The political, pirate hit of 2009~

myspace: http://www.myspace.com/primalsky2009

Captain Smith

…

This is an informative post. I will surely pop over again….

My information about calico cat tea house get completed after reading this very useful and informative post ….

And JSpencer, thanks for the Buckley quote… there seem an awful lot of 'Bills” in the political world nowadays, arent there? But, WFB, whom I knew, is one I miss more than any, dead or alive Bills. Especially his later work. The art of wit and insight. Rare.

dr.e

And in all of these cases, I think what you have to realize is that people are afraid of offending the constituents or listeners/fans- not the politician or opinionator him/herself. There's a recognition that a certain portion of that fanbase or constituency would be savvy enough to understand criticism while a sizable portion would not, and would take it as a dissing of them personally.

Bristol believed it was her choice. The Prolife position is that you have no choice.

Of COURSE prolifers recognize it's a choice, but we don't believe the choice to abort is a morally permissible one and we don't believe it should be legally acceptable in most cases. It's absurd to say that anyone who recognizes that the option to abort is currently legally permissible is thus ENDORSING that situation.

And again, it's the fact that the interview was clipped to exclude why she was saying this at all- it was in response to critics who asserted that her mother had forced her to make that decision, that's why she even used the phrase that it was 'her choice'.

“BRISTOL PALIN: Everyone should be abstinent, whatever, but it’s not realistic at all.”

It appears Bristol also believes abstinence only is not realistic. Her words.

This part was taken out of context too. She is young and didn't articulate it that well, but what she was saying is that the current cultural environment doesn't empower girls (or boys, for that matter, though it rarely plays out that way) to say no, and that's why abstinence is unrealistic. It's a shame that everyone by and large missed her point, because it's a really important one that adults/parents need to wake up to.

Bristol doesn't realize that she's pro-choice. What's your point? Olberman lied about what she said?
Yes. And no, you don't know Bristol Palin's thoughts better than she knows them herself.

Compare these with some of Limbaugh's statements:

Oh that's right, distortions are not lies.

I don't see a distortion or a lie there. Obama gave speeches on the floor of the Illinois Senate saying that this legislation was unnecessary, ignoring people who testified to the contrary. We recently saw reports of a case in FL which also proved that abortion providers can't be trusted to judge viability of neonates that survive abortions (even though FL, like IL also has laws prohibiting infanticide), which is the situation that this legislation sought to remedy. Also, Obama claimed he'd support the legislation (even though he continued to say he didn't think it was necessary) if it comported with the language in federal statutes- and then when the language was changed to do so, he still voted against it.

So what is the lie or distortion supposed to be in what Limbaugh said about this situation?

“Well, we've got another tape from — I get these guys confused — Usama bin Laden. Another tape says he's going to invade Pakistan and declare war on Pakistan and Musharraf, which, ladies and gentlemen, puts him on the same page with a Democrat presidential candidate — that would be Barack 'Uss-Obama.' “

“His education plan is Maoist (no surprise given the Ayers/Klonsky influence), and he is otherwise a Bolshevik. I'm also quite sure, given his character traits, that he would be a Stalinist if he thought he could get away with it”

I have no idea what this excerpt is about, though it seems to show Limbaugh expressing opinions in an inflammatory manner (do you dispute that Olbermann does the same?), which is something I've repeatedly expressed distaste for.

Do I really have to mention “Barack the Magic Negro” ?
Depends if you're going to mention that it was a liberal in the LA Times who wrote that and then Limbaugh picked it up to satirize about the power struggles within the black political power base. You might want to google Camille Paglia, another liberal, to get the low down on how Limbaugh was riffing on that.

Anyway, I'm glad that you can now see that I was right about how pointless it is to debate about these guys- everyone has their own opinion and pretty much claims their own set of facts to justify the opinions. I still say though that the most intellectually honest judgment is to wash your hands of all of them. I'll admit, I occasionally get drawn into defending Limbaugh against inaccurate allegations, because the allegations get repeated so often without rebuttal that people have a much different impression of him than the reality- and yet I know that even setting the record straight to that degree is pretty futile.

You are absolutely right, there's no point in “debating” this question.

