Bleeding Heart Conservatives

This is not an issue of religious tolerance but of common moral sense. To build a mosque at Ground Zero is a stab in the heart of the families of the innocent victims of those horrific attacks.

Sarah Palin likes her “stab in the heart” metaphor enough to carry it over into Facebook from her notorious “refudiate” tweet.  For a student of history, “stab in the heart” can’t help but bring to mind “stab in the back” and another era’s xenophobic demagogy, but I wouldn’t accuse Palin of being a student of history.

The sheer emotionalism of her post – along with the usual character assassination games against Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf – generates the predictable response from her commenters:  “Where better for Islamic radicals to rally their demons to commit more murder and mayhem against America!  I urge all Americans to come against this blasphemous project and for New York City residents to remember this treasoness [sic and !] act by their despicable mayor come the next election. ”  “This is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles not a Moslum [sic] nation. Our biggest problem is our use of the term tolerance and its context in America.”  “THROW ALL THE BASTARDS OUT!”  And on and on.

Real nice bunch of “friends” you’ve got there, Governor.  And a really impressive reaction you’ve stirred up:  It’s the natural result of a politics that relies on emotional authenticity above all else.

“Stab in the heart” is the kind of nonsense that once upon a time conservatives would have automatically rejected, and that they will still automatically reject whenever it happens to conflict with one or another element of their platform.  Lack of health coverage:  A stab in the heart for liberals.  War in Iraq and Afghanistan:  A stab in the heart for pacifists.  Racist signs and racially insensitive rhetoric at Tea Parties:  A stab in the heart for members and friends of the NAACP.  “Common moral sense” is no better standard.  No one should need to recount all of the notions that once upon a time stood for “common moral sense,” but that Palin and her followers – even Palin and her followers – would immediately reject.

Someday, Palin may hope to move to the center, but she is coming to stand for reactionary rightwing culture at its ugliest.  It’s not anyone else “making things up”:  She’s doing this all by herself.  Like a certain kind of anti-immigration politics, like a certain style of opposition to ObamaCare and to Obama himself, and like a range of other stances that may currently seem popular, they are (re-)solidifying an image of the American right that it may take generations to break back down:  The more this kind of thing achieves for Palin conservatives now, the more that they, most of all, may someday come to regret it.


WordPresser
Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution.

36 comments on “Bleeding Heart Conservatives

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. Personally, I was disappointed SP refudiated “refudiate” by taking it down in subsequent iterations. I thought the Shakespeare defense had merit.

    The rest of it….

    “Common moral sense” is self evidently not common, moral or sensical, nor intended to be, but rather a Declaration of Co-Dependency with the atavistic image she has re-created herself into.

  2. @ strangelet:
    Gotcha.

    And, sheesh, as to the content of the post you linked. Glad someone’s at least getting a laugh out of it.

    Early on in my participation in the controversy, I realized that a boil had been lanced – over an infection much, much deeper than I had realized. You can be pessimistic about some aspects of this all, that we haven’t seen the end of ugliness, and still be optimistic about others: We – I mean our whole culture, our whole world – obviously have a lot of very serious work to do, and that usually means a lot of painful acting out as well as a lot of soul-searching.

    Palinism means something much more concrete than it did a year ago. It’s no longer the feverish suspicions of hateful lefty nutjobs vs. a possibly misunderstood figure of unknown potential: Palin is becoming/revealing herself to be what her enemies said she was. Maybe it’s a function of her determination to spite them, or maybe she really was that all along. Not sure how much difference it makes.

  3. bob wrote:

    “Common moral sense” is self evidently not common, moral or sensical, nor intended to be, but rather a Declaration of Co-Dependency with the atavistic image she has re-created herself into.

    You can say that again, masked man.

