Friday, January 28, 2011

Tugging on Superman's Cape

Things that drive me nuts department: via Powerline, Caroline Glick makes the following observations:

In the case of her use of the term "blood libel," Palin exposed the Left's attempt to criminalize conservatives and make it impossible for conservatives to either defend themselves or pursue their alternative policy agenda. ... Just as its Israeli counterpart did in the wake of Rabin's assassination, so the American Left seeks to attach a sense of criminality and violence to the American Right in order to make it socially and otherwise unpalatable to support or otherwise identify with it.

It's an old tactic and an effective one and Glick is correct to call it out. There's more:

By calling the Left out for its behavior, Palin exposed its agenda. But the logic of the blood libel remained. Trusting the public's ignorance, and the liberal Jewish community's solidarity, the leftist media in the U.S. immediately condemned Palin for daring to use the term, hinted she was an anti-Semite for doing so, and argued that by defending herself, she was again inciting violence. ...

After all, it is high time that Sarah Palin stopping hitting the closed fist of the Left with her face. More still:

It matters not whether these conservative thinkers support Palin. What matters is that by telling her not to defend herself from libelous attacks, they are accepting the Left's right to criminalize all conservatives. If she is not defended against a patently obscene effort to connect her to a madman's rampage in Tucson, then conservatives in the U.S. are signaling they really don't want to control U.S. policy.

I think this is true, too. As does John Hinderaker of Powerline, who endorses Glick's position, but in a peculiar and maddening way:

I agree with that last observation, which is why we, along with many others who do not necessarily support Palin as a potential Presidential candidate, have defended her against the Left's increasingly over-the-top attacks.

I agree with Glick, too. Here's my question for Hinderaker: why the escape clause? Why must one offer a disclaimer about Palin's presidential prospects while ostensibly defending her from attack? Either she's worth defending on the merits or she isn't. Hinderaker makes a point of quoting a Palin defender at length, but then undercuts his own argument at the end.

It's not clear that Palin is running for president anyway. We can deal with her prospects and potential alternatives if she becomes a candidate. For now, if you feel like defending her, just defend her. Criminy.


Gino said...

this is another symptom of the disease of the right. there are segments that are embarassed to be associated with other segments.

and they feel it necessary to admit such.

have you ever seen a democrat openly emabarassed by the existence of jesse jackson or al sharton, or even willian ayers within their party? nope.

and that is why, as i've said before, the right will never win the struggle they pretend to be engaging in.
the right exists to provide job opportunities for politicians. that is all.

Anonymous said...

that is a total crock. I ain't buyin' it. You just named three 'Democrats', none of whom have ever held elective office. To my knowledge, I don't think Ayers is even a Dem. I think he is a registered Socialist and his only claim to fame since the early 1970s is the result of the Right trying to tar Obama with him via guilt by a slim thread of association. So there is nothing to be embarrassed about.

Al Sharpton is a performance artist and a widely acknowledged joke whose only real power is to attract TV cameras. Kinda' like Ann Coulter on the Right. If there is something to be embarrassed about with him, I can't imagine what it is unless I am a newsman who made the mistake of taking him seriously. He has no real power or base outside of the most angry and marginalized black urban groups.

Jesse Jackson has his niche and purpose, and much of what he has done over the years has been legitimate. But Jesse's biggest problem is that he is Jesse Jackson...a legend in his own mind and a narcissist of the highest order. But he has never held public office, and NO ONE is worried about him being the Pres. Nominee any time in this millennium. And when he did run for President, he never had a snowball's chance in Hell of even getting the Democratic nomination. And trust me, there are plenty of Democrat's, blacks included, who hold him in disdain. I live in a Southside "Democratic" neighborhood of Chicago where it wasn't uncommon to see "Run Jesse Run" stickers on the front bumpers of cars...I am not kidding. He is a Strom Thurmond/Jesse Helms type character on the left: He has done enough good to command some respect, but he isn't to be taken too seriously and his kooky stuff is to be ignored.

What the Right is trying to come to terms with now is that Palin is their Frankenstein's monster and could possibly win the Presidential nomination. And most of the folks who knew what a joke she was waited far too long to admit it. Now they are trying to do it incrementally. Hence the death by a thousand cuts that Mark complains about.


Mr. D said...

