In Which I Dare The Corner To Publish Quotes From Popular Conservatives
Arguments that the liberal community is less prone to reckless speech, or has far less tolerance for those within it who use violent imagery and language than does the Right, are unconvincing. I don’t remember a Krugman column or a Sen. Patrick Leahy speech on the toxic Nicholson Baker novel, the Gabriel Range Bush assassination docudrama, the Chris Matthews CO2-pellet-in-the-face/blowing-up-of-the-“blimp” comments about Rush Limbaugh, the “I hate George Bush” embarrassment at The New Republic, Michael Moore’s preference for a red-state target on 9/11, or the Hitlerian/brownshirt accusations voiced by the likes of Al Gore, John Glenn, Robert Byrd, George Soros, and so on. So why the disconnect? Politics for sure, but I think also the double standard has something to do with style, venue, and perceived class.
If a progressive imagines killing George Bush in a tony Knopf novel or a Toronto film festival documentary, or rambles on about why he finds his president an object of hatred in a New Republic essay, or muses in the Guardian (cf. Charles Brooker: “John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. — where are you now that we need you?”), then we must certainly contextualize that hatred in a way that we do not in the crasser genres of commercial-laden talk radio, or an open-air demonstration placard. The novelist, the film-maker, the high-brow columnist, the professor can all dabble in haute couture calumny (cf. Garrison Keeler’s “brownshirts in pinstripes”); the degree-less, up-from-the-bootstraps Beck, Hannity, or Limbaugh behind a mike cannot. What is at the most atypical, out of character, or in slightly bad taste for the former must be a window into the dark soul of the latter.
— Victor Davis Hanson
There is something to this – many of the people VDH name-checks have uttered indefensible remarks, and maybe the veneer of respectability has helped some of them to obscure how flawed their words were. But I wonder if he would wager with me in the interest of testing his larger claim about who is more prone to rhetorical excess, the mainstream right or the mainstream left.
Rush Limbaugh began broadcasting to a large national audience in the early 1990s. So let’s go back 20 years to 1991 for the sake of simplicity. In the bet, Victor Davis Hanson can draw on every word spoken or written by all the people above that he mentions unfavorably: Paul Krugman, Nicholas Baker, Chris Matthews, Michael Moore, Al Gore, John Glenn, Garrison Keeler, Robert Byrd, Jonathan Chait and George Soros. In return, I will draw only on the words of Rush Limbaugh, the most popular conservative entertainer in America for much of the last two decades, recent national phenom Glenn Beck, and Mark Levin, the bestselling author, popular radio host, and sometimes colleague of VDH at National Review. (Even I can’t bear listening to Sean Hannity. Sorry.)
That’s ten people for him and three people for me – and mine are all very popular among the rank-and-file of movement conservatism. We’ll try to match one another, example of rhetorical excess for example of rhetorical excess. And the loser – the one who runs out of examples first – can donate $500 to the charity of the winner’s choice.
(Does anyone think I would lose?)
I’ll explain to you why this bet appeals to me, and why VDH will never agree to it. In truth, I don’t care whether the right or the left is more culpable on this issue: the point is that the guilty parties on both sides of the ideological divide should stop it, unilaterally if need be, even if the other side is worse. And as I explained in my last post, I wish everyone would start focusing on substance more than tone. But I can’t possibly lose this bet, even if VDH improbably finds more examples, because I have no problem acknowledging indefensible rhetoric on the left when I see it, or asserting that Paul Krugman (or his wife?) is sometimes a blowhard who makes claims un-befitting a person of intelligence, or affirming that Michael Moore’s documentary work is riddled with mean-spirited errors, etc.
Whereas Victor Davis Hanson has never forthrightly acknowledged the rhetorical excesses and inaccuracies of Limbaugh, Beck, or Levin. And if by some miracle he fully confronted what they’ve said over the years –– or even affirmed the disgusting words they’ve uttered by publishing a blog post at The Corner filled with nothing but direct quotations of their words! –– it would be a powerful moment on the right, because no one of his stature has ever so much as acknowledged the full extent of what is said on the conservative movement’s most popular talk radio programs.
