in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000.
| Heritage | 0 | |
| Reuters | 2012 Watch: Mitt Romney’s message from GOP: Step it up |
0 |
| Fox News | Hmm: Obama to give 10 states a pass on No Child Left Behind deadline |
0 |
| CBS LA | Wha? LA County OKs $1,000 Fine For Throwing Football, Frisbee On Beaches |
0 |
| Ballot Box | AZ: Aide injured in Giffords shooting will run to replace her in House |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Gaffetastic:
Vice President Joe Biden had his “oops” moment Wednesday speaking in a 49er-crazed SF when he told a crowd at a city political fundraiser that “the Giants are on their way to the Super Bowl.” - SF Chronicle, 1-18-12
The ‘Conservative Cult’
There has been a recent wave of posts in the lefty blogosphere denouncing the alleged ‘cultish mentality of the right’ towards the President. Their rhetorical (and mostly yawn-worthy) arguments go a little something like this (paraphrasing):
The theocratic right are cult-like in their devotion to the dictator President. Anyone on the right who criticizes the President is automatically called a liberal. Conservative used to mean a belief in conservative values. Now it means “devoted to George W. Bush no matter what.” Bush conservatives are not really conservatives but Bushies, slavishly defending him on anything and everything, right down to the proposals he has made that would not be considered conservative under the Reagan administration.
These arguments have targeted bloggers like Michelle Malkin, Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom, and Hugh Hewitt, among others. But closer examinations of the critical posts making the denounciations of the right find that those posts are – shall we say – a little thin on evidence and – in many ways – hypocritical in nature.
The thing I try to always keep in mind when I blog is to make sure what I blog about is not just a generalized rant against the left. My posts are focused on particular issues like the NSA ‘scandal’, the war on terror, culture clashes, and racial double-standards (just for starters) and frequently my targets in those posts are people who’s positions on those issues don’t make sense (usually, that’s the left). But I don’t write generalized “the left are idiots” posts. I believe, for example, that there are many on the left who are undermining the war on terror – deliberately or not – and I’m not afraid to post that. However, I don’t believe everyone on the left who criticizes the President and/or his policies in the war on terror are trying to undermine it. And when someone on the right criticizes the President I don’t automatically assume that person has turned into a liberal. For me to do that, I’d have to assume that I, on occasion, was a liberal – and we know that’s not the case at all 
The righty blogosphere has answered back with powerful knockout punches: Tom Maguire at Just One Minute has a must-read on the lefty posts in question (with links to them) and includes a thorough dissection of their main ‘points.’ GayPatriotWest also examines the alleged ‘cultish devotion to Dubya’ accusation and cites examples of Michelle Malkin calling President Bush to the carpet on any number of issues and notes that she would never be confused for a liberal – he also points to a post by Bull Moose which mentioned other popular righties who’ve come down against Bush and still not been confused with a liberal nor has/had been accused of being one. James Taranto nailed the hypocrisy of the lefty posts in question with this (scroll down):
For most conservatives, Bush is not perfect but he is far better than the alternatives that were on offer in 2000 and 2004. Those on the left who look at the right and see blind loyalty for the most part are actually viewing a reflection of their own blind hate.
Bingo.
Most of the folks on the left who like to write generalized diatribes against the right like to hear themselves talk (with the ‘talking’ being done on their blog) more than anything else. It’s somewhat amusing to read what they have to say. It’s even better when the powerhouses on the right call their arguments for what they are: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
116 Responses to “The ‘Conservative Cult’”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Island of Misfit Bloggers
Stats
ST: “TNG, you actually you were the first to bring up black minorities as it relates to being poor”
Sorry, ST. Context and content are completely different.
ST,
I hear you and get your point. But that’s not where bang was going. Nor was TNGs point a racial point. He was pointing out an act of absurdity and absolute ignorance.
Bang took and ran with it. I admire your zeal in trying to back him up but made it very clear how he feels about minorities.
I know you hate the race card. But what exactly do you hate about it?
