Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

With Reference to What Jeff Just Said . . . [Dan Collins]

I’m not going to go long on responding to Cassandra. I’m just going to make a few counter-points.

As regards Rush Limbaugh, Jeff has been at some pains to point out that this is not about Rush Limbaugh. We’ve probably all typed the name Rush Limbaugh more over the past week at this blog than we have in total since its inception. It’s really not–I’m looking at you, Meghan McCain–a matter of whether Rush speaks for us, or for conservatives in general, or for the Republican Party which, goodness knows, most of us affiliate ourselves with grudgingly if at all.

The question is, do you permit Obama’s hit team of Carville, Begala, Axelrod, Emanuel, Stephanopolous, Gibbs and company to slander a person by misrepresenting his argument, even as they attempt to elevate their target to de facto head of the Republican Party and by association of the “conservative movement.” I am sorry to say that in doing so, they slander the target again, since he seems (even though he’s just an entertainer) to have more integrity than the party at large in fact. If you permit them so to do out of some misguided idea that a person ought not to have presented so large a target, you misunderstand. The perceived size of the target is a function only of the severity of the lese majeste it is felt to have committed.

Dan Riehl brings to my attention to the following, by Camille Paglia:

President Obama — in whom I still have great hope and confidence — has been ill-served by his advisors and staff. Yes, they have all been blindsided and overwhelmed by the crushing demands of the presidency. But I continue to believe in citizen presidents, who must learn by doing, even in a perilous age of terrorism. Though every novice administration makes blunders and bloopers, its modus operandi should not be a conspiratorial reflex cynicism.

Case in point: The orchestrated attack on radio host Rush Limbaugh, which has made the White House look like an oafish bunch of drunken frat boys. I returned from carnival in Brazil (more on that shortly) to find the Limbaugh affair in full flower. Has the administration gone mad? This entire fracas was set off by the president himself, who lowered his office by targeting a private citizen by name. Limbaugh had every right to counterattack, which he did with gusto. Why have so many Democrats abandoned the hallowed principle of free speech? Limbaugh, like our own liberal culture hero Lenny Bruce, is a professional commentator who can be as rude and crude as he wants.

And she continues:

If Rush’s presence looms too large for the political landscape, it’s because of the total vacuity of the Republican leadership, which seems to be in a dithering funk. Rush isn’t responsible for the feebleness of Republican voices or the thinness of Republican ideas. Only ignoramuses believe that Rush speaks for the Republican Party. On the contrary, Rush as a proponent of heartland conservatism has waged open warfare with the Washington party establishment for years.

So as many commenters have asked, just what are these conservative ideas that are being drowned out by the decibel level of the defense of Rush Limbaugh’s right to say what he means to say in the words that he finds fit? What really is he trying to say? What I take away from it is that he means to say that he’s not on board with Obama’s project to socialize as much as possible of the US economy, and that when he equates that with Obama (“I hope Obama fails”), he is turning around the use of synecdoche on those who are attempting to demonize their ideological opponents by equating them with Rush Limbaugh, who apparently sports high negatives in in-house polling. One of these synecdoches is less inaccurate than the other.

What is the effect? Apart from revealing these hacks for what they are, and making a mockery of Obama’s new politics, Rush’s words open up the linguistic space in which all of us can state our objections without fear of being mau-maued into submission. Not to defend Rush’s right to say what he means to say without having it twisted by Obama’s bullies and their media sycophants would be to embolden these assholes to do more of the same. More, it is Limbaugh and not the conservative punditry who has demonstrated how to turn the tables on these people, by challenging them to debate. Certainly this genius and great communicator with his chiselled pecs can take on a fat, ill-bred, drug-addicted, serially-divorced buffoon who sits behind a microphone spewing nonsense to his trailer-park audience, right? Certainly, as well, Bill Maher can stand up to Coulter without insult and ad hominem and debate the ideas over which she (OMG, she doesn’t speak for me!) is so deeply misguided. Certainly Al Gore can debate Bjorn Lomborg on the scientific merits of AGW, based on the evidence and the likely costs/benefits of the humanity-saving cap and trade schemes that he advocates and wishes to make himself wealthier instituting by global fiat.