What the Right is trying to come to terms with now is that Palin is their Frankenstein's monster and could possibly win the Presidential nomination. And most of the folks who knew what a joke she was waited far too long to admit it. Now they are trying to do it incrementally. Hence the death by a thousand cuts that Mark complains about.

Well, not really, Rich. What I'm complaining about is that the attacks against Palin concerning the Tucson shooting were so completely reprehensible that there's no reason for John Hinderaker to short-arm his condemnation or to qualify it with misgivings about her possible future political plans. Those considerations aren't relevant to the topic at hand. I would prefer that Hinderaker just stick to the topic itself or, if his heart isn't really in it, not say anything at all.

As for Rich's assertion that Sharpton and Jackson aren't really Democrats because they've never held elective office -- hey, believe what you want, but both men ran for President as Democrats. If you want to say they're not really Democrats, good luck with that.

Anonymous said...

You are putting words in my mouth that I never said. Clearly, both Jackson and Sharpton are Democrats. But neither are to be taken too seriously, even in Democratic circles. Both have about as good a chance of getting elected to any position of substance as you, me or Gino. So there really is no reason for any Democrat to defend them or be embarrassed by them. Furthermore, they both may have run for President as Democrats, but so did Pat Paulson, who had about as good a chance as them at winning. For the record, I am not embarrassed by Paulson either.

Regarding your position on Hinderaker, I get what your saying and actually agree. My point is that now, some of the people who should have had the cajones to voice their opinion about her two years ago are now taking any opportunity they can to throw an elbow. The clock is running out on them burying her and they are gonna have to do delicate surgery with a hatchet. If they weren't such pusillanimous hacks, I would pity them.


CousinDan 54915 said...

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton may be Democrats....they are also leaches who believe that real work only is needed after you've completed every shakedown you can.

Mr. D said...

Rich, what made me think you were minimizing Jackson and Sharpton's ties to the party is that you put scare quotes around Democrats in your initial post.

I don't disagree with you that Jackson and Sharpton aren't really factors any more, but I lived in Chicago in 1988 and I saw Jackson in operation. He had real power in the party, both locally and nationally. I suppose "had" is the operative term.

But hey, enjoy Rahm!

Gino said...

there have been at least two times when jackson not only spoke at the DNC convention, but was given prime time.

but he's not a big fixture in the party. ok. and he has no real power. ok.

but i'm willing to bet you right now: IF sarah runs, she will end up with fewer primary votes/delagates/whatever standard will best prove your case (not mine), than jesse jackson acheived when he ran.

also: IF a GOP wins the white house, at any time in our lives, that sarah will NEVER become a spiritual advisor, or any other kind of advisor to any president.
and i'm pretty sure you were never embarassed by jackson serving as a spiritual advisor to anybody really important to your party.

Anonymous said...

I will happily take that bet. You can name the sum, AND I will be magnanimous and say that Palin has to get both more primary votes and more delegates than Jackson for me to win. If she runs, she should have that many votes before Super Tuesday.

As for Jackson being a "Spiritual Advisor" to Clinton, I am pretty sure that meant he went out cattin' with him.

Mark and Gino,
read what I said about Jackson: "Jesse Jackson has his niche and purpose, and much of what he has done over the years has been legitimate." Jackson had a role in the Civil Rights movement that can't be completely eradicated. He was in MLKs inner circle and played a major role in opening up the trade unions in Chicago to African Americans. Also, much of his work in Operation Push and with the Rainbow Coalition was effective. He has real power and did some legitimate work in his life.

I am not the guy to talk to about embarrassment on behalf of politicians. I pay attention to politics and as a result, I operate under the assumption (no hyperbole at all) that 95% of politicians, regardless of their alleged ideological leanings, are scumbags. I am rarely disappointed. Being embarrassed about the actions of politicians makes about as much sense as being embarrassed about bodily functions.

One last thing: If Dems are incapable of embarrassment, then why isn't John Edwards still a major figure in Dem politics?


Gino said...

