle.
What hasn’t been argued — by you or by Patterico — is why that argument is wrong or inapposite. Instead, all we get is “Jeff glibly and unfairly misrepresented brave Patterico” blah fucking blah.
Bullshit. I’ve answered Patterico. I’ve answered the argument of Patterico’s you claim to be his main one. Of course Patterico doesn’t THINK he’s advocating caving in to a view of language that is dangerous. But that’s the FUCKING POINT — that even in arguing that we should chose the less provocative tack, and thereby avoid having to explain ourselves, he is making a critical blunder.
And whether he (or you) thinks so or not, HE IS — and I’ve been at great pains to discuss why. Instead, Patterico chose not to address those points, and now you, his wounded second, has arrived to declare things a draw, with Patterico winning on honor points.
Sorry, daleyrocks, but your distaste for me or my tone doesn’t change things. First, Patterico’s “argument,” if it really does come down now to “if there are two ways of saying things, why not chose the less provocative one?” is misleading. The idea here is that Limbaugh should have framed things less forcefully, or less provocatively. Why? If it’s merely a matter that Patterico didn’t like that kind of tone, he should have said so. Instead, he argued that Americans don’t do nuance well, and that the potential for misinterpretation is greater in the provocative formulation.
To which I answer so what? Then it’s our duty to make sure to go after those misinterpreting, rather than to fret over a talk show host’s style because it is easy pickings for those who would use it dishonestly.
In short, I’ve made my argument. Whereas all you’ve done is show distaste for my tone.
Newsflash. Don’t care anymore.
But don’t pretend I haven’t addressed Patterico’s argument, because that’s just a load of shit.
Mr. Daleyrocks, sir, I must respectfully and forcefully disagree. If you read this comments thread, you’ll note that Jeff very directly responds to Patterico’s points—even going so far as to respond to each line in Patterico’s first comment here. Patterico, by contrast, would respond to nothing at all.
No one said he is actively “advocat[ing] caving into the language distorters in the media”. What is being argued is that by allowing those who would seek to purposefully distort Rush’s words to define how we can talk to those who we’d like to influence (some percentage of the people who voted for Obama) we are in effect ceding the playing field. There are two choices here and they’re very clear:
1) Tailor your language per the cultural milieu—a milieu that has been nurtured for 60 years by those on the left who would like to see the demise of empiricism.
2) Use whatever language is apropos to your message and refuse to allow the cultural milieu to be defined by your detractors so that they may distort the meaning of your words.
I will be a good, collegial conservative and not mention the irony of daleyrock’s complaint that I’ve taken Patterico out of context.
Perhaps had he chosen a more precise way of writing his complaints…
I also have to wonder if daley read this thread through — or at the very least, read my update.
Human psychology really is a giant pain in the ass when it comes to earnest efforts at understanding.
Houyhnhnms!
Whatever. The established wisdom is that I’m the lout and Patterico is the good and just bringer of calm equanimity, a gentlemen, a conservative. So it is written, etc.
At any rate, the rough cut of the latest volumes of our catch wrestling series just arrived via UPS, so I have things to do.
Later though, perhaps I’ll wander over to Patterico’s place, brave the OUTRAGE at my TONE, and set some of those fuckers straight. Because to me, that’s the important thing.
OUTLAW!
I’ll read through all the comments in a minute, so someone may have already said this, but…
All the stupid proles out there are going to get the context/nuance of what Rush is saying. His remarks were played, in full, on Fox, CNN, and CSPAN. His ratings are up 100% since Obama took him on. He is fully capable of framing the “I want Obama to fail” debate, and he’ll do it very effectively.
If he went around all mealy-mouthed and sensitive, blowing in the MSM winds, none of the people he’s reaching now would be reached. That’s not a winning strategy there, Patterico. The nuanced way is the way to failure and intellectual degradation.
You know what, Motherfucker? I got two words, you cock sucking asshole. FUCK YOU! That was eons ago, and it was not intentional. I also have apologized. So, you sir, can suck it and have nice day, dickfaced asshole.
What the fuck? Can’t people just fucking move on?
That’s not a winning strategy there, Patterico.
To repeat a point from earlier: that was precisely John McCain’s strategy.
Slightly OT, but appropriate. Over a century and a half ago a small group of men faced a choice. Surrender and submit, run away and cede the territory to their foe, or stand and fight. They chose to stay, knowing full well that by doing so they faced certain death. They literally drew a line in the sand. On this date in 1836 the Alamo was overrun. Their deaths, however, were not in vain as “remember the Alamo” became the rallying cry in the war for independence. Those of us who still remember know that a small group of men, who refused to be ruled, stood up to tyranny. While they lost that battle, their compatriots won the war.
My point here is not to give a lesson in Texas history, but to draw the analogy to the present. We are not faced with certain death, but there are those who seek to rule us. We can either choose to fight it, as Mr Goldstein has done, or we can choose to run.
“You all can go to hell. I’m going to Texas”
-David Crockett
I will paraphrase that and address it to Pat, Allah, and the like: You all can go to hell. I’m going to Protein Wisdom
I will read all of this on the weekend I think and that will be my Rush Limbaugh hopes the president fails closure. I’m really sort of bored with it and I don’t see it actually going anywhere and I know I won’t come to think of it as anything more than a purposeful distraction for the chitter chatters while our dipshit president crawls on top of my little country and does his bidness while Harry and Nancy hold the struggling bitch down.