So do we have a bet, VDH? I’m game. And if you’re not –– if you’re pressed for time, or if you’ve an objection to dealing with me for some reason –– here’s an alternative idea. Folks on the right think leftists don’t confront the indefensible speech uttered by their side. And vice-versa.
So why don’t the folks at The Corner enter into a bargain with a prominent blogger on the left. What do you say, Matt Yglesias or Kevin Drum or Jonathan Chait? Here’s how it would work. Every day for a week, Monday through Friday, The Corner’s designated blogger could draft one post for publication on the left-leaning blog. The catch? They’d be limited to offering five direct quotations per day of lefties engaged in indefensible rhetoric, however they define it (in context, of course).
In return, the liberal interlocutor could publish the equivalent post at The Corner. And every day for a week, the participants would have to read one another’s five examples for that day, and decide whether to acknowledge that they’re indefensible and assert that the source should apologize if he or she hasn’t done so… or else defend the remark(s).
Maybe I’m wrong. But I suspect that Yglesias, Drum, and Chait would all be game for this sort of exchange. And that it wouldn’t be approved at The Corner in a million years.
Why do you think that is?
(Or am I wrong?)
Lord knows, you can’t go a day without reading some liberal blogger quoting the latest Nicholson Baker.
The Fermata is fantastic, by the way, you should check it out.
— Freddie · Jan 13, 02:29 PM · #
You might be right, but it’s a hard bet to judge.
It’s entirely possible that Limbaugh alone has more recorded words than all ten of the libs you mention, in part because the libs seem to have some group that listens to Limbaugh specifically for the purpose of republishing some bon mote, then being outraged. Add in Beck and Levin, and I think you’ve got a lot more.
— J Mann · Jan 13, 03:20 PM · #
This comparison seems disingenuously composed. Obviously, a fair comparison would be apples to apples: try economists (Paul Krugman vs. Greg Mankiw), law professors (Brian Leiter vs. Eugene Volokh), public speakers (Al Gore vs. Sarah Palin), preachers (Jeremiah Wright vs. Jerry Falwell), entertainers (Al Sharpton vs. Rush Limbaugh) etc. I think The Corner would have no problem with running those sorts of comparisons every day.
— y81 · Jan 13, 03:52 PM · #
Conor,
There’s not much I can say contra this post, but I do want to take a little issue with your response to “Death of a President.” While I agree that the docudrama was poorly written and handled, I don’t think that simply imagining what would happen to the country were a president murdered is, in and of itself, intemperate.
When I was in high school, I was positively obsessed with Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys. For a creative writing class, I crafted a narrative that imagined a parallel history in which “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” had been the great unreleased record of the ’60s, rather than the Beach Boys’ “Smile.” In the story, John Lennon was never shot; instead, Wilson became the rock martyr. Does my imagining Brian Wilson dead mean that I wished such on him, or that I dislike him, or that I’m some kind of grand bastard for doing so? I sure hope not. It was a creative writing exercise, imagining what would’ve happened had the roles been reversed — Wilson’s “Smile” became the great record of the ’60s, while “Sgt. Pepper’s” became the one steeped in legend and mystery; Wilson became canonized, while Lennon became one of rock’s resident elder statesman geniuses.
My point is, writing alternative histories isn’t necessarily bad; what makes it “good” or “bad” is the intent behind it, as well as how it is contextualized and written. “Death of a President” was, in my opinion, done poorly not because it asked the question of what would happen but because it was done solely to appeal to a weird, violent fetish, and, too boot, was really, really badly written.
— Brendan Diamond · Jan 13, 05:24 PM · #
y81, I think (and Conor can correct me if I’m misinterpreting him) that the point of taking these people as comparison points is that they’re equivalent in stature among their respective bases. For better or worse (almost certainly worse), Beck, Limbaugh, and Levin are far more influential on the right than people like Volokh or Mankiw. There’s simply no real left-wing equivalent, so Conor took on the mish-mash of different people on the left, some of whom are more influential than others, that Hanson seems to believe is equivalently important to the left as the leading figures on the right.