Rich:two reasons for the john edwards thing:

1. nobody really liked him on a personal level. if you aint cool, they wont hang with you. pols are like that.
2.he failed to deleiver a constituency. in democrat politics, this is all that matters, especially if you arent cool to begin with.

compare his treatemnt alongside that of jesse jackson. very, very, scarily similar circumstances.

although, for my money, edwards is a better man. he is actually involved in his bastard's life, and it was this involvement that got him 'found' out in some part.
also, john is only known to have had one affair, unlike the other guy.

if you had to pick one man's character to be less embarassed about, the one the democrats chose is telling in itself.

Mr. D said...

Being embarrassed about the actions of politicians makes about as much sense as being embarrassed about bodily functions.

Well, yeah. But that's the problem and the irritation. As a conservative, it's been my experience that I am asked to account for the actions of politicians, as if I had any influence over what they do, or say.

It gets old. And yet we end up in these situations because there's always an attack underway on conservatives. The Palin thing was a classic example. There was no connection between what some crazy man does in Tucson and Sarah Palin. None. Yet it became the story of the week. And when she ended up having to defend herself, the message was essentially, "Hey Sarah, stop hitting our fists with your face. And while you're at it, shut up."

I have no problem defending Palin on that, even if I have no responsibility for her, because it was all so unfair. There's no evidence -- none -- that the shooter was influenced in any way by some internet map that Sarah Palin put out there. But she gets blamed anyway.

The problem with Hinderaker is that he comes onto the battlefield and shoots the wounded. He knows better.

There's another post in this. I'll try to write it in the coming days.

Anonymous said...

again, I have to disagree with you on Edwards' position in the party at the time of his scandal. He was the number 3 in the primaries in thge middle of a Presidential election cycle when that story broke, and had quite the following among far left voters. His rhetoric was classic McGovern era, war on poverty, two America's, class warfare stuff. And the Olbermaniacs ate it up. But his timing was appalling. His wife, who was already a figure of sympathy from having lost a child, was losing a very public but dignified battle with cancer. Jackson's wife has always stayed out of the lime light. So there wasn't a public face to tag with that, AND, it was 2 decades since Jackson had run for President.

do you honestly believe that there's always an attack underway on only conservatives? You have got to be kidding me. That street runs both ways. But the attacks are from the 15% to 20% of the population on the far right and the 15% to 20% on the far left who care to/are dumb enough to believe and say some of the dumbest things imaginable. Unfortunately, those two groups get most of the ink in newspapers and air time on TV, but it's pretty evenly distributed. That's why we still have idiots on the left calling Dubya a Fascist and morons on the right calling Obama a Kenyan Marxist. If you can't see that, I don't really know what to tell you.


Gino said...

rich: ok, we'll have to disagree on some of the particulars...
but your defense your particulars kinda helps with my original claim.
edwards was a class warfare guy. big whoop. all democrats are.

he was actually closer to a mainstream democrat than the dude you elected: ties to ayers, his racist mentor...
thats pretty extreme stuff. i cant imagine a GOP candiadte being allowed on the stage who had ties to tim mcviegh or david duke, and if found, his polls would sink like a rock... (remember the macaca thing?)... while every GOPr in the nation would take to the podium to denounce him, his mother, his dog, and the truck he rolled in on.

the democrat response: oh, well, he's a centrist... he didnt know... he never went to church on that day... what? I cant hear you, la la la la...

its all about winning for the dems. out of two viable parties, they are the only ones who are in this game for reals.

W.B. Picklesworth said...

The curse of the fair-minded: the desire to draw some kind of broad equivalence between two groups using very limited evidence. "Both sides do it. The bums are all the same."

It sounds very fair, but it's really just the opposite. When pressed on the matter, people who espouse such ideas will claim that the conservative has some kind of persecution complex.

see systemic injustice

Mr. D said...

do you honestly believe that there's always an attack underway on only conservatives? You have got to be kidding me.

No, I don't believe that, and you know that, of course. But this post was about one thing, and one thing only -- the attacks (which are pretty constant) on Sarah Palin, and the half-assed response of a prominent conservative blogger (John Hinderaker), which I find disappointing.

The "both sides do it" argument is (a) true and (b) beside the point.

Now, my question for you -- were the charges against Palin in re the Tucson shooting valid in any way? A simple yes or no answer would suffice.

Anonymous said...


Mr. D said...

Good answer, Rich. A better answer than John Hinderaker could apparently offer. :)


Gino said...

Rich should have a blog of his own. some awesome topics could be well hashed there.