“taking a clip and editing it to have a person's words twisted (my example was Bristol Palin, who used the word “choice' to describe her decision to bear her child when answering her critics who thought that her mother pressured her to do so,”

From the interview:
VAN SUSTEREN, AFTER ASKING ABOUT THE TABLOIDS: What didn't anybody get? What didn't people understand?

BRISTOL: That, there's a lot of things. They thought that, like, my mom was going to make me have the baby, and it was my choice to have the baby. And it's just, that kind of stuff just bothered me.

Bristol believed it was her choice. The Prolife position is that you have no choice.

“BRISTOL PALIN: Everyone should be abstinent, whatever, but it’s not realistic at all.”

It appears Bristol also believes abstinence only is not realistic. Her words.

Bristol doesn't realize that she's pro-choice. What's your point? Olberman lied about what she said?

The two quotes above are direct from Newsbusters.

Compare these with some of Limbaugh's statements:

Discussing Jerome Corsi's The Obama Nation, Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that Sen. Barack Obama “numerous times, three times in Illinois voted for legislation that would allow doctors and patients to murder babies who survived abortions and were out of the womb. Radical stuff. Three times he voted for this.” Limbaugh misrepresented the legislation Obama voted against, a bill that amended the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 and that opponents said was unnecessary, as the Illinois criminal code unequivocally prohibits killing children, and posed a threat to abortion rights. Mediamatters.com

Oh that's right, distortions are not lies.

“Well, we've got another tape from — I get these guys confused — Usama bin Laden. Another tape says he's going to invade Pakistan and declare war on Pakistan and Musharraf, which, ladies and gentlemen, puts him on the same page with a Democrat presidential candidate — that would be Barack 'Uss-Obama.' “

“His education plan is Maoist (no surprise given the Ayers/Klonsky influence), and he is otherwise a Bolshevik. I'm also quite sure, given his character traits, that he would be a Stalinist if he thought he could get away with it”

Do I really have to mention “Barack the Magic Negro” ?

You are absolutely right, there's no point in “debating” this question.

As for the conspiracy bloviaters: Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, etc. like it or not, these people have come to represent the right for more people than you may think. FOX is hardly a fringe media outlet eh? There was a program last night on public radio, OnPoint I believe, in which they talked about the over-the-top rhetoric coming from these people, and there were many clips played that illustrated this frothing at the mouth sort of conspiracy fomenting.

As I said before, responsible republicans need to address this as it is making their party suffer. When they come out and criticize irresponsible loudmouths like Limbaugh, and then go crawling back to apologize, that doesn't really give the impression people like Limbaugh aren't calling the shots. If these are indeed fringe figures, then they shouldn't need to be kowtowed to the way they are.

And yes, there was loudmouth over-the-top ranting about Bush too, but there was no real quantitative equivalence to what we are seeing now. I certainly don't recall any democrat legislators crawling back to Elinor Clift and begging her forgiveness for criticizing any of her commentary. As for Keith Olberman, he didn't even come on the scene in any major way until Bush had already been in office for some time. Again, I see the false equivalence, and I see it being accepted from the left as well… perhaps because they are more philosophically more inclined to bend than is the right.

And thank you for explaining my thoughts on self analysis of our bias, better than I could explain them. I hadn't even made the connection to counter-transference, which I learned a bit about in a different facet of my life, but that is a wise point.

As for the threads, I'm having difficulty as well and I'm not sure whether I might have caused some of the difficulty myself by not using it properly (sometimes using 'reply' button, other times adding a new comment at the bottom) but more so than that, I find it difficult to come back and find new comments when they're interspersed in the threads instead of listed chronologically.

So, my preference would be the old non-threaded comments, but that may be just me.

also, just wanted to mention, I think arguing points and yet weaving peace in and out of those as warranted is a class act. I found all your discussion here just that.

kindest regards,
dr.e

Look at someone like Andrew Sullivan, who came to a realization that he no longer supported the Iraq War and other policies of the Bush administration. Fine, no beef with that- much better to admit a change in viewpoint and be willing to criticize the party you previously supported on those issues where you disagree. But now, does he ever really write anything representative of conservatism?

