23 Replies to “How the left “frames” the right”

1. The Monster says:

   January 6, 2011 at 10:47 am

   You might say that “There are no principles!” is the Left’s, um, principle.

   You might also notice that “No Labels” is a label.

2. LBascom says:

   January 6, 2011 at 10:55 am

   Jeez, you’d think the dick would at least throw in a few […]’s.

3. Tweets that mention How the left “frames” the right -- Topsy.com says:

   January 6, 2011 at 11:18 am

   […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jimmie. Jimmie said: RT @proteinwisdom: How the left "frames" the right https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=23909 […]

4. Squid says:

   January 6, 2011 at 11:49 am

   I guess we should start calling him E.J. Dowd.

5. geoffb says:

   January 6, 2011 at 12:12 pm

   Circumstances are infinite, are infinitely combined; are variable and transient; he, who does not take them into consideration is not erroneous, but stark mad–dat operam ut cum ratione insaniat [he labors to make his mind mad through his reason]–he is metaphysically mad.

   This is applicable to the Left as they never allow any “circumstance” to deflect them from their all enveloping “principle”, which is the acquisition of all power unto themselves. They are quite single-mindedly, mindlessly mad in their pursuit of their “principle”.

6. B. Moe says:

   January 6, 2011 at 12:30 pm

   “Alas for all of us and for American conservatism in particular, the new Republican majority that took control of the House on Wednesday is embarked on an experiment in government by abstractions. Many in its ranks pride themselves on being practical business people, but they behave as professors in thrall to a few thrilling ideas.”

   So basically his complaint is that Republicans are behaving like Progressives.

7. happyfeet says:

   January 6, 2011 at 12:32 pm

   speaking of propaganda whores, propaganda whore Viv Schiller’s National Soros Radio throws the propaganda whore who fired Juan Williams under the propaganda whore bus plus also they took away propaganda whore Viv Schiller’s 2010 bonus for actions unbecoming a National Soros Radio propaganda whore

8. Ernst Schreiber says:

   January 6, 2011 at 12:46 pm

   Power for power’s sake might be the Left’s sole principle, but the underlying idea is nihilism, plain and pure.

9. cranky-d says:

   January 6, 2011 at 12:55 pm

   So, the constitution is an abstraction now? I did not know that. I thought it was a document that spells out fairly clearly what government is allowed to do.

   Here’s a thought for all legislator: if you are about to do something, find where in the constitution it says you can do it without appealing to the completely twisted out of shape commerce clause. Chances are, whatever it is you’re doing, unless it’s rolling back some other legislation that overstepped the boundaries, isn’t allowed.

10. dicentra says:

    January 6, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    In a related post, Ace totally nails the other root cause of the Left’s skewed framing of the Right (the first being a desire for raw power). He begins with a quote from a 1997 review of Mickey Kaus’s The End of Equality:

    In The End of Equality, he argues persuasively that the most serious threat to American democracy today comes not so much from the maldistribution of wealth as from the decay or abandonment of public institutions in which citizens can meet as equals. Equality of income, he says, is less important than the goal of social or civil equality.

    He points out that foreign observers used to marvel at the lack of snobbery, deference, and class feeling in America. …

    The trouble with our society is not just that the rich have too much money, in Kaus’s view, but that their money insulates them, much more than it used to, from the common life. It is the “routine acceptance of ‘professionals’ as a class apart” and the “smug content” of the affluent and educated for the “demographically inferior” that poses the greatest threat to civic life, according to Kaus.

    Ace observes:

    His idea never caught on….

    But maybe there’s a bigger reason Kaus’ book didn’t generate much of a movement, apart from some respectful reveiws: Are liberals really interested in that? I’m not suggesting just that social equality is a lower priority for them than Kaus would urge. I’m suggesting that to many liberals, the whole idea of social equality is a bad thing, something they’re actively against. Because, I submit, it’s particularly critical to many liberals, to their sense of self-valuation, that they are in fact apart from, and above, the Common.