  4. It’s odd how everything is oddly displaced, maybe I’m one of those dream worlds in “Inception” that must be it. I mean they warn about
    the violence of the tea parties, like Pelosi recalled from the 70s, the SLA, the local Weatherman faction, Jim Jones, no that isn’t what she
    meant. We have the front man for this enterprise, who tut tuts when Christian churches are burn in Malaysia, who is tied to Hamas, which is woefully short of good intent, but that must be like with the shows of the BBC like Primeval and MI-6, where the evil CIA or the crusaderis always on the march, Then again who cares of burned churches if their doctrine is not up to snuff. I mean the late
    Senator Kennedy, such a good source of character inveighing against Robert Bork as a modern Savaranola with a touch of theBroederbund, unlike his colleague Robert Byrd, who we are informed just joined the clan to be elected to high office

  5. who tut tuts when Christian churches are burn in Malaysia, who is tied to Hamas,

    really, narc, you’re re-writing history. His “tut-tutting” as the link you yourself provided, was a clear call for religious tolerance in Malaysia. His “tie” to Hamas is, I suspect your usual transformation of an association into a link. Is it just his principled refusal to use the word “terrorist” that you have in mind, or something real, or something along the brother is the friend of a known associate stuff that you usually come up with (along with the usual smokescreen of completely irrelevant factoids)?

    Her rhetoric and her approach are indefensible, regardless of what you think of Rauf, Pelosi, Byrd, the foo bird, or INCEPTION.

  6. I find her statement is more out of sorrow than anger, she tried almost
    a year ago, to set a bright line of the critique of radical Islam at HK, but apparently there is no way to criticize Islam at all, and too attempt it, is to engage in Quellist Kate’s mirroring, ‘something’s happening here (but we can’t be) exactly clear”. We must pretend that the words of Aulaqi, Quaradawi, et al, must be taken with a grain of salt, for they have no consequences. We must deny that real terrorists are in Gitmo, and they should not be returned
    to the environment most congenial to them ‘rejoining the fight’. We
    must ‘refudiate’ hundreds of years of precedent onmilitary commission must give the name address and list of relatives of everyone operating in the various regional campaigns, because
    that will not hamper their efforts.

    On the other hand, we must admit that there is no sound reason for opposing a disastrous set of foreign and domestic policies except
    race prejudice, Even if nothing substantial happened at the Tea Parties, thought crime is always a clear and present danger, It doesn’t matter that Faisal Shahzad wanted to recreate a scene out
    of the Siege, some ‘bitter clinger’ must have considered it

  7. @ narciso:
    Her rhetoric and her approach are indefensible, regardless of what you think of Aulaqi, Gitmo, military commissions, race prejudice, disastrous policies, thought crimes, Shahzad, or the Siege – as you essentially admit when you try to excuse it as “sorrow,” and then change the subject, and change the subject, and change the subject again.

  8. The real issue in mosque debate
    Last Updated: 8:02 AM, July 21, 2010
    Michael Goodwin

    According to MG,this is not an issue about Freedom of Religion. However,when you unravel his argument,it seems to be about Freedom of Religion.

    “There are already numerous mosques In New York, and others are planned, so there is no threat to Muslims’ religious freedom here. With no suggestion it be taken away, the mayor’s passion is directed at a straw man.”

    But there still needs to be a reason for the “anywhere else,but not there” argument.

    “Far from being about freedom of religion, the mosque battle is a land-use controversy magnified by its proximity to Ground Zero. It’s a real-estate story — location, location, location.”

    Okay,but the reason for a denial of a Building Permit would be?

    “Given the heated emotions and concerns, then, New Yorkers who object to or have questions about the building of this shrine In this spot deserve some answers and reassurance. A politically correct put-down that demands conformity won’t cut it.
    Let’s put the burden where it belongs — on the promoters and their supporters. They need to be more open about their plans, their financing and, most important, about why they insist on a mosque so close to American HALLOWED ground.”

    We’re back to square 1,because the essence of the issue is “Location close to HALLOWED ground” In other words,the events of 9/11 somehow generated a tract of Spiritually impregnated earth,and the spirit of that impregnation is hostile to the spirit of Islam. So is that ground specifically HALLOWED in the sense that it is JUDEO-CHRISTIAN ground which is the TRUE religion of America,and therfore an Islam Building is an insult? to?

    “Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.” JAMES MADISON
    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/the_real_issue_in_mosque_debate_W4ZZG7wraEScMjfxuDFh2I

  9. However, despite my Posting in #12,I am no friend to the idea of a Mosque near the HOLY site,anymore than I would be friendly to a church or synagauge built there. I live in a profane secular world,and how those that choose to live one foot in the “Sacred” and the Other in the Profane,that’s a juggling act I avoid.
    My interest in that HALLOWED ground is to see a Secular Building built there that can be used for Commerce and other functions of the “Fallen” world,and I would appreciate it if someone would explain to me why there is still a Hole there,nine years ex post facto,and tie that “Hole” in to Exceptionalism.