Please keep in mind that Steele made his idiotic comments about Rush’s show being “ugly” and “incendiary” on the very same broadcast of Hughley in which Hughley stated that the Republican National Convention looked like something straight out of the historical pages of the Nazi Party. Where’s the outrage? Where’s the appreciation of HYPOCRISY?! Even as Chas Freeman wails that he was borked.

But as I mentioned in one of Ace’s threads, next time someone slanders you, or any one of the people who argues as you have, remind me that it’s none of my damned business, because you should have expressed yourself unambiguously. Good luck with that, and Civility NOW!!!

Related: And I did nothing, because I was not a well-known mechanical gorilla.

And Kevin has been on a roll, lately. He’s conservative? A kaiser roll.

You know what reminds me of Twitter? It makes Jeff’s supaida sense tingle.

Moe Lane:

Mickey Kaus notes this paragraph of a Politico article that probably should have raised more eyebrows:

“[CAP President John] Podesta’s and my experience was in the White House during the Clinton years, and we didn’t have a coordinated echo chamber on the outside backing us up,” she said. “There’s a real interest on the progressive side for groups to want to coordinate with each other and leverage each other’s work in a way I haven’t ever seen before.”

Bolding mine – and Mickey’s, for that matter. The article itself is dedicated to the completely unsurprising revelation that the Left side of the blogosphere coordinates its attacks on what it perceives to be enemies of the Democratic party. While this may surprise a few that weren’t paying attention, the only real newsworthy item here is that somebody’s willing to go on the record as calling it an “echo chamber.” Apparently, this is no longer an insult.

Patterico: Oh, rally?

Donald Douglas slaps down Wolly’s Salacious Crumb.

61 Replies to “With Reference to What Jeff Just Said . . . [Dan Collins]”

  1. Joe says:

    Camille is just amazing. She should be a classical liberal and give up this Democratic party nonsense. And while she may still have “great hope and confidence” in President Obama, she may unfortunately find that fish rot from the heat down. Yeash Alexrod, Rahm and Begala are a bunch of douchebags, but who brought them to the White House?

  2. Joe says:

    Camille should embrace classical liberalism and stop being a liberal.

  3. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    I don’t agree with Paglia on everything, but I think I could get behind a party that made room for her.

  4. Sdferr says:

    Not to defend Rush’s right to say what he means to say without having it twisted by Obama’s bullies and their media sycophants would be to embolden these assholes to do more of the same.

    There, I think, you have it Dan. This knowledge is built into our very genes I think. It works on us at every level, from the very personal situation of a direct physical assault to the international level of a terrorist attack left without response. To do otherwise than defend ourselves entails an invitation to the next offense.

  5. easyliving1 says:

    To the extent it is about Limbaugh, it helps conservatism. That should be not just noted, but explored and celebrated. Limbaugh lives what Jeff is trying to create a movement around and it centers on freedom.

  6. Joe says:

    Mitt vs Huck? Allah ponders but, while I like Sanford, I do not see an Outlaw in that bunch.

  7. Carin says:

    Paglia is the the type of liberal more liberals should be. But, she IS Liberal.

  8. Dan Collins says:

    I don’t care. I’ll take an intellectually honest lib over a dishonest con, any day.

  9. Carin says:

    You misunderstand, Dan. I was making it more to the point that JOe made way up there. That she should stop being a liberal.

    She appears to be so different, because she is what liberals are supposed to be. It’s sad, really.

  10. Dan Collins says:

    Point taken, Carin. I agree.

  11. Sdferr says:

    Jen Rubin notes though Dan, that Paglia is still shifting the blame here, putting it on staff rather than on Free Barack!, free from blame. Of course it’s not possible that if heads should roll, one of those heads should be the President’s own, but at least she (and we) can call him out, insist that he change.