Also, you can’t seriously think that Jeremiah Wright has anywhere close to as much influence on the contemporary American left as Falwell has on the contemporary right.
— Zack · Jan 13, 05:34 PM · #
“the Gabriel Range Bush assassination docudrama”
Unlike about 99.9999999999999% of the conservatives who bitch about it, I’ve actually watched Death of a President. The film is a whole lot of nothing, but it treats George W. Bush in a perfectly respectable way and portrays his pretend assassination as an unquestioned tragedy. It does make some negative allusions to Dick Cheney and the Patriot Act, but that’s it. Death of a President is probably one of the least scathing things to appear in the media about George W. Bush and his Presidency since 2005. That it continues to be recycled as some great offense against decency only proves how much of conservative “thinking” is mindless repetition of unexamined crap other right wingers have said.
Mike
— MBunge · Jan 13, 05:36 PM · #
<i> This comparison seems disingenuously composed. Obviously, a fair comparison would be apples to apples: try economists (Paul Krugman vs. Greg Mankiw), law professors (Brian Leiter vs. Eugene Volokh), public speakers (Al Gore vs. Sarah Palin), preachers (Jeremiah Wright vs. Jerry Falwell), entertainers (Al Sharpton vs. Rush Limbaugh) etc. I think The Corner would have no problem with running those sorts of comparisons every day.</i>
That’s hardly apples to apples. Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright and Brian Leiter (whoever he is) are hardly mainstream figures within the Democratic Party the same way that, say, Rush Limbaugh is within the Republican Party. Rush Limbaugh dines with Senators and presidential candidates, prominent Republican politicians trample each other to receive his blessing and live in fear of his curse, he gets invited to the White House when Republicans are president and socializes with Supreme Court judges. Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright? Not so much — they’re basically pariahs.
Even the examples of people you chose just underscores the fact that the Right is far more accepting of — celebrating of, even — divisive figures than the Left is.
— Stefan · Jan 13, 05:40 PM · #
Conor,
You expect Mark Levin (who’s kicked your a— so many times on a blog that I’ve lost count), Matt “F-bomb” Welch, Pam Geller, the Daily Kos, RedState, Freepers, Democratic Underground, Dan “Lock’n Load” Riehl, Mickey Kaus, and Michael Ledeen to practice civility?
These people live, breathe, and bank offshore on incivility. Each is a willing addict to openly wishing death, suffering, and plague on their pre-arranged, bought-and-paid-for adversaries and the American body public.
Not happening, kid, this civility dream of yours. Be like expecting Levin to go between commercial breaks on his radio gig without yelling or slurring the families of at least two of his foes.
— Mark · Jan 13, 06:16 PM · #
Stefan: Huh? Al Sharpton visits the White House regularly.
Zack: The truth is, that there are a hundred voices on the left from the entertainment industry who could be appropriately compared with Rush Limbaugh. What makes Limbaugh notable is that there’s only one of him. I’m sure The Corner would be happy to let you choose a quote from Limbaugh everyday to be juxtaposed with their choice of the latest idiocy from Alec Baldwin on one day, Susan Sarandon the next, Harold Pinter the next, Sarah Bernhardt the next, etc. But you and Friedersdorf prefer the dishonest equation of Limbaugh not to fellow members of the entertainment industry, but to columnists and elected officials.
And no one has the integrity to concede, “You are right, Y81, Krugman and Leiter are embarrassments compared to Mankiw and Volokh.” Why not?
— y81 · Jan 13, 06:33 PM · #
Conor,
Before I bash you too much (and in the above case, I’m not ripping you in so much as I am the idea of removing the incivility from Mark Levin, Pam Geller, and many of the Kosers), I should also compliment you and a guy name Mike Dougherty for your Dec. 29-30 effort on bloggingheads.
First, your bloggingheads face-off did not feature Mickey Kaus, Kristen Soltis, and/or the one, and thankfully the only, He Lie Lake.
Second, and far more important, the two of you so accurately reflected the pessimism, cynicism, and tension in America. Dougherty’s chapter, “Conservative American Leaders Are Like Drug Dealers” that opened the debate and your combined closing effort, “Have Americans Become Power-Worshiping Sheep?”, both proved rather prescient and insightful for what just happened in Tucson and, more specifically, for the reactions of both sides to that horrific event.