  10. @ Rex Caruthers:
    Rex, your #12 was, as they used to say, right on, soul brother, esp:

    In other words,the events of 9/11 somehow generated a tract of Spiritually impregnated earth,and the spirit of that impregnation is hostile to the spirit of Islam. So is that ground specifically HALLOWED in the sense that it is JUDEO-CHRISTIAN ground which is the TRUE religion of America,and therfore an Islam Building is an insult? to?

    In short, the GZ Mosque opponents are proposing that 9/11 disqualified Islam from equal co-participation in the national spiritual community.

    We differ in that you’re an atheist, while I’m more a syncretist. You should note, however, as discussed at length in previous posts on this subject, that GZ is going to be host to massive secular/non-denominational monuments. Construction is under way. It’s been slowed down by a perfect storm of hubris, correctness, and economic dislocation. Whether NYC really needed millions and millions more sq ft of office space at just this time looked kind of dicey, and over-supply considerations did lead to cancellation/re-design of one of the planned buildings.

    However, I prefer the symbolic interpretation: We haven’t re-built because we haven’t confronted our spiritual flaws. In Palin’s post, she attacks Rauf for a statement made soon after 9/11 that, though we didn’t “deserve” the attacks, US policies were “accessories to the crime.” It’s a simple observation that was unwelcome in 2001, but that any grown-up should be able to presume by now. It should be non-controversial. Palin, Gingrich, the HotAryans are trying to keep it taboo – and to install in place of expanded understanding a notion of endless war between Judeo-Christianity and Islam. You shouldn’t have to approve of Islamic belief on its own terms – subscribe to the faith – to be able to reject what the cultural right is trying, consciously or not, to get us into.

  11. You want to deny reality, of who we are dealing with Imam Rauf and his associates, and conversely you want to affirm a lie, about the Tea Party being implicitly racist. Similarly you want Israel to rend it’s garments, and not defend itself against every tactic of fourth generation warfare waged against it. We’ve seen what Wahhabism has done to Af Pak and Saudi Arabia, we’ve even seen snippets of it’s consequences on our own soil, Aulaqi’s preaching in San Diego & Falls Church, the Dar Ul Ulum mosque that sent Padilla on his way to Yemen, and to meet with EL Shukrijumah, but
    you want to deny that

  12. narciso wrote:
    You want to deny reality

    If reality is War to the Last Man Standing,and we,as a nation,make those decisions together,then,let’s send a Crusade Size Army to the Islam lands and fight until it’s over,if we’re not going to do it that way,but continue the “on the cheap” third tier,nibble at their bootstrings tactics that we have pursued since 2003,I have no further interest in that sort of perpetual,no one ever wins, and we end up bankrupt,type of gameplan.

  13. @ narciso:
    You want to assume that assuming your assumptions is the same as objectively analyzing events.

    “Reality,” whatever that is, has little chance of reaching you. Minimally credible distinctions completely escape you. The Tea Party has had to admit by its own indelible actions – for example, excommunicating Mark Williams – that the actual, calibrated charges made by Jealous and the NAACP were accurate, despite initial attempts at blanket denials by Palin and others. But into the narcisan memory hole with that, along with any distinction between aggressive bigotry and every other form of racial or racialized politics and policy. You rarely move for longer than a moment beyond your habitual construction by association of simplistically generalized “it”‘s and “they”‘s, ignoring the logical and moral impairment, and practical consequences, of your own positioning. Your treatment of Rauf & co. and of the mosque controversy is typical in this respect.

    I could grant every single charge you’ve made against Rauf, and it wouldn’t alter the fundamental arguments on his project one bit: 1) He and his friends are free to buy buildings and use them for whatever purpose they like within the law and community standards, and 2) the opposition as it has developed is much more dangerous to us – to the character of the country and to our material interests as well – than his project could possibly be, even, again, if we accept every scurrilous and paranoid charge you make against its backers.

    As for Israel, coping with so-called 4th Generation Warfare requires understanding 4th Generation Warfare. Applying strategies and tactics appropriate to “conventional” and earlier modes of warfare is a recipe for catastrophe.