Wait…wait… “Southern Strategy”…. Lets see… Would that be the Southern Strategy which had all the Demoratic Congressman MIA leaving the vast majority of civil rights legislation to the Republicans, while they hid afraid of their own constituents back home….or maybe its that Southern Strategy of a Republican president having to send in the National Guard to enforce the civil rights laws because defiant Democrat governors refused too… Is that the “Southern Strategy” you were refering too TNG?
- Bang
GBA: Apparently you don’t see the point because you’re wrong. TNG made a direct correlation between the poor and minorities. That’s the direction this conversation took. Yet when Bang continued in that direction all of a sudden he was accused of being a “bigot”? I don’t think so.
And why do you keep asking me what about the race card I don’t like? Is there anything TO like about the race card? No – there isn’t.
“Sorry, ST. Context and content are completely different.”
You were the first to make a correlation between the poor and black people. Why do you want to shove this all on someone else when you were clearly the one who made the correlation first?
You guys really need to bone up on things before you try to play hardball. Attacks are the lamest excuse for real discussion. Or didn’t your mommies ever teach you that?
- Bang
ST,
Opionions on issues of racial equality are often different amongst people depending on their ethnic origin.
TNG was quoting from a historical point of view. Bang was moving in a very different direction with no historical context.
In all fairness he was using a racial slur for shock value probably to dramatize his point and not intending to be directly offensive. But for the life of me I cannot envision any discussion where it is appropriate to refer to an African American woman as “Aunt Jemima” outside the context of syrup.
ST,
Unfortunately, I have to step out for a second, but I’ll address your comments when I return.
- I agree GBA…. so write the author of the Liberal cartoon that did just that. Since I’ve never engaged in anything of that nature I think it would be more usefull if you admonished the Liberal perp, don’t you?.
But thats not what all this obfuscation is about. Its about changing the subject when you’re behind 47 to 3 and theres only 2 minutes left in the game. Old tried and true lefty trick. *chuckle*. I’m not buying.
- Bang
GBA: “In all fairness he was using a racial slur for shock value probably to dramatize his point and not intending to be directly offensive. ”
You weren’t referring to the Aunt Jemima comment at first – you were referring to him referencing minorities as it related to the poor.
The discerning reader will quicky note exactly why this conversation took the direction it did and it all started with TNG’s correlation of black minorities with the poor. You guys both jumped the gun in error – perhaps in a rush to confirm your negative suspicions about conservatives in the first place?
ST,
I apologize if I offended you personally but bang crossed the line so I cannot offer him an apology.
Unless of course you can help me envision in what context or circumstance it would be ok to refer to any African American woman as “Aunt Jemima”. Then I will apologize if you can think of a decent scenario to use that type of language in reference to any woman.
Third time – I was refering to the leftist cartoons run shamelessly by Liberal newspapers during LurchKerrys campaign.
- Of course if you had a sudden case of amnesia I can’t say I blame you. I’d be mondo embarrassed if someone in my party did that too…
- Bang
Bang you said this to me not TNG but Me.
I had made no such reference to minorities or racial issues. You saw an opportunity to go down that road.
GBA – Don’t get me started on the true reasons for the “minorities plight” at this point in our history, after 40+ years of being spoon fed “welfare thinking”
Exactly. I was referencing recent authors that have discussed the dangers of self imposed “victimhood” and you knew that. Nice try.
Then when I refered to the cartoon bigotry engaged in by members of your party I get called a bigot. Not very adult. I’d expect better from you both.
- Bang
- But then its always good to see if you can change the narative to making the opposition defend themselves, particularly when you feel you’re losing the argument. Knock yourself out.
- Bang
“I had made no such reference to minorities or racial issues. You saw an opportunity to go down that road.
GBA – Don’t get me started on the true reasons for the “minorities plight” at this point in our history, after 40+ years of being spoon fed “welfare thinking” ”
All made in the context of this discussion about poor people and minorities, a correlation **first made** by TNG in the post I referenced.
I won’t keep repeating this. This conversation has veered way off course with discussions about personalities rather than the issue. I’ve exposed your little “gotcha” for what it is: phony. Consider this thread closed. GBA and TNG if either of you have anything else to say about this take it up with me over email.