  12. N.O'Really says:

    Vacuity of Republican leadership? No worries! Arlen Specter says he’s trying to assume the mantle:

    http://tinyurl.com/ca7ank

  13. Carin says:

    Well, Sdferr, Baracky can’t even speak off the teleprompter. Of course it’s his staff’s fault. He is only a community organizer, you can’t expect him to actually “be” the president, what with responsibilities and accountability.

  14. Dan Collins says:

    Well, I don’t disagree with Jen Rubin, Sdferr, but I’ve got to say that Paglia’s a little better at understanding and assigning the blame in this situation than some of our nominal blog allies.

  15. Techie says:

    It’s not like they aren’t manning the phones over at the Treasury Dept., so we’re just overreact………oh wait.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1161037/Special-relationship-Obamas-people-wont-answer-phone-whines-Downing-Street.html

    [In an extraordinary blunder, the usually-guarded Sir Gus said no-one in the U.S. Treasury department was answering telephone calls.

    He said it meant the Government was finding it ‘unbelievably difficult’ to hold discussions ahead of the meeting of world leaders in London.]

    Crap.

  16. prairiemain says:

    I don’t care. I’ll take an intellectually honest lib over a dishonest con, any day.

    Which is why Rush Limbaugh became such an overnight success. He actually did take the country’s conservatives by storm. Why? Because until he came along, conservatives were forced to see their beliefs and principles assaulted daily not just in the new media but in all media. Nobody in the conservative movement seemed to have the cajones to push back, to turn the constant flow of insults back on the sources. Ronald Reagan did and it drove the liberals absolutely insane because he did it so well. Ann and Rush do the very same thing, perhaps with greater rhetorical enhancement, but they do the very same thing. So, whenever I read or hear some pundit criticize Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh, I hear in the back of their words “Ronald Reagan is just a washed up B movie actor who is as ignorant as the flock he proposes to lead.”

    In other words, their motto has become “speak softly but carry a big nuance”.

    For the record, it does not matter how one interprets Rush’s words. Most true conservatives hope Obama fails and fails miserably because what he wants to do is implement a socialist nightmare on a country ostensibly founded on non-socialist principles. If he succeeds, the nation does not succeed — at least, not the nation most of us want to live in.
    With that in mind, why would any conservative who actually loves the US wish Obama to succeed in any sense of that term?

  17. Dan Collins says:

    Prariemain, OUTLAW!

  18. BJTexs says:

    #12: Good lord I’m sick to me stomach. I can’t wait to try and get that Gelatinous Traitor-Tool buried in the next primary.

    “Senator Specter laughed and said he was trying to lead them, “moving toward the center, where American’s want to be governed.”

    BLEAH!!

  19. SarahW says:

    Well done Dan, that was a very coherent summation, though I’m surprised anyone has the enegery to state and restate and restate what has been asked and answered 8 times over. I am a stroked out Matlock.

    I’m tired, tired as Lily von Stuppe, weary of the game.

  20. pdbuttons says:

    centers are where bowling balls should be aimed

  21. Hadlowe says:

    I believe the paragraph you attribute to Riehl is actually in Paglia’s original, Dan.

    Just a nit.

  22. Rob Crawford says:

    Senator Specter laughed and said he was trying to lead them, “moving toward the center, where American’s want to be governed.

    YES! Let’s compromise and be half-serfs!

    FOAD, Specter.

  23. pdbuttons says:

    quarterbacks are from pennsylvania
    centers are from uranus

  24. Dan Collins says:

    Thanks, Hadlowe. I thought I’d already fixed it. I think I need to dump the cache.

  25. pdbuttons says:

    is that magic bullet still floatin’ round-
    and could it pleasepleaseplease make a stop in pa.?
    cuz that would be magically delicious
    [i denounce that statement!]
    of course i hope arlly spectre does not get shot
    instead i hope his final days are racked with painful cancer and his wispy joe biden envy hair are like hot torches in his head/painful death throw shout out to ya!
    [yeah- i said it!-yeah-i said it!]