  14. Yes. Mark Williams said something stupid, I’ve stipulated on that point, but the left argument is that the tea party is ‘explicitly’ racist, as are
    tax cuts, supporting local law enforcement, et al. There is very little grounds to that critique, but it doesn’t stop virtually every publication
    on god’s green earth, from repeating it.

  15. @ narciso:

    narc, you remain mostly a hollow-headed hunk of silly, as usual.

    Now do something UNUSUAL, and explain why………..
    “blocked any consideration of any contrary talking point.”……
    isn’t just you being shull of fit.

    Please, for one time, EXPLAIN and provide some sane, germane explain instead of just more of same being a pain.

    Now adding …….

    There is very little grounds to that critique, but it doesn’t stop virtually every publication
    on god’s green earth, from repeating it.

  16. It was deemed that any critique of Obama by Hillary partisans was racist, that didn’t matter in the short run because she still kept winning most of the primaries. It was deemed that he transcended race, even though he threw his mother under the bus, who in large part raised him (that for me, was a much bigger turnoff than his politics). The real connections that he’s had for a long time, with Ayers with Wright, were ignored, even though they shape his mindset

    That first day of her choosing, the narrative of a reformist politician that occasionally CK indicates in those little boxes was discarded by
    the relentless attacks first by the Journolist, then Axelrod’s astroturfers who polluted the information well following Alinsky’s rule
    about ridicule, this was before the September 3rd speech when she did bat back a few volleys. Then there was this avalanche of ethic
    charges and insinuations of a frankly racist cant, spread by the Sharpton of Sitka, Levi’s handler Rex. Gibson has been chastened by that time, so he asked more probing questions, often not having any understanding of the answer, than he would ever return to do so about Obama.

  17. @ narciso:
    Now do something UNUSUAL, and explain why………..
    “blocked any consideration of any contrary talking point.”……
    isn’t just you being shull of fit.
    Please, for one time, EXPLAIN and provide some sane, germane explain instead of just more of same being a pain.
    Now adding …….
    There is very little grounds to that critique, but it doesn’t stop virtually every publication
    on god’s green earth, from repeating it.

    Now adding……

    the relentless attacks first by the Journolist, then Axelrod’s astroturfers who polluted the information

  18. Axelrod is a specialist in astroturf, a fellow named Winner, who later received contracts for ‘propaganda’ with the NEA, let the secessionist and other lines of dishonest inquiry, TPM floated affairs, Kos was one of the first to assert that Trig was not her child, the whole rotten crew

  19. You know Colin, maybe I should stop coming here, I wish I weren’t right, Sarah does to, that’s why it didn’t come as anything bur a plaintive plea, like her Facebook post,on ‘Death Panels’ nearly a year ago. I thought you had an understanding of what was underlying the current political malaise, but either you never had it, or you have been persuaded to chase the typical ephemeral talking point. I mean when
    Allah is making more sense on somethings, it’s time to reconsider

  20. I mean when Allah is making more sense on somethings, it’s time to reconsider

    You mean more sense than the Triune God,or YHYH inflicting Job with Boils?

  21. @ Rex Caruthers:
    I believe he was referring to Allahpundit – the blogger at HotAir – who has in the past demonstrated wrong notions and bad intentions, but who said some grudgingly complimentary things about la Palin yesterday.

  22. @ narciso:
    Look, narc, I’m sure you’ll be missed, but I don’t believe in arguing with people about why they should visit this blog and participate. Take it or leave it, whatever it is. I’m also not going to repeat for the 100th or 1000th time what I think is wrong with how you approach things. I’ve been happy to see you at times calibrating your commentary more carefully, suggesting that at least some of our discussion has made an impression on you – at least that’s what I think I saw – but, if you’re looking for people who are going to approve of and validate your opinions just because you feel them oh so strongly, you’re probably right that this is the wrong place for you.

