Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Bush Derangement Syndrome Finally Bites Back

"Eugene Robinson, Joe Conason and E.J. Dionne, in addition to all the politicians and bloggers,...have been pumping the birther story in order to tar Republicans as extremists at precisely the moment their own agenda is being rejected by the American people for it's own extremism.

One point I'd emphasize is the continuing amnesia of liberals when it comes to their own paranoia and/or their tacit support of it. Here's [liberal pundit, Eugene] Robinson:

'If there has been a more clinically insane political phenomenon in my lifetime than the "birthers," I've missed it. Is this what our national discourse has come to? Sheer paranoid fantasy?'

Really? Did Robinson miss the 9/11 truthers? This was the movement that insisted the U.S. government was in on, or even orchestrated, the 9/11 attacks. Such theories went from the simply nutty to full-on whackjob bonkers. Some, like former DNC Chair and then-presidential candidate Howard Dean simply entertained the 'theory' that Bush was 'tipped off' by the Saudis but let 9/11 happen anyway. Some, like Rosy O'Donnell argued that the conspiracy was so advanced that the inside job was 'the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel.'

Now, it may be foolish for birthers to assume that Obama's refusal to release the full birth certificate is proof that he's foreign born (as opposed to assuming he's simply trying to gin up a controversy or conceal something else entirely) but is it really more crazy than thinking the United States government orchestrated 9/11?
There was also Michael Moore who insisted that Bush knew where Osama Bin Laden was but the president was simply keeping him on ice (Moore also believed OJ was innocent, for the record). The vast bulk of the left agreed with the Moore vision that Bush always knew there were no WMDs but 'lied us into war' for ulterior motives. Those alleged motives varied in outlandishness, to be sure, but for a long while there no theory was crazy enough to earn much scorn from the Olbermanns and Conasons. When Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 opened in DC, Democrats flocked to the premiere, unconcerned with the paranoid delusions and deceits it contained. Click here to see then DNC chair Terry McAuliffe looking gaga as he shakes Moore's hand.

Oh and let's not forget all of the nonsense during, and in the wake of, Hurricane Katrina when several prominent figures made all sorts of crazy statements. Randall Robinson said that blacks — and only blacks — were eating the flesh of the dead almost immediately after the flooding. Spike Lee and others insisted that the levees might have been bombed by the Bush administration in order to kill or scatter black residents of New Orleans. Cynthia McKinney says the American forces rounded up and executed 5,000 'prisoners' and dumped in the swamps of Louisiana.

Meanwhile, the GOP leadership and the vast majority of rightwing and conservative pundits have either rejected or ignored the birther stuff (including Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan). But the GOP is supposed to own it. Democrats, meanwhile, were never held to a remotely similar standard when a far more evil and pervasive bout of paranoia claimed their own party. Funny how that works."


-- Jonah Goldberg, AKA the "doughy pantload", kicking all those liberal lying bastards to the curb - where they belong - because they just won't stop; not for my black ass, and especially not for The National Review.

3 comments:

  1. First, you have to make senseAugust 6, 2009 at 1:54 PM

    That Orac thread was fascinating, like watching train wreck

    If nothing else you definitely put the lie to the idea that conservatives favor reason and logic while liberals rely on emotional manipulation

    The problem with taking that approach with the science crowd is that they are familiar with the logical fallacies so when you open your yap and start making common errors in reasoning its very easy for them to sit there and pick off your mistakes one by one:

    "Strawman... ad hominem... red herring" etc

    You really should acquaint yourself with the basics of informal logic: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

    its not rocket science, my own kid who is in junior high figured it out in about an afternoon

    then at least you can put up some kind of real fight on the science blogs instead of humiliating yourself

    just a suggestion, take or leave it

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'll leave it: In order to feel humiliated, I've got to respect my opponents, and that wasn't happening with those bozos. If you thought otherwise - that their arguments were any more respectable - then so be it, but, as this Jonah Goldberg piece makes clear, they're the ones tripping. Plus, I think, merely picking off my arguments - especially in the juvenile manner they did, to score points on worthless topics, compared to those being raised - doesn't come up to the standards I expect of them. I'm the street-level debater - they're educated scientists. They should be smarter, and more mature, than me.

    Thanks for writing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. First, you have to make senseAugust 6, 2009 at 6:39 PM

    It depends on what your goals are. You seems to be pretty well self-educated on a wide variety of topics but if you rely on pure emotional manipulation to make your points you are only ever going to persuade other true-believers who have already drunk the same far-right Kool Aid

    On the other hand if you learn how to construct air-tight arguments and avoid basic errors in logic, then you can engage scientists, lawyers etc on their own turf and actually have a chance of winning - its like chess, the same rules apply to everyone and they're not even very hard rules to learn

    Me, I'd rather learn how to fight on all kinds of terrain, not just preach to the choir where i have no risk of losing

    But, to each their own

    ReplyDelete

COMMENTS ARE BACK ON