It’s the reactions – predictable, lame, and driven by the personal financial stakes of the pundits and their offshore backers – that have so starkly shown Americans who we have chosen, by our indifference, our laziness, and our malaise, to lead and to tell the stories that shape our views of the world.
A 22-year-old kid with 31 rounds in Glock shot a Congressional representative. Americans allowed our government to become weak, dismissed, and targeted. Americans permitted pundits with financial motives and financial motives alone to tell us what would happen, why it had to happen, and why justified the event.
Everyone’s a victim: pols, the media, pols, the media, pols, the media. That’s what we hear, see, and read.
Nope. The only victims are those shot dead, those shot and injured, and those at the event who will never forget the horrors they witnessed. The rest of us just watch from afar like those who gawk around a traffic accident, murder scene, or site of a burned-out building. Tucson is merely the American viewers cockfight come alive, the Michael Vick dogfight we’re allowed to watch and feel patriotic and supportive.
Tucson will fade from memory. Soon. And, sadly, another Tucson will occur – for no other reason than nothing, I repeat nothing, will change. Not a damn thing.
People simply make too much money off of their incivility.
— Mark · Jan 13, 06:34 PM · #
y81 – “What makes Limbaugh notable is that there’s only one of him. I’m sure The Corner would be happy to let you choose a quote from Limbaugh everyday to be juxtaposed with their choice of the latest idiocy from Alec Baldwin on one day, Susan Sarandon the next, Harold Pinter the next, Sarah Bernhardt the next, etc.”
As a leftie, I have no more than the vaguest idea of what Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon, Harold Pinter, and Sarah Bernhardt think about current events. I’m sure their opinions are radical, but I’m simply not exposed to them. Why? Because these are professional entertainers who are famous for making film and television characters come to life. They have talents that make them famous for something other than their political beliefs.
Rush Limbaugh’s entire career is based on his political opinions. Take out the politics, and there’s simply nothing left. He’s famous for nothing other than being a right-wing opinion-haver. That’s why comparing him to left-wing Hollywood types just doesn’t wash. Because however extreme their left-wing Hollywood opinions might be, they’re largely ignored even by their own fans.
— DavidG · Jan 13, 10:24 PM · #
I’m sure The Corner would be happy to let you choose a quote from Limbaugh everyday to be juxtaposed with their choice of the latest idiocy from Alec Baldwin on one day, Susan Sarandon the next, Harold Pinter the next, Sarah Bernhardt the next, etc.
Why do you think any left-wingers care what Sarah Bernhardt thinks – she’s not even an American! Also, she’s been dead for almost 90 years.
— Handsome Dan · Jan 13, 10:42 PM · #
Does anyone think I would lose?
Yes, definitely.
— Mike McM · Jan 13, 10:50 PM · #
<i>This comparison seems disingenuously composed. Obviously, a fair comparison would be apples to apples</i>
Good point. So we should compare the heated rhetoric constantly employed by Limbaugh, with his daily radio and TV programs pumping hours of conservative talking points to millions of listeners, to his liberal equivalent.
Only problem is, none exist.
— Gregory · Jan 13, 10:51 PM · #
Pinter died in 2008. Also.
— nick · Jan 13, 11:29 PM · #
You got me, Handsome Dan. It would be Sandra, not Sarah, who made the insightful and admirable (to Conor Friedersdorf) remark that a gang rape of Sarah Palin would be a positive event. I’m a little weak on current Hollywood morons, but you are definitely up to speed.
Nick: But you assert, I take it, that before his death Pinter delivered an incisive critique of the “fascist” Bush administration, and that calling President Bush a fascist is an enlightening and uplifting example of political rhetoric. If only Limbaugh could say something that elevated, eh?
— y81 · Jan 14, 04:07 AM · #
Because however extreme their left-wing Hollywood opinions might be, they’re largely ignored even by their own fans.