    Ace embeds a video of “an old Penn Gilette clip on YouTube, discussing a nasty, smug put-down of the Tea Party by Seth MacFarlane.”

    [I]t’s pretty plain that Seth MacFarlane is on the “con” side of social equality. He’s willing to talk a good game about giving up some of his money for the public good (although why he can’t do that in the absence of a law requiring him to do so continues to elude me) but one thing he’s definitely not giving up to his social inferiors is respect. He categorizes them as children, or what the state used to call “morons” — mentally challenged — or even as animals; incapable of abstract thought, incapable of even knowing their own true motivations (they’re “puppets” of their masters), incapable of even recognizing where their own self-interest lay….

    So he’s willing to give up some of those extra dollars of marginal benefit to himself.

    But when it comes to something he treasures — the “smug content” of being “a class apart” as Kaus wrote — that he clings to greedily.

    That is what is precious to him; and he will not part with it. You will take his sneering superiority from his cold, dead hands.

    Amen, amen, and amen.

    Unfortunately, there really is little hope that people like MacFarlane will see the error of their ways and get a little humility without Life delivering a 2×4 to the back of his head. Sometimes, not even then. Special place in hell, is all I’m saying…

11. LBascom says:

    January 6, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    More lies of omission.

12. LTC John says:

    January 6, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    You could have stopped at “E.J. Dionne lies”. He and Eugene Robinson clog my local paper a couple of times each week… Two bitter and smaller minded men I have yet to read in newsprint.

13. Bob Reed says:

    January 6, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    So someone should get into a discussion with Dionne then about Obama’s pronouncement during the primary debate in Philly about why he would raise capital gains taxes despite the fact that there is a track record of that leading to reduced treasury revenues; Obama’s answer was, of course, because of the fairness…

    In that instance, is Obama sticking to principle, or being pragmatic?

    Watching Dionne try and argue both sides of that would be like watching a kid’s toy robot get stuck in a corner.

14. Ernst Schreiber says:

    January 6, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    OT: anybody mourning the demise of Borders Books? I’ll admit to a we tinge of nostalgia.

    Or maybe it was the falling barometric pressure.

15. happyfeet says:

    January 6, 2011 at 2:41 pm

    Borders was a snotty dirty socialist we hate Republicans Obamawhore store and they were union whores to boot

16. Ernst Schreiber says:

    January 6, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    I guess it was the mercury falling after all, since I couldn’t be bothered to remember the link.

17. Ernst Schreiber says:

    January 6, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    All true ‘feets, but their stacks were a bit more scholarly than Barnes and Nobles’

18. happyfeet says:

    January 6, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    I didn’t have one in my zone we have a Barnes down the street but lots of people don’t know it’s a Barnes and it attracts mostly a lot of snotty Obamawhores and their small to medium-sized snotty Obamawhore dogs what they leave out front. Last time I was there it was quiet like a liberry.

    It is cupcake-adjacent.

    Hastings aren’t like that they’re fun and chatty with lots of comfy chairs and tasty beverages. But I don’t think we have any in California that’s mostly a heartland of America thing I think.

19. geoffb says:

    January 6, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    Related to dicentra’s #10.

20. Sears Poncho says:

    January 6, 2011 at 4:43 pm

    Ace embeds a video of “an old Penn Gilette clip on YouTube, discussing a nasty, smug put-down of the Tea Party by Seth MacFarlane.”

    Ah yes, good ole Ace, who informed us that the Tea Party likely cost Republicans the Senate, what with their choosing all those crazy people to run. Yeah, no smugness there.

21. LBascom says:

    January 6, 2011 at 5:35 pm

    A foul cloud settles over the land…

    Daley gets WH chief of staff job

22. newrouter says:

    January 6, 2011 at 5:38 pm

    good to see wall st. is safe

23. Mueller says:

    January 7, 2011 at 9:29 am

    #21
    Corruption for corruptions’ sake.

Comments are closed.