  23. Thanks CK

    NARC/narciso wrote:
    You know Colin, maybe I should stop coming here

    Here’s a reminder of one reason why you bother coming here:
    ECONOMIC INFORMATION that is actually helpful in understanding ECONOMICS:

    Shadow Banking Makes a Comeback
    By MIKE WHITNEY

    Credit conditions are improving for speculators and bubblemakers, but they continue to worsen for households, consumers and small businesses. An article in the Wall Street Journal confirms that the Fed’s efforts to revive the so-called SHADOW BANKING SYSTEM is showing signs of progress. Financial intermediaries have been taking advantage of low rates and easy terms to fund corporate bonds, stocks and mortgage-backed securities. Thus, the reflating of high-risk financial assets has resumed, thanks to the Fed’s crisis-engendering monetary policy and extraordinary rescue operations.

    Here’s an excerpt from the Wall Street Journal:

    “A new quarterly survey of lending by the Federal Reserve found that hedge funds and private-equity funds are getting better terms from lenders and that big banks have loosened lending standards generally in recent months. The survey, called the Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey, focuses on wholesale credit markets, which the Fed said functioned better over the past quarter.” (“Survey shows credit flows more freely”, Sudeep Reddy, Wall Street Journal)

    In contrast, bank lending and consumer loans continue to shrink at a rate of nearly 5 per cent per year. According to economist John Makin, there was a “sharp drop in credit growth, to a negative 9.7 per cent annual rate over the three months ending in May.” Bottom line; the real economy is being strangled while unregulated shadow banks are re-leveraging their portfolios and skimming profits. Here’s more from the WSJ:

    “Two-thirds of dealers said hedge funds in particular pushed harder for better rates and looser nonprice terms, and they said some of the funds got better deals as a result….(while) The funding market for key consumer loans remained under stress, with a quarter of dealers reporting that liquidity and functioning in the market had deteriorated in recent months.” (“Survey shows credit flows more freely”, Sudeep Reddy, Wall Street Journal)

    Financial system instability is no accident. It’s Central Bank policy. As financial institutions discover they can no longer count on organic growth in the real economy to increase profits, (because consumers are too strapped to spend freely) they will rely more heavily on DODGY ACCOUNTING, BOGUS RATINGS, OPAQUE DEBT-INSTRUMENTS, HIGH-FREQUENCY TRADING and LAX LENDING STANDARDS. This is the SHADOWY regime that Bernanke is trying so hard to rebuild. The Fed is laying the groundwork for another disaster.
    Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com
    http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney07232010.html

    AND:Without Stable Money, There Can Be No Trust
    John Tamny, 07.21.10, 06:00 PM EDT
    If you can’t trust what a dollar is worth, what can you really trust?

    “Imagine being contacted by a real estate agent about a 5,000-square-foot house, only to show up and find a home half the size. Off the bat, the prospective purchaser would have very little trust.
    Of course the above scenario is purely hypothetical given that a foot is a foot. Since its definition is unchanging, 5,000 square feet means the same today as it did 20 years ago. Whatever the level of trust home buyers have in their real estate agents, square footage will never be a factor; that is, unless the length of the foot is allowed to “float,” and its length declines. Suddenly, 5,000 square feet could very well mean 2,500 square feet in “real terms,” and trust in real estate agents will plummet.
    this is the case with the world’s currencies. Debased currencies without definition are what the world has suffered since August of 1971, when President Richard Nixon severed the dollar’s link to gold. No longer defined in terms of the most stable commodity on earth, the dollar has been left to fluctuate without a golden anchor, its value changing minute by minute, hour by hour, and day by day.”
    http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/18/dollar-gold-standard-trust-opinions-john-tamny-fiat-currency.html

    DEPRESSION =s Bad Banks + Bad Currency

    Try to find out what is going on with our economy at Commentary or NRO,or Weekly Standard,or you name it/LOL Squared

  24. And if you think my Links are Derivative(little Joke),please remember that as far back as 2000,I/ve been opining about Currency,Derivatives,Debt Bubbles-Popping/Shadow Banking,Improper Accounting/Bad rating agencies,Floating Standards/Trade deficits/Off Balance Sheet Liabilities/
    I’m actually years ahead of the Competition,so I can scan a hundred econominc opinions,and quickly pick the one that contains some reality. And my Zombies get the value added,but being Contentions Zombies,they are ,correctly,quite skeptical of yours truly,the first Contentions Ghoul.