  26. Matt says:

    Libs haven’t cared in the last 8 years if anything was working, they were too invested in “will never work.”

  27. JD says:

    Arlen Specter for Pezzydent ’12 !!!!!!!

  28. solitary knight says:

    While I appreciate the recent comments about Arlen Specter and the jerk that he is, have some comfort for we OUTLAWS here in Arizona. We are soon to be exposed full force, “my friends”, by John McCain and his 2010 appeal for our support. I am not comforted by John McCain’s re-election, he is dead to me, to use a common reference of late. I’ve met the man and he is arrogant, dismissive, and a danger to conservative thought and principle.

    Unfortunately, for now, no primary challenger is apparent, and McCain seems destined in his sinecure.

    So please, some sympathy would be nice. Arizona is a nice place and this man McCain soils us.

  29. kasper says:

    I don’t know what the big deal is about Paglia. So what if she gets somethings right sometimes.

    Even after she gets a whiff of reality and expresses that little revelation with skill, she remains incapable of connecting the dots that matter.

    What’s the fascination?

  30. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    “Senator Specter laughed and said he was trying to lead them, “moving toward the center, where American’s want to be governed.”

    Isn’t that just what President Bush attempted? How’d that work out? I still don’t see, other than tax cuts, how he governed as a conservative. And Arlen, if what you say is true, then how the hell did we get O!bama as president. I’m starting to think that Arlen is pretty fucking stupid.

  31. BJTexs says:

    OI: YA THINK??!?

  32. N. O'Brain says:

    centers are where the roadkill lies.

  33. N. O'Brain says:

    “Comment by JD on 3/11 @ 9:04 am #

    Arlen Specter for Pezzydent ‘12 !!!!!!!”

    …of Scotland!

    If they’d have him.

    Which I doubt.

  34. Silver Whistle says:

    I heard Skeletor Colmes (I listen, so you don’t have to) tout his interview with Meghan McCain in which she described herself as “a progressive Republican”. ‘S funny, I thought, that sounds like you’re a Democrat.

  35. Neo says:

    free the president from his flacks, fixers and goons

    They must be kidding. He would fall to the floor like a used “sex doll” making a hissing sound as he deflated.

  36. Bob Reed says:

    What’s really stupifying though, is that the coordination of the various liberal thinly veiled attack groups that make up the “echo chamber” are essentially being directed by the White House; much like Rahm-bo deals out the daily talking points to Begala, Carville, Stephanopoulous, et al…

    And yet these very same groups were the ones that wailed, moaned, and gnashed their teeth about how “politicized” the eeeeeeevil Booooooooooosh! gang, led by Rove!, had become; while they may have considered polls and reached out to faith groups that is far from organizing the talking points and delivering bounties to the brownshirt hit squads…

    Just another example of the hypocrisy of the left and their projection on others of their own underlying desires…

    Oh, and just for the record…

    I HOPE OBAMA FAILS!

    So America can succeed…

  37. cranky-d says:

    That was a very bold statement, Bob.

  38. prairiemain says:

    If I’m an OUTLAW then I’m proud of it.

    Rush and Ann = energized conservative base = conservative victory

    creamy cons = “Can’t we all get along?” = conservative defeat

    Ford, creamy con = defeat
    Reagan, hard con – Victory
    Bush Sr, creamy con = defeat
    Dole, creamy con = defeat
    Bush Jr, sorta con = recountalooza victory
    Bush Jr, sorta con = well, JFK and the magic hat and French accent so nevermind
    McCain, creamiest con = landslide defeat

    There’s a trend there and it has nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh verbal bombs.

  39. pdbuttons says:

    creamy corn in a sippy-cup…
    not quite the cob
    i vote cob
    and earmarks 4 toothpicks

  40. dicentra says:

    Not to defend Rush’s right to say what he means to say without having it twisted by Obama’s bullies and their media sycophants would be to embolden these assholes to do more of the same.