It would be nice if Congress would quit having these Celebrity-Americans testify before their committees, and if the news media would quit encouraging this behavior by ignoring their testimonies.
— The Reticulator · Jan 14, 04:54 AM · #
Yikes, I find myself agreeing with the Reticulator. When he’s right, he’s right (and based on his posts here he’s quite far right). As a leftie, I find the Celebrity Americans, while often quite good actors/entertainers/musicians/etc, dishearteningly often not very impressive on the facts. Of course, that tends to apply to the right wing Celebrity Americans such as She Who Must Not Be Named at least as much. Politically engaged celebrity seems to be much broader on the left, so I suppose it’s unsurprising that individual political celebrities on the right tend to have so much more power on an individual basis.
I honestly have no idea which (right leaning, of course) celebrities might have been called to testify in 2000-2006 and how much media coverage they got. Good research question – thanks, Reticulator. I suspect you’ll turn out to be right.
— scott the mediocre · Jan 14, 06:52 AM · #
Scott the mediocre, it looks like there’s even a pseudo-scholarly literature on the topic. At the Kenneth Burke journal you can read “A Pentadic Analysis of Celebrity Testimony in Congressional Hearings.”
At first I laughed, thinking it was the best parody since cw played the role of a stereotypical leftwinger declaiming on the virtues of the New York Times. But I have a hunch they are serious. Here’s from the first paragraph:
“The existing literature on celebrity testimony in Congress suggests that celebrities are nothing more than pawns of committees who use these witnesses to publicize their hearings. The current study modifies this understanding by looking at the rhetoric of celebrities using Burke’s dramatistic pentad of act, scene, agent, agency and purpose. Our use of Pentadic analysis, which takes the perspective of the witnesses rather than the perspective of the committee, reveals a much different view of celebrities and their purposes for testifying. We argue that the scene-act ratio dominates the rhetoric of celebrity witnesses: Celebrities portray their testimony as giving voice to the voiceless (act) and as motivated by significant societal ills (scene). They commonly use emotional appeals (agency) toward the self-professed end of improving the lives of the less fortunate (purpose) and downplay their own celebrity status (agent).”
If that’s not parody, it ought to be.
— The Reticulator · Jan 14, 07:55 AM · #
The problem with unilaterally deciding not to be overly mean, critical, or vicious is the question of “who decides what ‘overly’ is”?
I absolutely guarantee that the very nanosecond you accommodate their grievances, Conor, they’ll simply redefine what’s acceptable or not and come right back at you.
That’s who they are. That’s what they DO. That’s why Glenn Beck had someone ghost-write that terrible novel about the Overton Effect for him. You can already see it in your quote: who gives a damn if somebody has (possibly well-justified) “hatred” for Dubya when the “second-amendment solution” exists?
While I appreciate your bet, I can’t see how it wouldn’t get buried in enough false equivalence to asphyxiate a giraffe. On stilts.
— Demosthenes · Jan 14, 08:02 AM · #
I absolutely guarantee that the very nanosecond you accommodate their grievances, Conor, they’ll simply redefine what’s acceptable or not and come right back at you.
Reminds me of how some white, northern bigots would talk about blacks in the early 1960s: “You give them an inch, and they’ll take a mile.”
— The Reticulator · Jan 14, 03:29 PM · #
This is silliness, Conor. YOU JUST DON’T GET IT. Your premise is all wrong. There is no equivalent to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or Sean Hannity on the left, just as there is no equivalent to NBCCBSABCWashPostNYTimesNewsweekTime on the right. It’s obvious that the right can’t possibly mount an equivalent media juggernaut. Likewise, the left can’t build an equivalent counter to Rush, Hannity and Beck. They have tried with Air America and liberal talk show hosts, but they have failed miserably.
What you haven’t discerned is that RushHannityBeck IS our mainstream media, for better or worse. The OLD media (YOUR mainstream media) had it their way for 40 years or more. When Rush came along there was no right mainstream (we were ALL kooks).
It’s asymmetrical warfare. On one side is the lamestream mainstream media—on the other is RushBeckHannity.
