Andrew Klavan Nails It: The Robotic Argument Of The Left To All Opposition

Although virtually every person on the right has pointed this out in so many words, Andrew Klavan nails it. He does the best job I have seen yet of describing the lefts attitude towards - and response to - all opposing arguments.



Actually, the left's rhetorical device is aimed not merely to the speaker, but it is equally aimed at all potential listeners. To them, the message is that, regardless of what the speaker has to say, the listener should pay no heed because the speaker is illegitimate. That is the whole basis for the race card, PDS, and of course, this past week's blood libel.

A hat tip to the best blog you will find down under (water at this point), Crusader Rabbit. Do pay them a visit and wish them some dry weather.

Read More...

Summary only...

Civility & Other BS

Republicans took 63 House seats and 6 Senate seats in the 2010 election. That occurred because the majority of Americans were mad as hell - mad at the direction Obama was leading the country; mad at the way the left was thuggishly going about its business; and mad at the left's disregard of America's core principals. The majority of Americans voiced that anger in the lead-up to the 2010 election, and they were motivated by that anger to vote the Democrats to the most devastating defeat of either party in nearly a century.

Make no mistake, today's calls for "civility" from the left are nothing more than a call to curb the momentum of the right and to blunt their disagreement with the left's agenda. It is the last gasp of the left's recent effort to delegitimize conservatives with a blood libel - that the right's passioned disagreement with the left's agenda led to the mass murder in Arizona. And the only reason that effort failed was because virtually everyone on the right side of the aisle stood up and called "Bull S***!!!!!"

The right's problem over the past decade has been far too much "civility" whilst the left has daily used scurrilous ad hominem attacks to delegitimize the right. Obama, in just the past three months, has referred to conservatives as "hostage takers" and "enemies" of Hispanics. Rep. Clyburn has spent the past year calling the Tea Party movement "racist" and, most recently, described Sarah Palin as attractive but stupid. How's that for civility?

Where were the calls for civility when the far left was calling Bush a liar and comparing him to Hitler, or when they were calling Cheney the second coming of Satan? What about when the left were willing to do or say anything to undermine the war in Iraq and our nation's national security for their own political gain?

If the left wants civility, they should start with their own house. Knock off all the ad hominem attacks, apologize for the grotesque attempt to tar the right with a blood libel, and admit that their effort was undertaken without a shred of evidence. They should further come clean that the aim of this attack was not to improve civil discourse - charging your opponents with complicity in murder is not not conducive to that end - but was aimed at delegitimizing conservative speech. Until then:


And here is my prediction. Any new found "civility" on the left will not last more then nine days - which is when Obama will take the podium to give the State of the Union speech. You can rest assured he will make ad hominem attacks against the right. The guy is a child of the far left - and that's what the far left does. Intellectual honesty and a desire for robust debate on the issues are far from their strong suits. It's just that, up until a few days ago, their rhetorical paradigm usually worked.

Update: Don Surber expresses similar thoughts, as does I Own The World and Nice Deb.

Related: This on the intersection of left wing civility and logic (H/T Legal Insurrection)

Read More...

Summary only...

Is It Me, Or Does This Sound Like A Campaign Stop?

The lead up to the President's speech, with various politicians and the like stepping to the podium to adoring cheers, seemed deeply out of place. The President's words seemed appropriate enough, but it seemed oddly inappropriate to have a memorial to those murdered and wounded punctuated repeatedly with cheers and applause. That is not the President's fault per se, but it has left me, at least, deeply uncomfortable with how this memorial was organized and executed.

At any rate, the speech seems neutral enough - a lot of platitudes, but how could anyone craft a speech for this occasion that would not be full of platitudes. As could be expected of Obama, he danced around the blood libel of the left, saying that no single thing anyone did caused this mayhem, but that our discourse should become more civil:

The loss of these wonderful people should make every one of us strive to be better in our private lives - to be better friends and neighbors, co-workers and parents. And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their deaths help usher in more civility in our public discourse. let's remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy - it did not - but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud.

Color me not surprised. As to a call for "civility," the left's calls for "civility" over the past several days have been nothing more than the bare patina on a call to silence conservative speech. I note that Krauthammer thinks otherwise. He believes Obama has ended the blood libel. We disagree.

Given my jaundiced view of this President, I cannot objectively grade his speech beyond saying that it seemed acceptable for the occasion.

Read More...

Summary only...