Same with John Cole of Balloon Juice. It seems like these people become poster children of 'reasonableness' for the left and then they end up succumbing to the groupthink or something- or maybe they start to enjoy being thought of as cool and can't stop seeking the adulation.

If I could think of someone from the left who ever admitted changing their mind on anything or admitted support for Bush on ANY issue whatsoever, I'd run through in my mind whether or not it worked out that way in reverse, but I can't think of any examples like that.

But quite honestly, I do feel like most conservatives have given up trying to get any respect from moderates. If you're going to be ignored or ridiculed all of the time, why bother anymore? It's really frustrating- and when I see reasonable centrists like you or DaGoat joining in the choir of criticism of the right, I think you're playing into the hands of those on the left who want to continue to discredit conservatism in general. I realize for you guys it's a heartfelt sentiment and not intentionally trying to stifle opposition to the left, but it still results in that all the same.

:>

But thinking about this further… I think the blowhards are *enabled* by the reasonable conservatives who, perhaps fearing the extreme hostility that would result, seem unable to consistently call out the problem in their own conservative ranks. I'm far more impressed, for instance, by someone on the right who's willing to call out the Glenn Becks or Rush Limbaughs. Those who do so (Rick Moran comes to mind as a recent example) attract a great deal of attention.

Yes, a lot of that attention is unwelcome, coming from enraged “fellow conservatives” — but it also attracts people like me who are then more likely to hear such a person's opinions.

Crazy as this may sound, I think it is from within that the correction will have to occur.

FWIW (and keeping w/ the spirit of this thread) — I thought the same of the left throughout the disturbing BDS displays.

On elevating the volume, I don't think it'll happen until the moderates start taking anyone on the right seriously. That's what bothers me so much about people on sites like this one who keep harping on the stoopid conservatives and completely ignoring anyone who could be taken seriously. I hate to mention Joe by name because I know he (understandably) doesn't like commenters critiquing the site for its adherence to centrism and balance, but quite honestly I've seen a major transition where he used to frequently post links from thoughtful conservatives and now those occasions are few and far between, while there's a constant drumbeat about Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck.

Even if the reality is that rational conservative commentary has become more scarce, I've listed the sites I visit almost daily and there is almost always something there which could be discussed among moderates without anything but reasonable disagreement. And if moderates truly care about the health of political discourse and rational opposition to one party rule, I hope they will begin noticing that those conservative or center right commenters still exist.

I'd just like to take a moment to give a kudo to CStanley, who appears to have been taking fire all day long. For the most part, she's maintained composure and stayed on track — a difficult thing to do.

:>

Having said that….

“I think that moderates are so afraid of looking foolish for being on the same side as some blowhard entertainers that they won't even consider whether there are more serious people out there trying to lead a principled opposition to the country's leftward shift.”

CStanley, speaking for myself only, fear of looking foolish for agreeing with blowhard entertainers isn't the problem. For me, it's that these blowhards are obfuscating coherence to the point of gibberish. I do, however, agree completely that there are people out there who are seriously, rationally trying to address valid concerns. Unfortunately, they are (imo) being drowned out by the outrageous and mad.

How do you propose elevating the volume for the more serious people, so they can be heard?

I agree about Althouse but I still read her occasionally (love her photos, too, so I guess I lean toward the artsiness a bit.)

Boortz is from my current hometown and I enjoy listening to him on the radio even though I quite often disagree and find him obnoxious. He says what he thinks though, and it's obviously based on what he believes and not on carrying water for a politician or party. My biggest annoyance with him is over immigration- I think he really does have bigotry behind his stance and as the mother of a Hispanic child it really bothers me that he stirs up that kind of sentiment in our community.

I used to read Althouse a lot but deleted that one too when I realized she was too wine-and-cheese for my taste.

I read Blackfive when I am interested in a military topic and agree his response to the pirate situation was disappointing.

Don't like Jonah Goldberg much but read NRO a lot.

I'll have to check out some of your other sites.

Right now I check out Memeorandum frequently and go where it looks interesting, plus I do like RealClear Politics for a good selection of articles. I still have Neil Boortz bookmarked mainly because he's entertaining to read and he's stayed a fiscal conservative through the whole mess of the last decade.