So you say our mainstream media commit egregious errors of fact. For the sake of argument, I’ll concede that. However, for 40 years or more the mainstream media gave us the news AS IF THERE WAS NO OTHER POINT OF VIEW. Walter Cronkite told us “And that’s the way it is.” For the sake of argument, I’ll concede they did it largely without egregious errors. But the ignorance of the American populace on matters of economics, foreign policy, social upheaval, ad infinitum, was…..egregious. We had no idea there was another way of looking at the world. The harm done by completely ignoring the other side of the political divide (or relegating it to right-wing kookdom) is unfathomable.
The upshot of this with regard to The Corner is this: one side tallies up all the egregious errors of fact; the other side tallies up all the instances of misleading by ignoring the facts. Add them up and I’m pretty sure I know who would lose.
— jd · Jan 14, 06:14 PM · #
jd,
Let’s accept your frame – I don’t, but there is some truth to it.
Not to put words in Conor’s mouth, and granted this may even be less convincing coming from someone who is not a self identified conservative, but …
I think there a compelling argument that, EVEN FROM A CONSERVATIVE PERSPECTIVE, “RushHannityBeck” have ON BALANCE increased the public’s ignorance “in matters of economics, foreign policy, social upheaval, ad infinitum.”
What’s the alternative from a conservative perspective? I don’t know. But the American people voted for Reagan – twice!! despite the lack of an “alternate” right wing media. After the rise of such media, we got … Bush 2. Two data points do not prove much, but I think that that is, at least … interesting.
— Larry Maggitti · Jan 14, 06:42 PM · #
“There is no equivalent to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or Sean Hannity on the left, just as there is no equivalent to NBCCBSABCWashPostNYTimesNewsweekTime on the right.”
Scuse me.
Is this the same NBCCBSABCWashPostNYTimesNewsweekTime liberal propaganda conspiracy that employs or that recently employed George Will, Charles Krauthammer, David Brooks, Thomas Friedman, John McLaughlin, Pat Buchanan, Andrew Breitbart, Glenn Beck, Mark Halperin, John Stossel, Robert Novak, David Broder, William Kristol, Ross Douthat and Bill O’Reilly, The same liberal conspiracy that historically averages 55% conservative, 45% liberal Sunday morning political talk show guests?
Just checking.
— beejeez · Jan 14, 09:24 PM · #
I think there a compelling argument that, EVEN FROM A CONSERVATIVE PERSPECTIVE, “RushHannityBeck” have ON BALANCE increased the public’s ignorance “in matters of economics, foreign policy, social upheaval, ad infinitum.”
Well, that’s sort of what we’re arguing about here, so prove it.
But the American people voted for Reagan – twice!! despite the lack of an “alternate” right wing media.
Reagan accomplished his landslide elections just like Rush and Beck—by sheer talent in spite of the dominant media.
— jd · Jan 14, 11:16 PM · #
jd,
<i>Reagan accomplished his landslide elections just like Rush and Beck—by sheer talent in spite of the dominant media.</i>
Reagan was blessed by his opponents: Carter and Mondale. Against Bill Clinton, Lyndon Johnson, or Obama, Reagan would have a much tougher time.
But I still like the Conor’s idea of giving the other side space on a prominent blog is a good one. I think conservative and liberals talk past each other too much, and don’t listen to the other side enough. And I think this is a good way to help encourage better understanding of the other side. The best equivalent I have seen is bloggingheads.tv. Slate used to have a feature “The Breakfast Club”, that had alternating blog posts by conservative and liberals.
— amorphous · Jan 15, 12:06 AM · #
If I was a conservative, the point for me would be, some of the stuff Rush etc, say is really stupid. And these people represent the conservative movement in a way that Michael Moore, krugman, and Susan Sarandon do not. And if I were a conservative I would want these guys and gals to represent my movement?
On the other hand, what you have to realize is, these guys serve a function. By feeding the masses exactly the kind of garbage about the left they want to hear, they unify and energize the masses. And this is useful to the conservative movement. But at what cost? Becasue maybe there are costs to constantly feeding up your base with garbage. For one thing, it makes them stupid. They believe dumb stuff (but maybe that is a feature, not a bug).
So, anyway jd, I think you and other wingers of your ilk ought to take some time and really examine your movement, And ask yourself, is this the best movement we can make? I mean, you guys have been eating garbage for years now, and maybe it’s time to look at what kind of movement results from that diet. Maybe a different diet would result in a better, more satisfying movement.
— cw · Jan 15, 05:44 AM · #
cw, you’re missing out on some important aspects of people like Rush and Palin. Unlike some other weak-kneed conservatives, they have taken the full fury of the multi-trillion-dollar leftwing hate machine, year after year, and are still standing. For doing that, they are my heroes. We need more people who can do that.
I quit listening to Rush many years ago, because I can’t stand his whiny tone. He is woefully ignorant on many topics, especially scientific and environmental ones. There just wasn’t enough to his program to make it worth my time. But he understands leftists and their evil ways and evil intentions very well, and for that I think he’s good to have around. Like I say, he’s my hero.
In Palin’s case, I don’t know if I could ever vote for her. I refused to do so in 2008. She has said things I strongly disagree with, and her understanding of some important issues does not seem to be deep-rooted. But she’s my hero, too, because she, too, has withstood the full fury of the hate machine. I admire that. When she quit her governor job I wondered if she, too, would be one to give way to the haters. But she seems to have stood her ground in the public arena. And she has brought issues to the fore that need to be brought to the fore. Who else is going to keep the subject of the so-called death panels in the public debate where it belongs? And she had the courage to fight back against those who tried to exploit the Tuscon killings to stifle dissent, where other conservatives in the public arena might have succumbed to the intimidation. Like I say, there is much to admire in her. I really don’t want to vote for her, but if that’s the only way to keep her in the public arena, maybe I’ll have to. And I have my own image problem. I don’t want leftists to think I’m the sort of person who wouldn’t vote for her, even if I am that sort of person.
— The Reticulator · Jan 15, 06:39 AM · #
I don’t really agree about the “leftist hate machine” but I’m glad you recognize that Palin would probably not be a good prez. But what if she’s the GOP nominee?
— cw · Jan 15, 07:42 AM · #
If she’s the nominee, then we’ll see.
I tend to develop my own lines in the sand on these things. When George W. Bush said, “I’m glad it’s over,” he lost my vote. When he could not even bring himself to say that the abuses that occurred under Clinton would not occur on his watch, that confirmed it. So no vote for GWB, either in 2000 or 2004. I kind of got out of the habit of voting for Republicans after they failed to bring the Clintons to justice, and more recently found that it was easy to continue not voting for them. I see no reason to vote for Republicans who will take us to hell in a handbasket going 50 mph compared to the Democrats’ 60 mph.
I still care a lot about our country and about defeating leftists (aka Enemies of the People and Running Dogs of Socialist Imperialism). The Tea Party movement is promising, but could take directions I don’t care to go. The Republican party per se doesn’t interest me much any more, except insofar as it’s one of those things that tends to induce the gag reflex.
— The Reticulator · Jan 15, 08:09 AM · #
some truly gripping analysis in this article, i do say.
— slightly conservo-libertarian with an anarcho-fascist bent · Jan 15, 08:37 AM · #
cw:
I think I’d rather let you look at my movement and tell me if it’s the best one I can make.
However, if while examining my movement, you encounter something that resembles your profile, consider that a satirical statement.
— jd · Jan 15, 03:56 PM · #
Retic.
Who would you vote for if you could vote for anyone?
jd
I have examined your comments, and based on this I can tell you, respectfully, that your movement stinks. Too much snake oil in your diet.
— cw · Jan 15, 05:46 PM · #
“whatever his provenance”
— y81 · Jan 19, 10:25 PM · #
I know I’m late to the party, but I just read all of the words above and couldn’t believe nobody mentioned the name of Keith Olbermann. (I can understand why, however.) Or how about Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Randi Rhodes or Amy Goodman? They are clearly the nearest leftward equivalents to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc.
— Cato · Jan 20, 11:52 PM · #
“A big lie just like Goebbels.”
— y81 · Jan 23, 04:36 AM · #