  25. You know, Colin, I feel as frustrated as you do from the other direction,
    this street corner philosophizing is not inexpensive for me either. I’ve said before maybe I should change it Don Quixote, because I like chasing windmills. No Allah is someone less squishy on FP, now, he is still as dismissive of Palin with reservations as before. But honestly when has American Scene gotten the milieu right, Suderman generally notwhitstanding and Frum, honestly. You see what the Journolist does and continues to do, and you don’t flinch at the course they are circumscribing. You notice how Sutton/
    Dillinger will only worsen the economic forecast. I care about truth
    and it seems so little of it is recovered or even investigated.

    Economics is certainly a part of it, we seem to be in the same lousy
    track as Japan did after the bubble that Fallows didn’t indentify in
    his paens to MITI in the 80s, this stimulus is ‘more than a crime, it’s a mistake’ the healthcare bill is the reverse, it is an offense to liberty. They hiked interest rates 18 times after Kerry was defeated

  26. narciso wrote:

    I care about truth
    and it seems so little of it is recovered or even investigated.

    Don’t know how you define “truth.” Don’t see how you can reach defensible approximations without precision in language, an “inertial frame” of reference, or at least some clear and testable syllogistic process.

    Instead, you always just end up pretty much where you intended to all along. Whatever the issue, you seem to dismiss the other side ahead of time, assume the adverse conclusion, then go searching for suspect associations in hope of ad hominem dismissals. Rarely if ever do you address an argument on its own terms. You prefer to change the subject – either to the ad hominem or to diverse at best indirectly relevant facts or opinions.

    Instead of just attacking Journolist, why don’t you take a close look at Ezra Klein’s or Fallows’ defenses and explain exactly why they’re wrong, if they’re wrong – try proceeding with an open mind for once and see where it takes you.

  27. No, Colin, I just don’t show undue deference, to them, Fallows got the key issue of economics wrong, yet it doesn’t matter. Perry was wrong about the CIA back in 1990, among other things, dismissing any larger Soviet infiltration, Now working with the tribes in Anbar/Dulaimi, Salahuddin worked up to a point, I’ve illustrated the example I’m most familiar, Mirabile in Ramadi. I’ve been watching for nearly 20 years now before I’ve rendered my verdict. It seems group think like prevalent among the journolist, or the CRU or the NIE that dismissed the Iranian nuclear program, is typical of what passes for journalism. I certainly have more respect for Millman than Friedersorf, but I think he is mistaken. Furthermore, the path he
    recommends, is least likely to make anyone change minds on the topic

  28. Fallows got the key issue of economics wrong, yet it doesn’t matter.

    No, it doesn’t, not when the subject was Journolist. But even if the subject was economics “got the key issue of economics wrong,” is an opinion, a generalization, based on x, y, z criticizeable assumptions. Even if it turns out that he got something wrong (probably, who doesn’t get things wrong from time to time?), and that it was the key issue (highly debatable), why would it lead anyone to conclude necessarily that he got some other issue wrong, and who cares whether you show him or anyone else “deference”? And what does Perry have to do with this topic?

    “Group think” as a characteristic of “journalism” is another meaningless statement. You can define “groupthink” in a million different ways. Maybe it’s typical of conservative “groupthink” to dismiss all “journalism” as “groupthink” or to think that “journalism” is the same as CRU or NIE 2007, three vastly different enterprises. These are meaningless or at best totally superficial, not to mention presumptuous, comparisons.

    I don’t see anything very significant in Journolist. The vast majority of participants were people none of us ever heard of. Many were academics. Many were activists. Many were bloggers and pundits. Very few – and none that’s played a significant role in any of the pseudo-scandals – are reporters. I’m supposed to be shocked that a Mother Jones reporter, a Firedoglake blogger, and an openly leftist columnist all disliked Sarah Palin, and might share ideas about how to undermine the R ticket? I assumed they were doing that kind of thing anyway, just as conservatives are all actively – openly and not as openly – discussing how to exploit Journolist, how to react to Breitbart, how to exploit economic problems against the big O, how to exploit the BP disaster. It’s called politics as usual since time immemorial. People of like mind get together – associate – and try to figure out ways to share ideas and advance their interests.

    I don’t care whether you think Millman is mistaken. What is his specific mistake? What specific flaw or flaws are there in which specific argument or arguments? You’re just vouching for your judgment over his. Why should anyone trust your conclusion? Why should anybody care that you disagree – that is, how is anyone supposed to do something with the fact of your disagreement? You (completely?) disagree. So what? I knew that ahead of time. There’s no discussion there to be had. I also have no idea what you mean by the “path he recommends.”