You are not a lout. Mr. Patterico is wrong for right now but I’m pretty sure there’s more than a germ of doubt what’s… germinating. My sense is and what do I know but there’s a big differential in how passionate you guys are about believing what you believe. It’s like you really believe stuff and Mr. Patterico is more of a these things are things I know kind of guy. I’m just babbling. I was too tired last night to do anything more than that one comment with lots of typos I wrote while I ate dinner at like 9:00, which, you’re not supposed to eat at 9:00.
There’s lots of denial afoot, and I’m not sure how that plays in. I had coffee last night with my super-high income socialist Baracky voter friend and he just sort of vaguely knows he’ll need a more better tax person for next year, but he really hadn’t thought about stuff what he needs to get started doing. That sort of laxity is not how he got to be my super-high income socialist Baracky voter friend. That means something, but a sample of one isn’t enough to really go on.
But for what I’ve been able to read so far of the thread there’s lots of smartness in it.
Stop Barak. I hope he fails!
I just wish “conservatives” would spend as much time attacking the bullshit message of the likes of David Brooks instead of worrying that Rush is saying things that may interpreted as being mean. Brook’s writes that he made an error, and that sorry he wavered but Baracky’s got everything under control, and writing an op-ed column FOR the Dems (isn’t that nice of him?) .
Instead, we have folks continuing to chastise an ACTUAL conservative.
oh. I have a window open from somewheres I clicked where the Mr. Riehl says this…
and then he links to something I can’t read cause NG is badgering me, but I think that little snippet is useful.
All I know is I’m done with people-pleasing.
I’m big on that lately too, SarahW. A lot of times it expresses as way more passive aggressive than I usually am in real life but you know what? That’s ok. Like for example NG asked me if I thought this would be a good time for her to buy a house and I said I think the idea of investing in California is really stupid especially with that clueless fuck in the White House. This is not really what NG was asking and she’s very stuck in California cause it’s unimaginable she would ever leave so this is probably as good a time for her to buy as any but that’s what’s she’s got for an answer cause I’m not doing the fakey fakey very well these days. The idea that buying into this dirtiest of dirty socialist states in this dirty dirty socialist nation is some kind of investment is nuts to me. Housing prices in a state what people are abandoning are not gonna hit bottom anytime soon and the dumbass limp-wristed governor’s home invasive taxation thuggery hasn’t even gotten in gear yet.
Why write about Brooks? He’s a feckless company man and everyone knows it. Let the NYT die.
I was serious last night. I want out of the ridiculousness that the conservative blogosphere is becoming. I want to evolve into something more useful.
I have no desire any longer to debate people like Patterico, who can get away with not having to answer a single point — and yet still has defenders worried about my tone.
MY WORD!
Instead, I want to take these arguments out of the realm of personalities so that they reach a wider audience. If I’m right for part of the job, I’m willing. If not, somebody else can do it. The important thing is that the arguments be made and the message delivered. If we don’t stop the assault on language, we will necessarily drift toward totalitarianism and liberal fascism. NECESSARILY. Meaning, it’s built into the premises we are accepting.
I have a strategy — a shame strategy, one that plays to the entitlement generation, that I think will resonate and could turn the tides. And I want to begin getting the word out.
Doing it on a blog that is reviled by the left (when they talk about me, they use an alternate spelling of my name, “Godlstein,” and never link my actual posts) and ignored by many high traffic sites on the right for the crime of having taken some of them on in a way that hurt their feelings, I guess, is no way to get things done.
This site has to change. The OUTLAW thing — which daleyrocks suggested over at Patterico’s was really just my cry for attention — needs to take on a life of its own, whether I’m around to steward the thing or not.
To get that rolling, we’ll need everyone who is interested to use the entirety of their networking skills. We’ll need to set up some sort of foundation and portal. We’ll need to organize events, host debates and speeches, and — most importantly — remain honest and true to our principles.
happy is right: people can present me as a whining attention whore, but in truth, I am like I am because as time has gone on, I’ve watched the online classical liberal movement head backwards, to the point where the GOP ran John McCain, and Patterico and Allah are arguing that Rush’s provocateurism places an undo burden on conservatives hoping to win over the soft middle (who, we’re told, don’t understand nuance) — and it literally hurts me.
I care, but I do so poorly — in such a way that I get depressed or angry or bitter. which unfortunately means that I alienate people online on occasion. My wife would much prefer I just quit altogether, and I’ve come close on several occasions.
But the problem is, how can I stay away when I know what’s happening, and when I feel that, given the opportunity, some of the arguments I’ve articulated here ocould make a difference?
The real truth is — and I said this earlier — I don’t much care how the message gets out, or who gets the credit. I’ve only complained about being frozen out because it means the arguments are being frozen out.
And it’s time to change that.
OUTLAWISM doesn’t have its own PJM. It doesn’t have Vanity Fair. Or Media Matters. But that doesn’t mean it can’t.
Email me if you have any desire to sign on to the next phase of PW. If you are prepared to work, so am I.
This was just fuckin’ beautiful.
Jeff, promote that to a mainline post, not just a comment.
I will add: the most salient characteristic of the media — all the media — is its dependence on sensationalism. The message needs to be outrageous. If it’s outrageous enough, it will be quoted, and even if it’s misquoted it gets at least part of itself out. Rinse and repeat.
Regards,
Ric
I’ve been trying to visualize a dickfaced asshole, and all I come up with is GiGi, who, btw, happy birthday!
Are you in, Ric?
Jeff, for the last month and a half I’ve been sick as a dog, as well as being flat fucking broke — and, as it turns out from my last hospital visit, the first is a consequence of the second. Stress is very bad for your colon muscles…
Unfortunately the palliative for what ails me is something called CHLORD/CLIDI, the second half of which is a fucking tranquilizer from the same family as Valium. One of the reasons I haven’t been posting much is that while I’m taking the stuff I just can’t get outraged.
I’d love to be in. The problem is, you can’t depend on me for any damn thing. I could disappear completely at any moment.
You do have one natural ally, as I see it: Velociman. Have you approached him with the possibility of alliance, or at least some sort of coordination?
Regards,
Ric
Geez, Ric, I’m sorry.
Seconding Ric, Jeff.
Perfect.
What can I do? It’s important I think that particularly kooky fascisms like global warming not get lost in the big picture. dicentra is very strong on that. Very strong. Ric, too.
Count me and my limited skillset in.
Why write about Brooks? He’s a feckless company man and everyone knows it. Let the NYT die.
Well, because until the NYT is dead, he still gets his message out. My thought was that if you’re going to fight conservatives, why pick the ACTUAL conservatives?
happyfeet, you are both right and wrong.
Yes, individual issues such as gerbil worming are important — but the situation has built to the point where there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of issues big and small where the press is going on, and any time one is attacked it’s easy enough for the other side to just shift the issue.
It’s easy enough to see what frosts Jeff about Patterico and Allah. “Cooperation” ends up as “giving in”, and “civility” just means “yielding the issue to the shouters.” It won’t work. It can’t work. I posted some time ago on the concept that “…just like Democrats, only cheaper” is not a winning message whether it’s specifically Republican partisanship or simply trying to get back to conservative/classical ideals.
It has to be simple, and it has to be outrageous, otherwise it’ll never get transmitted. We need to be less concerned that outrageous proposals are interpreted correctly than that they are transmitted, because the problem right now is that the issues we want to discuss aren’t being transmitted. I remain convinced that they can be, but have only the teeniest glimmers of vague notions of how to do it.
Look at it this way: Thomas Paine was full of shit. Men in a “state of nature” don’t elect leaders, they beat the shit out of one another until the strongest emerges. Building a civil society on any basis depends on having a somewhat civil basis to start with — and we ain’t got that. What remains is rocks, clubs, and willy-waving.
The start, I think, needs to be:
1) That’s a damn lie, and you’re a damn liar
2) OK, you won. What did you get for a prize?
Regards,
Ric
People who are actual conservatives who are promoting ideas, however unintentionally, that subvert conservatism, are more important to fight. They can be saved, in most cases.
I’m in. I’m tired of being the “nice” guys while our principles as conservatives and classical liberals get trashed and stomped on. Time for us to figure out what we stand for and find a way to present and support those principles that haven’t been supported by the Republican Party for years. Not to mention start to support politicians who are actually willing to stand up for those principles before the entire opposition bears a passing resemblance to Arlen Spector (or a Portuguese Man o’ War, as you will.)
And it’s really way past time to stand up and show some leadership. I’m in!
But, that isn’t what motivates those who start these battles. When Steele attacks Rush (instead of David Brooks or Frum or whoever) – THAT is the issue. What angers me is that these moderates seem much more interested in proving their moderate street cred by throwing conservatives under the bus.
Ack. You know, I’m just dwelling in the negative. Let’s move on with whatever plan we can come up with.
That’s a damn lie, and you’re a damn liar.
Got it. Krauthammer was really good on that today. Drudge linked. brb. Here.
That’s an uncommonly well-expressed rebuttal to make in the Michael Steele era I think. It’s weird how Charles Krauthammer doesn’t sound at all like a eunuch yet he can still make a compelling argument.
It truly seems like we have alot of our people who want to be considered “one of the good ones”. The “clean and articulate” to borrow the phrase from our VP.
oh. link
The hammer had me rolling the other night on Fox. He made some statement about how at first under Baracky he was upset and flummoxed, but that now he’s made so many bad decisions he’d reached some sort of Zen-like state. I wish I could find the quote.
I think the Hammer could be an Outlaw.
Where am I? What is this place?
I was at Ace O’Spades, just surfing along when suddenly–whoosh–I found myself here. That’s never happened before…..
I’m scared.
Don’t be frightened. Just take off your clothes, rub on some oil, and let it happen, Kasper…
Yours,
Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes
Oh. Incidentally, I commented over at Patterico’s earlier. I just wanted to give the local gentlemen a chance to bare their well-groomed teeth.
Context????
90 million citizens think those are sumpthin’ you put in your eyes.
Rush = Sophistication
Obama = Lowest Common Denominator
Advantage Obama
The Associated Press must be scared cause they have new propaganda today what’s different than the propaganda they were doing to support the crisis atmosphere what Baracky wanted. Some propaganda bitch what they pay named Rachel Beck is going with an “irrational pessimism” meme. Like it doesn’t make sense how investors are completely devoid of confidence in George Soros’s butt boy’s economic stewardship. I don’t think they’ll have a lot of luck with this one.
Councils of caution need to be ignored…McCain listened to that bullshit and look how well he did. Patterico is coming back in the next life as David Brooks.
Patterico’s explanations sound like an apology…as if we should be apologizing for what Rush thinks. Apologies are for people that concede that they were wrong. If you bother to overcome the awful burden of “nuance” it is clear that Rush disagrees with the future President Obmama is driving us towards and that he wants freedom rather than slavery for Americans. Failure for the ideology, not the country. If you disagree with that then say so, but don’t argue that we should frame our thinking in the terms of our moral enemies. To do that is to step towards failure.
Btw Ace sent me though I have been here before. And need to remember to come back more often. Sorry Jeff count on my meager visits again!
Patterico’s not coming back as David Brooks. He’s not that stupid.
IMO, he’s just wrong about this, and no, he and Jeff aren’t talking past one another.
I’m aware that I don’t have the intellectual chops of most here, and mostly comment to mock idiocy or inject some good old common sense, something I do have.
I am an enthusiastic OUTLAW! however, for what it’s worth, and I’m all in.
Um, What exactly are we helping here? Next phase?
JeffG, For what it’s worth, I’ll back your play anyway I can. Too old to change, too cynical for hope.
Outlaw!!!!
“This was just fuckinÂ’ beautiful.”
On the one hand you have Paleo Pat, who insulted the memory of the wife of Mike Hendrix of Cold Fury (calling her a “bitch” as I recall) before her body was cold in the grave.
On the other hand you have me, engaged in a debate about the best way to present conservative ideas.
And you take the side of . . . Chuck Adkins.
Well, when he called Mike’s wife a bitch, he did speak his mind! And that’s the key thing, right?
Didn’t you just argue, Pat, that when Chuck says you’re out of line . . . whoa!?
He got slapped down hard for it, and deservedly, and he owned up to it. He didn’t make excuses like that joker who overdubbed Gibson (I think it was) referring to Holder’s bright blue scrotum. And it doesn’t matter what one says, they will misprision and distort even if it means manufacturing “facts” and “content.”
BTW, Roseanne Barr says the Israelis are firing rockets on themselves. She really ought to worry about the way some people might misinterpret that.
I think the “beautiful” thing was facetious.
Not every one is out to sully your good name, Patrick.
No, it’s not.
You still don’t get the argument, do you?
Click the links in the post. Let go the caricature you’ve created. Let the straw men wend their way to Oz without you. Listen.
daleyrocks understands me perfectly. And the reception his argument got is exactly why I didn’t bother making it. I’ve been down that road before and know where it leads. Since many of you asked.
Pat, you seem to believe–unless I’m reading you wrong or deliberately twisting your words–that we are arguing against civility and clarity of expression. You’re wrong. We’re not going to be bullied into continually walking on eggshells for professional or amateur mau-mauers, is all.
And really, seriously, please don’t take this the wrong way, but fuck them.
This part of your argument, though, Pat is distinctly self-deconstructing: Rush having to explain himself reveals nuance. Look at all the explanation you’ve had to do to an audience that, in my view, isn’t particularly hostile to you.
Think, for a moment, of what this might have to do with that dude who asked the lawyer who accosted him for pulling up political signs, “Who the fuck are you?” and was taken to court. You wrote compellingly about that, I thought.
Agreed. Unfortunately neither of you understands the opposing argument.
Oh, knock it off.
Oh what a load of shit. He didn’t make an argument, save that I “misrepresented” your argument (by quoting it and its follow-up and answering both), I did so glibly, and that you and I are talking past each other — none of which is true. I answered every one of your points, and I did so fairly. You made an absolute show out of ignoring me.
Stop making excuses for an unwillingness to engage, and stop trying to convince people here that I’m somehow not prepared to argue cases on the merits. You may sell that on your site, or behind my back on Twitter, but sadly for you, people here actually read me. Not to mention, the two older posts I linked to this one are decidedly on point — and have nothing to do with you.
[…] Here’s an awesome argument between Jeff Goldstein and Patterico, on the subject of Rush Limbaugh, the Post-Modernist Media, and how to win against the latter. […]
[…] Speaking Truth To Power And Patterico […]
I think Patterico has a good point, which is: Attention now has shifted away from Obama’s dysmal policies to Rushbo. And I think if that’s a consequent Obama had in mind, it’s working. But it’s working because we’ve conceded for so long, now, on how we can talk. This is how people get fired for using the word “niggardly”, this is how Burris isn’t thrown into jail, this is how Obama gets away playing the race card, and so on ad nauseum.
We have to put an end to the left-wing-dictated, media-supported PC discourse. If we continue to play by those rules, yes, we’ve already lost. So, yes, Obama will benefit now from this — he built his whole career on it — but this is a long war and we need this fight this battle now before we can win the war against socialist thugs like Obama (and other Obamas in the future).
So, it’s time to call a spade a spade. Oooh, I used to it in reference to a black man. Think about how none of you would dare to use this phrase in the presence of a black man, and then you might realize why we’re losing this fight against Obama. We are a nation of cowards, Holder was almost right, but it’s because we’re afraid to tell people dirty truths.
Mr. Patterico, in fighting your battle you’ve conceded the war.
If the media wants to screw you over, they’ll do it no matter what. You could be tediously reciting a Calculus I textbook and they’ll make it seem like you’re reciting Mein Kampf
[…] Goldstein is frustrated. I don’t want to have to measure every word I say with the thought in mind that somebody is going […]
Jeff @415 and later and 470 – I do not have any distaste for you unless you have not bathed recently, but that’s just the way I roll. I did not accuse you of misquoting or taking Patterico out of context. You claim I accused you of misrepresenting Patterico, which I can see where you may have gotten that idea by my describing you as not presenting it accurately. My bad. My intent was to focus more on what I considered your glib dismissal of his argument, which I still contend you did. I don’t care how many times you came back to it in the comments, you dismissed it out of hand.
In terms of not understanding the argument – bulldookey. No long-term reader of this blog is going to fail to understand your argument, but hey, thanks for the props.
It’s nice to be loved.
The MSM is going to flack the Limbaugh quotes no matter what, but there’s no reason conservatives should play their game.
How ’bout just saying “Oh, c’mon (insert liberal name here) – you’re to intelligent to believe what you’re saying about Limbaugh. Why don’t we talk about something meaningful, like whether the Obama policy makes any sense. Here’s my answer – ‘No.'”
Ah, that makes no sense.
Are you kidding? I want OBAMA to fail ASAP, with as little collateral damage to the country as possible. The man IS his policies, hammered into him all his life. What I don’t want to fail is democracy and the United States. The longer the man is in office, the more realistic it becomes. So yes, Hussein, implode quickly.
Jeff whined:
“You may sell that on your site, or behind my back on Twitter, but sadly for you, people here actually read me.”
Posting something on the Internet, accessible by anyone with no password required, is “behind your back”?
Whatever, dude.
Leave Rush Limbaugh Alone! …
Jeff Goldstein’s takedown of Patrick Frey … and don’t forget the comments section!…
Yeah, Jeff’s really thin skinned, isn’t he, Pat?
yea because to twitter is to be
Someone upthread analogized to trial lawyering. It’s a good analogy, so let me run with it.
The hypo was:
“Think of the political environment as toxic, a really bad venue. You have the facts on your side but you know the populace is plaintiff oriented (or appear to lean that way based on the papers) and you are defense. You donÂ’t just settle out, not if you are in the right.”
Absolutely. You fight the judge and opposing counsel tooth and nail on the rulings.
But the jury, you have to persuade. You don’t do that by saying fuck ’em, I’ll say whatever the fuck I want whatever way I want. You have to tell the truth — in the most persuasive way possible. Pissing them off is not conducive to persuasion.
THIS DOESN’T MEAN YOU DON’T SAY WHAT YOU THINK OR PULL YOUR PUNCHES. Most of you are determined to ignore that I am saying that. But it’s true.
If there’s a hard truth that’s essential to your case, you have to tell them. Even if you know they won’t like it.
But if there’s two ways to say it, and one runs a substantial risk of offending the jurors, you say it the other way. Clarity and simplicity is best. You don’t give jurors a sound bite that they can mishear if you can help it, because they sometimes have short attention spans.
The biggest key to persuasion, however, is choosing your audience. It has to be someone capable of persuasion. So if you’re one of those people hellbent on misunderstanding my argument the way Goldstein has misrepresented it — and, as a result, you want to take a little shot and tell me I’m not being persuasive — well, then, go nuts . . . but understand that you’re not my audience. My audience is anyone reading this thread with an open mind.
Okay, but let’s say that you’re saddled with a jury whose foreman is suborned, Pat. Then what?
What if you are saddled with a judge who gives the jury bad instructions, and there’s no place to appeal?
What if the prosecution withholds evidence that would exonerate your client, and you have nowhere else to go?
You can’t choose a national audience. You might be able to create one, it’s true. But then, you’d have to be naive enough to believe that they were educable, and you’d have to make them want to listen to you . . . i.e., you’d have to be entertaining.
So where, Pat, is the misrepresentation? I’m not clear on that. Scanning upthread I’m not even sure that I can find you making that claim with regard to some specific instance. But perhaps I’ve missed what you know is there? I’ll be looking again.
It may just come down to this difference, that I believe the prosecution is forsworn and you don’t.
I said daleyrocks was right. He understands my argument, and how it has been caricatured here. This entire thread is one huge strawman. Virtually nobody has paid any attention to what I’ve actually said. Instead, most puff themselves up in self-righteousness by proclaiming that there’s NO DAMN WAY you’ll pull your punches, even though THAT’S NOT WHAT I’M SAYING.
Yes, self-righteousness is always very repellent in other people.
How have I misrepresented your argument?
I’ll take it on any which way you make it, but those far — and you look at both the post, the update, and the thread — all I’ve done is quote you and respond.
You keep saying I’m misrepresenting you. How? By quoting you? By answering you? You need to be more specific.
You’re not looking for open-minded people. You’re looking for people whose open-mindedness is defined by agreeing with you. To insult all the readers here by suggesting that many of them are close minded is to be as insulting to the conservatives here as you were to all the Americans who, unlike you, don’t really do nuance all that well…
Except for all the direct responses I made to what you wrote.
And all the parts where I quoted you.
Except for all that, you mean.
Patterico – I get your argument just fine. I get you.
But you beg the question of whether the jury is offended, and what will offend them.
A bit of a shock can get a sleepy jury to sit up straight.
Also a good trial lawyer knows that words are chameleons that reflect their environment but he doesn’t just passively adapt to the seasons or let the other side paint the leaves. The biggest verdicts come when you shake the leaves down and the opponent is suddenly exposed…
shoot the lawyers first
Here’s what happened: Patterico studiously avoided all my responses. Instead, he engaged others here on other points, and now he’s claiming that all those people he engaged won’t cut him slack on points that, to a large extent, don’t touch on the ones that I wanted to discuss.
He has a talking point. He has been “misrepresented.” What I want to know is how? Where did I say that it’s never proper to pull your punches? Where did I say that in-your-face invective is the only way to get things done?
In your effort to decry how “misrepresented” you’ve been, Patrick, you’ve been running around — even before this post — caricaturing me. In your little private “public” tweets.
Thing is, I’m not crying about being misrepresented, because I will calmly restate my position when necessary. You, however, will only restate that you’ve been misrepresented.
See the difference?
I don’t think the jury analogy is apt at all. I would rather think of it as a tent revival crowd, and I think it is time the sinners got lit up with a little fire and brimstone.
not to be angry with lawyers but i listen to hughhewitt telling me if we just pay off people the endangered species act would be more “acceptable”.
me: i’m like repeal all these laws. i’m tired of subsidizing lawyers and their assholes in congress. because my co2 fart is hurting a polar bear?
Can I hear a Amen!
I mean, for goodness’s sake, don’t cede the premises, even in these premises, but tell us once again what the premises are. We’ve seen what happens when you’re afraid to offend those who are determined to be offended. I mean, Gert Wilders can’t go to the UK. And yes, it’s the same thing with the left in this country.
Hang on Pat. You just said “Pissing them off is not conducive to persuasion.” I’d agree, I guess, if the “them” is the target audience.
If the them are the sort you just characterized as “if you’re one of those people hellbent on misunderstanding my argument” then as you point out, you’d be wasting your breath. On the other hand, you are willing to check down the rhetoric if you think you can reach out to someone who is willing to forego being pissed off, right? That would seem to be a concession to the potentially willing listener.
But I think that Jeff’s point is that in making that concession to the willing, you are also (or Limbaugh would be, in this case) making a fatal concession to the eternally opposed misrepresenters you are otherwise willing to ignore. Limbaugh’s thrust is to (as you have noted with Jeffersonian upthread) take that chance, seize the controversy to get the attention of the willing listeners and pull them in, bit by bit, explaining and educating as he goes along and ignore the unwilling.
The problem Jeff has with your first post’s construction was that you were ex-post checking down on the rhetoric Limbaugh had already chosen (in his wisdom? how should I know? how should you?) to do the job he determined he wanted to do.
But why? What motivated your choice? Was it that the left and the media were already howling at the inappropriate sentiment, from their pov, that Limbaugh had expressed? And that that was sure to result in bad feelings toward the conservative movement somehow? Or that Limbaugh would ultimately not be capable of filling in the gaps that the facile listener had glossed with stupidity? Whatever your motivation to correct Limbaugh’s faulty (from your pov) practice, can it be separated from your perception of the abuse it will undergo once in the hands of its ardent opponents? I’m guessing Jeff simply disagrees where it comes to the persuadable middle.
Huge? An interesting bit of self-importance for the guy who issued #461 and followed it up with #480, presumable straight-faced.
I’ve been paying attention. And I’d hoped there was something in there recommend your line of reasoning, really I did.
why is it that the demorats get to scream about W failure but if elrushbo does it it is a scandal?
Someone needs to make a better case why Rush’s blunt language is an impolitic and losing strategy when the democrats have one two election cycles with absolutely no ideas but only violent political slander next to which Rush’s expostulations sound like the apologetic burps of Emily Post.
It’s been said already, but the problem is that conservatives have become self-conscious of perception to the point of paralysis. Partly because we actually have consciences and manners. But we’re a party of regroupers and retreaters now. We advance, take volley, huddle, regroup and get wiped out, or retreat and lose ground while we rethink the advance — or simply don’t advance and wait for God or public outrage to do the work for us. Not going to happen.
Reagan references are useless. This is a new era, a new enemy — a rhetorically fascist brute as we’ve never before seen in America. We need to advance and keep advancing and keep firing. Take each volley and hit back, directly, honestly, fearlessly. Crudeness or anger or hyperbole isn’t necessary. Just the facts, maam, relentlessnessly. Most important, someone on the Right other than Rush Limbaugh has to confront the media. This is the most significant and shameless cowardice of all, exemplified no better than in McCain’s endless campaign of wheyfaced ingratiation. Conservative leaders need to call out these arrogant liars and hoodlum inquisitors and put THEM on the defensive. On their own shows, in speeches, everywhere. Simple, unemotional questions and challenges to their integrity and credibility backed by facts, over and over. Nothing less will do.
It’s because being above their level really gets stuff done, rrpjr. You know, pursuant #499, 200+ years of law making and we can’t barely survive for all the inadequate legislation.
Comment by rrpjr on 3/6 @ 8:06 pm #
steele should done that dude
THey picked on Limbaugh as spokesman for the party, because he’s loud in his tent revival meetings and can be laughed at in horror as some sort of vulgar king of wrong, the way Dr. Phil gets laughed at for being an opportunistic prick with professional pretentions. HA HA, you listen to Rush Limbaugh, he’s a goof and look at him he’s your king goof.
This whole thing is stupid because he’s just some guy on the radio with an opinon and a microphone, and he speaks for his fricking self, even on those occasions I agree with anything he has to say.
It’s RIGHT to want O to fail. Fail fail fail. And if you can’t admit the truth of that, and press the case for it, why don’t you just rollover for our new Venezuela North overlords.
i think the obamalincolnfdr forgets he might be hoover. oh funny that
you’all know that hoover was a prog rethuglican?
Patterico, the whole kerfuffle is a bunch of bullies taunting. The best response is to mock the mockers.
That’s what wins the hearts and minds of the soft middle. Truth and snark.
Not to mention their enablers on the right.
who is on the right? PATTERICO, frumpy, brookster, maybe hitlerman if we be doing the leftist thing? rev wright might be a national socialists so he be right no? ebonics for diversity.
[…] About This? Intresting discussion at Protein Wisdom. Here’s my two […]
The Republicans are starting to treat the Democrats like the Democrats treat foreign enemies which is how abused partners treat their spouses: they all keep thinking it must be something they did.
Fuck that shit, if somebody is wrong you tell them, if they are a threat you eliminate it.
hey let’s do diversity:
?
Rachel Maddow defines how conservatives and Republicans should speak.
If you are agreeing with Rachel Maddow, you might be a Democrat.
That’s starting to get downright spammy, joe. Once ought to be enough in most cases.
Jeff said: “– Of course, as outlaws, wingtips and suit pants will be replaced with snakeskin boots and Steve McQueen jeans.”
Do you really want to see Ed Morrissey in Steve McQueen jeans?
Wendell Willkie 1940 presidential election
Not sure he’s the outlaw type.
But no, of course not.
A toxic political environment? It’s a toxic media environment. Same thing, but calling it political obscures what’s happened. NPR isn’t accidentally dirty socialist. It’s by design. Look at the dirty socialist foundations what support them. Duh. And it’s no different with MSNBC and that gay jewish guy on Comedy Central what used to be pretty but now just looks bitter and more Bill Maheresque every day and well, Bill Maher’s HBO what buys Nancy Pelosi’s bimbo daughter’s movies or Newsweek or Warner Bros. animated penguin movies what they make for your special needs child. They all hate you.
But there’s no convincing the audience if you’re a Republican. The dirty socialist media learned in Katrina that they have impunity to hold the fucking audience in as much contempt as they want. I will tell you how to convince the audience. The way you convince the audience is by laughing at their dumb hopeychangey faces when their taxes go up. When their food spoils cause of rolling brownouts. When they can’t afford gas again cause their dipshit pezzydent canceled tons of oil leases the first week him and his skeezey woman moved their Chicago street trash asses on up into the deluxe bedroom in our White House what George Soros bought them. By giggling at people who spent a fortune getting their kids through college but what can only get green jobs changing lightbulbs in the hood. By pointing and gawking at the maimed people what have less extremities than is optimal cause they couldn’t get a timely appointment with their government surgeons. Learn how to say oh, yeah, paying union dues does kind of suck, but then, you and your slackjawed wife both kinda voted for it didn’t ya? Yeah I think you did cause I remember you had that HOPE sign in your yard what was really impressive cause it told me you were just the kind of white guy that would have no problem voting for a dirty socialist piece of shit black man cause of how sophisticated you so self-evidently are.
No. I’m not interested in persuading these weak-minded losers. Too late for that. I just want to watch their dumb smiley fat hopey faces guzzle every delicious hopey changey ounce of what they’ve done to our little country and give them a friendly, knowing wink as they spew every rancid drop onto the floorboards of their Baracky-subsidized Prius.
President Coolidge, 1st Presidential Film (1924)
I think that deserved a post of its own, hf.
Jeff man
You have got to love this…
I am very happy for you….
The way you convince the audience is by laughing at their dumb hopeychangey faces when their taxes go up.
Heh.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/06/video-whoopi-discovers-she-doesnt-like-tax-hikes/
I think I finally got a handle on Patterico’s POV.
Said in #335:
Patterico is an attorney in the DA’s office. Once he has a jury seated, he must take care not to antagonize a jury by pointing out their idiocy or ignorance. Likely, he is viewing so-called popular opinion as if it were a jury. In court, there is a arbiter – the judge – that dictates what is allowable, and what is not allowable; what is a permissible interpretation of presented facts, and what is not.
Patrick, for some strange reason, you are acting as if the MSM has the plenary powers of a judge. Strange I say, because you do such a good job holding the “dog trainer’s” feet to the fire on a regular basis. But is this (and several other instances) you seemingly ignore all that you rail against coming from the media in general and LATimes in specific.
You cede the argument not because it is wrong, rather because it was easily taken out of context. But, for goodness sake, the better part of your archives are populated with stories of the media misrepresenting context to foist a narrative. In fact, what Jeff et al are arguing here is a natural extension of your own work!
OUTLAWS (copyright pending), or just us regular PW readers are fed up with the media telling us how we have to interpret… well, everything. We are sick of the media calling racism on ads run by a Tenn Republican showing a white chick asking a black dude to call her; we are sick of the media claiming that Saxby Chamblis’ ads against Max Cleland questioned his patriotism; and we are sick of Rush, the bombastic, being taken out of context to fit a narrative molded from within the White House, and spread afar by an infatuated media.
Mostly, however, we are sick of allies telling us, lecturing to us, that we have to play by rules, constitutively established by the left with great aid from the media, that cripple anyone speaking against liberal orthodoxy. If I inarticulately call a spade a spade, it would be nice if my ideological brethren instead of focusing upon the inarticulateness (or racist, as the media would have you believe), would stand up and admit that, yes the item is in fact a spade.
happyfeet – That made my night. Thank you.
Wanna see something funny? Besides Christopher Taylor, the only guy really agreeing with Patterico over on the Ace thread is h2u (he “hates” PW), a Patterico commenter who is arguing Patterico’s “point” in precisely the way Patterico claims I misrepresented him.
Those two should have a pow-wow.
I haven’t been back to Patterico’s, but I’m sure that h2u — who earlier today dismissed my linguistic arguments as “invalid” (in their entirety?) without having either read them or understood them — seems to have quite a bug up his / her ass about me.
At any rate, I found it funny. In a “you’re taking him out of context in your defense, Mr h2u!” kinda way…
h2u appears to me a natural born propagandist, at least judging from the brief exchange I had with him at Pat’s and what little I read at Ace’s. I’m kind of surprised that Pat is still laboring under the misimpression that disagreement with his thesis is equivalent to misrepresentation of it though. He’s way smart enough to know better than that. It’s a mystery.
As addendum Patterico, the left uses language as a bludgeon to impress a narrative. We refuse to acquiesce.
Refusing to let the Patterico and Goldstein riff take center stage, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi start swearing at each other, followed by hot sweaty monkey love…oh the humanity.
Jeff–
Paterico asks “What harm has Rush suffered?”
Actually, Obama had his Illinoise machine pal Durbin introduce legislation designed to eventully get Limbaugh’s show kicked off of some stations. It has passed the Senate.
It amounts to a Bill of Attainder. Think about it; the president denouncing you personally and passing legislation aimed specifically at your business–it’s like Hugo Chavez without the parrot.
He would be doing this guerilla theater anyway, but, yeah, Rush has some skin in the game.
Man, that was good Happy. I hope you don’t mind, but I copied your comment and put it on my blog. Not everyone makes it down to comment #523.
#535, I’m about to mail it to my spouse. I expect he will enjoy it immensely.
I can here my husband laughing in the other room. It’s just like Christmas. Thank you, hf.
He said, “I’ll have a cup of what he’s having.”
I can *hear*. ( bother)
The elite journalists, I repeat, got Obama wrong. The troglodytes got him right. As our national drama continues to unfold, bear that in mind.
Now that Obama is in charge, it is time to speak truth to power. Isn’t that what the left always says?
Spamming, Joe. Don’t.
But how about we give Baracky a parrot?
(Noel, if you have a link for that Durbin story, I’d pay dearly for it.. )
apropos of nothing in particular, it’s Breitbart I’ll bet.
[…] Goldstein: “Better that Patterico fails, I think” […]
I posted about AP’s “thread the needle.” and said basically what you are saying here. “Thread the needle” is the same as “ride the fence” and if the damn Republicans would get of the the damn fence and pick a side they wouldn’t have to worry about it, now would they?
[…] has been moving among conservatives, it’s probably time I did. My post is prompted by this from Jeff Goldstein, this semi-retort my Patterico, and this overall analysis Gabriel Malor. I recommend you read them […]
Jeff makes an excellent point about Patterico fighting the wrong battle, unwittingly and uncritically using the weapons the Rahm anti-Rush WH gang provides. I don’t mean this as an insult but I really wonder how someone could be so dumb as to fall hook, line and sinker for the Obama-Rahm create-a-5th-column ploy. We’re talking “epic stupid” there.
I don’t know, purplepeep, but that’s a question you could take up with Allah, Ace, or Cassandra, if you liked.
[…] with Rush. Katherine and I have made our positions pretty clear here at Vandy Right. Patterico, Jeff Goldstein, Gabriel Malor and Ace have all had their say on this, and I encourage you to read them […]
Rod Dreher Finds the Subtle Nuances in Mass Murder…
if some people cannot understand the subtle difference between wanting Obama to fail, plunging America into a Great Depression or wanting Obama’s policies to fail, plunging America into a Great Depression, is it really worth the energy to try to expl….
[…] here: Comment by happyfeet on 3/6 @ 8:53 pm […]
[…] to write a primer for him on semiotics, sent via email; and as anyone who’s been following my posts on the topic, or who read my Hot Air essay knows, I am committed to the argument, and have always […]
[…] * […]
[…] myself — if Fred presented his desires “correctly” while Rush presented his in a needlessly provocative, unclear way (bracketing that Fred had Rush as an antecedent, whereas Rush had…well, the majority of the […]
[…] dramatic woe-is-me Kathleen Parker-style all-out martyrdom scene. I hate that crap. Just judge for yourself. (To be fair, some of the people made very good arguments and points; not everyone knows me that […]
Pablo suggested I post this again:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
From: Jeff Goldstein: Arguing “On Point” — With Threats of Violence.
Thanks to Pablo for the suggestion. It’s a good one. Sorta makes it clear who wrote this post.
Reply to Patterico re: “violence” charges here.