    Weakness is provocation, wingers. It’s true both of fanatical jihadis and of fanatical leftists. Trying not to present a large target is EXACTLY the same as appeasing one’s international enemies.

    So what’s it gonna be in this battle to take back the country, homies: Churchill or Chamberlain?

  41. SarahW says:

    The fascination with Paglia? Old-school defense of liberty and the American prinicples that support it. It makes her something of a freak. She seems to get that the prosperity of liberty is tied to defense of underlying principles that used to matter to those of the liberal persuasion. She elevates frankness and sincerity in pursuit of truth.

    Based on the bewilderment she has expressed at her fellows, she hasn’t seemed to comprehend that throwing away these principles is the *goal* and not just the effect of a pursuit of power.

    She seems to understand the path to tyranny well enough – hence her dismay at the progressive nightmare creeping forward – at least there is one person arguing for he principles that have sustained and expanded human prosperity and freedom in ways unprecedented in human history.

  42. SarahW says:

    SNARK to power. I’m all for it. Because the kind of power I’m after is the part that catch-wrestles tyrants and steps on their necks, and holds the door to prosperity open for all with initiative and skill and virtue.

  43. George Orwell says:

    she hasn’t seemed to comprehend that throwing away these principles is the *goal* and not just the effect of a pursuit of power.

    That’s it exactly.

  44. Silver Whistle says:

    Arlen Specter for Pezzydent ‘12 !!!!!!!”

    …of Scotland!

    If they’d have him.

    Which I doubt.

     Don’t make me come over there and spank you, N. O’Brain. We have plenty of spineless pus bags already, thank you very much, without cleaning up your leftovers.

  45. pdbuttons says:

    scotland law/ their gift
    thank you

  46. geoffb says:

    Busy all day now trying to catchup.

    “Senator Specter laughed and said he was trying to lead them, “moving toward the center, where American’s want to be governed.”

    The center is not where the Senator thinks it is at. All his measurements are made using instruments made by enemies of conservatives. They are warped, shewed, misshapen things that should be tossed in the trash. Soonest.

  47. guinsPen says:

    cauldrons are where turtles should be boiled

  48. pdbuttons says:

    turtles should be cackled over
    by three witches with 6 teeth

    something wicked this way comes

  49. pdbuttons says:

    slowly

  50. guinsPen says:

    tastily

  51. guinsPen says:

    three witches with 6 teeth

    Hodge Cashman McKenzie ???

  52. guinsPen says:

    responding to Cassandra

    Has anyone yet mentioned the masthead over there?

    I find it…

    provacative.

  53. guinsPen says:

    guinsVocuous

  54. guinsPen says:

    tingly

  55. guinsPen says:

    windy

  56. guinsPen says:

    stiff nor’easter

  57. happyfeet says:

    Turtles what boil. I got up at 2 in the morning last night. Good. Cause my hot water in the bathtub where the turtles sleep at night, it’s leaking. I’ll have it fixed in a week when I go home to Texas. I’d been just filling it up to the overflow line and the hot water what leaks mostly drains off. But something had gone wrong. Terribly horribly wrong. And the little guys were swimming frantically trying to claw their way out of the boiling tub of death. So I emptied the tub and filled it up with cold and went back to bed. But I felt just awful. They have a different thinger where they’ll sleep tonight.

    And that is my story about the turtles what boil.

  58. Edward M. Kennedy says:

    Leave me out of this.

    *hic*

  59. guinsPen says:

    Soup stopped short.

    Thankfully.

  60. […] the Hughley broadcast where Steele condescended to call Limbaugh’s show ugly and incendiary, the host stated that the Republican National Convention looked like a Nazi Party event. Ugly? I’ll show you […]

  61. pdbuttons says:

    derek sanderson/len bias/….
    uhh…can i have a chris webber time out?
    i’ll think of a third one
    u first..

Comments are closed.