    All is not to be said at one go, narc. You can’t communicate everything in every comment. Pick a particular piece of the puzzle and try to find precisely where it fits, or show why it doesn’t. It’s only then that constructive dialogue is possible.

  29. When Brian Williams reads Joe Klein’s Journolist seminar verbatim, when Couric out of her pure ignorance, refuses to ask pertinent questions because her researcher was incompetent, and she repeats a certain template, when the CRU alters Data in order to foist a fraud, that is costly to the lives of millions of people. When a certain NIE refuses to include the Mousavian message to the Ayatollah boasting of how he fooled the European negotiators, when Tom Ricks choses not to notice the Ambar awakening, until after the damage is done. Tell me is it just ignorance or malice. Sarah Palin really has no affect on your life, your liberty, your pursuit of happiness, Obama and Biden do, and they were vouched by the Journolist by CNN, MSNBC by the folks at Culture 11 by Frum, and
    they have been slanderously misrepresenting the tea parties,

  30. When Brian Williams reads Joe Klein’s Journolist seminar verbatim,

    Appears to be an exaggeration, presumes that BW couldn’t reach whatever unspecified conclusions on his own. A non-point until proven.

    when Couric out of her pure ignorance, refuses to ask pertinent questions because her researcher was incompetent, and she repeats a certain template,

    Get over it. Palin screwed up the interview big time. If all that happened was that Couric ask crappy questions, no one would remember the incident. “A certain template” – meaningless blather. Make a specific point.

    when the CRU alters Data in order to foist a fraud, that is costly to the lives of millions of people.

    We’re not going to get anywhere on a discussion of GW and AGW, but don’t you think that, if the objective is to bring in disparate factoids to undermine the credibility of a vast other side, that a leftwinger could impeach the right over and over again?

    When a certain NIE refuses to include the Mousavian message to the Ayatollah boasting of how he fooled the European negotiators,

    For instance: When a certain CIA chief declares WMD in Iraq a “slam dunk,” when a certain VP declares absolute certainty about where the WMD are located, when a certain Secretary of State goes before the UN… well “you get the picture” – or do you?

    when Tom Ricks choses not to notice the Ambar awakening, until after the damage is done. Tell me is it just ignorance or malice.

    “When Charles Krauthammer chooses not to notice that the intelligence was flimsy…” “When VDH chooses not to notice that the insurgency is spinning out of control…” “When Larry Kudlow chooses not to notice deep structural imbalances in the economy…” “When George W Bush and the entire Republican Party chooses not to notice that the overheated housing market – the basis of their economic recovery and ‘ownership society’ – is insustainable…”

    Sarah Palin really has no affect on your life, your liberty, your pursuit of happiness,

    not for lack of trying

    Obama and Biden do, and they were vouched by the Journolist

    truly bizarre that a bunch of declared lefties would support the leftwing ticket…

    by CNN,

    huh? Because they didn’t openly boost YOUR preferred candidate, because they didn’t vouch for the fillie from Wasilly?

    MSNBC

    truly bizarre that a bunch of lefties – whose primetime viewership in combination with CNN’s came to about 1/4 of FNCs all Wright-all the time election coverage – openly rooted for Obama – you think it was a trick, a secret ploy?

    by the folks at Culture 11

    Culture 11? Culture 11? Who cares about Culture 11? How many people even knew of its existence?

    by Frum,

    who endorsed McCain-Palin

    and
    they have been slanderously misrepresenting the tea parties

    Prove it.

  31. Corrections
    New York Times, by Staff Original Article

    NATIONAL The Political Times column last Sunday, about a generational divide over racial attitudes, erroneously linked one example of a racially charged statement to the Tea Party movement. While Tea Party supporters have been connected to a number of such statements, there is no evidence that epithets reportedly directed in March at Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, outside the Capitol, came from Tea Party members.

1 Pings/Trackbacks for "Bleeding Heart Conservatives"
  1. […] blogger to rescue the Imam’s character from assassination by attrition, or his project from refudiation.  I will point out, however, ( as I have already done in thread discussion with Joe NS) that […]

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Related

Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins

Categories

Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins