When Peter Daou of the normally-serious Salon described some audience-boosting flatulence from Glenn Greenwald as "seminal", I took a bit of interest. What I found was an utterly generic diatribe bashing Bush and his supporters.
Normally I follow the tack of most sensible bloggers and ignore these tirades - since they represent a near-automatic link from Atrios, Kos, and a few of the other blogs that traffic in this nonsense, I have long imagined that they were simply a useful device for boosting readership. Hey, people like to vent, there is a readership for this, so live large.
But "seminal"? Please - it never occurred to me that these rantings are meant to be serious objects of discussion. The readers had their fun, move on - a few weeks ago the right was "frightened bedwetters", today Greenwald's seminal effort has us pegged as "Authoritarian Cultists", and a few weeks hence we will be something new (any chance of making the next one alliterative? "Corrupt Christo-cultists", maybe? Nah.)
My view remains that serious discussion of these Bush-bashing riffs makes as much sense as pondering the intellectual output of an open-mike beer-belching contest at spring break in Fort Lauderdale. OK, that is a bit of a flawed analogy - with the Bush-bashers, it is a year-round activity.
However, Mr. Daou is deeply concerned about "Unanswered Challenges", so I am exhorting him to answer mine. First, let's recap Greenwald's Garglings:
Now, in order to be considered a "liberal," only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a "liberal," regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more "liberal" one is.
E-Z, yes? Criticize Bush, and you will be re-labeled a "liberal". Breakthrough stuff.
So, my three part challenge:
(1) As James Taranto noted, Greenwald's links don't actually lead to any supporting evidence - for example, careful link-followers will note that Andrew Sullivan implies that Brent Bozell re-labeled him, writing "All of that makes me a 'liberal.' " However, Mr. Bozell (or whoever wrote this) said that Andrew "has been off the conservative reservation for at least a couple of years." The word "liberal", which Andrew quotes, is applied to The New Republic, and I doubt they would object.
Or - if Messrs. Greenwald and Daou, or their supporters, could find real evidence of Cult leaders actually re-labeling Bush critics as "liberal", that would advance this seminal effort and deepen our understanding of this important work.
(2) Let's test the predictive power of this new social science hypothesis by applying it to the experience of Heather Wilson (R, NM). On Feb 8 she broke publicly with Bush on NSA oversight, so the Cult has had almost two weeks to attack her.
Greenwald specifically cited Hinderaker, Malkin, Goldberg, Hewitt, and Goldstein. So, and this couldn't be easier - how many of these five have re-labeled Heather Wilson a "liberal"?
Full Disclosure - I spent about five minutes with the Powerline search function and came up empty on "Heather Wilson". I have not bothered to check the others. Suspenseful, yes? Let's fly under the bridge!
And please - if this is a cult, I expect the leaders to lead it. Somewhere, in someone's comments section, almost anything can be found. But if the best evidence anyone can find of Cult relabeling is from some unknown commenter at Protein Wisdom, bring it in so we can mock it.
(3) If any of Team Daou/Greenwald are still with us, please try to respond to the point made by Taranto and others - if this is a Cult, why did so many conservatives rebel over Harriet Miers? Or, to pick another, how about immigration reform?
This is so exciting - don''t you love it when a "seminal" work provokes discussion? The old back and forth, conducted with mutual respect and motivated only by a desire for the truth?
OK, speaking for the Cultists, I can't say I sense a lot of mutual respect. And given the absence of evidence on offer, I don't think either Daou or Greenwald hold any real evidence in advancing anyone's understanding or discerning "the truth".
But wasting a few more minutes highlighting the vacuity on display at Salon is fine with me. If I had that perch, and was interested in promoting lefty bloggers, I hope I would push myself to offer my readership a bit more than the latest Bush-bashing ravings linked by Kos and Atrios - most folks who want that sort of intellectual pornography probably can find it with no help from Salon.
Just to give Mr. Daou a boost to get started - pick a post at random from The Anonymous Liberal. Or check out The Next Hurrah - they aren't exactly undiscovered, but they aren't the Blog Monsters they could be, either.
OK, that's enough kisses of death for one morning.
FINAL: Mr. Daou has his own little challenge "proving", to his satisfaction, that the media tilts right, with specific emphasis on the Cheney Valentine's Weekend Massacre. And he is troubled that none on the right are rising t ohis challenge. Gee - call folks "Authoritarian Cultists", and they tune you out - who wouldda thunk?
Besides - the VP shoots a man, and the press does not get told for nearly a day? Of course that is news, and of course the press over-reacted.
Some quick thoughts:
(1) If a coin touted as "fair" comes up heads seventy-five times in one hundred trials, color me suspicious. And please don't offer the twenty-five "tails" as proof that the coin is fair.
In this context, even if the media sometimes tilts right, that hardly proves it mostly, or always tilts right. A real test would look at "all" the Cheney coverage, and who is going to do that?
(2) David Gregory apologized for his outburst; Dana Milbank was scolded by the WaPo ombudsman. Since these two were targets of criticism from the right, does this mean we win?
UPDATE: I'm getting a real Protein Shake on the old traffic meter. But will it stay down?
"Surprisingly the most conservative are the college age kids who actively work on campaigns."
Shhh, Maryrose, you'll make the Koslandians cry.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 20, 2006 at 08:26 PM
Maybee,
The shame for me was in my blind loyalty to a cad. ::grin:: I'm like that. I tend to give my president the benefit of the doubt. I also don't believe in conspiracy theories, even though I love them. I read the blogs on the left for that one reason. You can't get better conspiracy theories. Of course, some of the ones on the right are pretty damn good, too. I try to use common sense when deciding which conspiracy theory to get behind. Sometimes, common sense gets in the way of a good time. ::grin:: I now consider myself an Independent that supports my ex-governor.
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2006 at 08:32 PM
Daou is a twit who's risen to his potential at Salon, which used to be decent but is boilerplate liberal nonsense.
My challenge to twits like Daou / Brock / RFK JR who claim there's no liberal bias to the MSM: why, when AM radio was deregulated in the late 80s, did it immediately become saturated with conservative pundits? After all, liberals, like everyone else, drive cars, listen to the radio, & like to spout off? Who can explain this mystery?
(Shhhh: of course the answer is that Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc represented views that were shut out of the liberal MSM, none of whose East Coast paladins would have been caught dead in the basement of AM radio.)
Posted by: beautifulatrocities | February 20, 2006 at 08:33 PM
Clinton ruined the life of some foolish intern
Hey, maryrose, I like that observation of yours. Through the whole thing, everybody mocked her, even the Republicans, when in fact she was the one tragic victim in the whole mess, thanks entirely to Clinton, who could have protected her if he had any integrity at all.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 20, 2006 at 08:36 PM
Er, do we really need to point Daou here?
Posted by: Extraneus | February 20, 2006 at 08:40 PM
OF course youo are right Kim. INS is not just at the border. I used to live in San Diego and the illegal immigration problem was horrible. In our area we had people driving their kids across the border into the US so that they could walk out of a US house to catch a bus to school.
The point I was making for Davebo was that 1 additional person at the border would make no difference in that. It is a serious problem and we will have to deal with it. But to try to make some big deal out of the fact that an INS guy was at the Ranch is just too much.
And Sue - your suggestion to look at a map is very good. Imagine that - Kenedy county is not very far from the border....
Posted by: Specter | February 20, 2006 at 08:40 PM
Specter,
The largest towns from Kenedy County are McAllen, Harlingen and Brownsville. Border towns. Yeah, it's crazy to think the border guards would wander up towards the wide open spaces of the Armstrong Ranch, looking for illegals.
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2006 at 08:46 PM
Well...it's official. Michelle Malkin, by the Daou/Greenwald International Liberal Labeling System (DILLS), is a liberal. She once again has questions about the Bush administration decision on the east coast ports. I'm so disappointed....LOL
Posted by: Specter | February 20, 2006 at 08:51 PM
Maybe it should be DaGILLS, so as not to leave out Mr. Greenwald.
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2006 at 08:54 PM
I so agree, Sue (surprise!).
I'd vote for Evan Bayh over Bill Frist, but my dream President would be Guiliani.
More than anything, I can't imagine anyone that could govern a country that impeached 2 duly elected Presidents in a row. I'm not asking that Dems like Bush, and I'm sure not calling all of his detractors liberals (heavens no!), but I am calling all of the over the top impeach-him-now crowd 'destructive'.
I think that's why its unwise to have the debate the Daou and Greenwald seem to want. Who cares, first of all, if someone is called a liberal or not. It's not a bad word, and it is only as harmful as anything else someone is called when they don't wish for the label. Call me a cultist, call me a conservative, call me a neo-con-- it doesn't matter because none of those are how I would label myself, and in the end it has no affect on our country if someone else has the wrong impression of me.
But it does affect our country if we can't keep a President through his full term anymore.
I am someone who most likes it when there is a party split between Congress and the POTUS. I don't want that to start meaning it is open season for impeachment, however. So what I want Daou and Greenwald to tell me is not what they think I think, but when they think they are going to start being proactively FOR something, and what the Dems are going to do to help us get off of this horrible "impeach him" merry-go-round.
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2006 at 09:00 PM
She once again has questions about the Bush administration decision on the east coast ports.
So do I. Look out, that "liberal" stuff must be mighty contagious.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 20, 2006 at 09:07 PM
I haven't decided on '08. It depends on the WOT. I don't trust democrats with national security anymore. I have moved more to the right since I voted for Clinton. I am one of those allusive, sought after, in the middle, moderates. But, I would think if you asked Mr. Daou I'm an "Authoritarian Cultist". ::grin:: Simply because I don't get slobbery over impeaching Bush. I didn't get slobbery over impeaching Clinton either.
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2006 at 09:11 PM
Maybee: I am totally in agreement with you about Bayh and Guiliani. I trust both of them.Guiliani has some baggage but he's tough on terror. I just think they both would do what's right. If dems could carry Indiana and what Kerry got they could win in 08. That's why Hil is a non-factor in this horse race. She brings New York to the table -Big Deal! Even some of my liberal friends won't vote for her.
Posted by: maryrose | February 20, 2006 at 09:23 PM
Ex: {Intrinsic}
Thank you for your kind words. I hope Monica has a good life.
Back to 24
Posted by: maryrose | February 20, 2006 at 09:25 PM
Just how many times is the guy Jack has to get info from going to die right in front of him....sheesh
Posted by: Specter | February 20, 2006 at 09:39 PM
Jack is kicking some Russian butt tonight! He just took out 2guys and shot down a helicopter! Ride em cowboy!
Posted by: maryrose | February 20, 2006 at 09:47 PM
08?
A vote for the Dem President is not
a vote for just one man.
For any sensible Dem like Bayh to win the primary and then the election lots of deals will need to be made.
Think Cabinet positions:
You want another Albright or Cohen
just for starters???
It would be a nightmare of the first order after all the work going on at State and within the
CIA to get rid of all those
"realists".
Please think it thru.
Jack's back!
Posted by: larwyn | February 20, 2006 at 09:56 PM
Larwyn:
Which republican leader do you like for 08?
Posted by: maryrose | February 20, 2006 at 10:13 PM
Even worse: Atty General Gorelick
Posted by: beautifulatrocities | February 20, 2006 at 10:42 PM
Even worse: Atty General Gorelick
Posted by: beautifulatrocities | February 20, 2006 at 10:42 PM
The world is at war and the best the leading lights of the left can do is come up with creative fantasies about their political other. They deserve to lose more elections. They just aren't serious.
Posted by: Defense Guy | February 20, 2006 at 10:47 PM
Frm Daou:
...which I attribute to one of three things: either rightwing bloggers weren't aware of my challenge, they didn't think it warranted a response, or they lack the evidence to back up their claims.
I back "they didn't think it warranted a response" - I'm only guessing here, but it may be that the Authoritarian Cultists have dismissed Daou as one more partisan attack hack who does not merit (and does not look for) any sort of thoughtful response.
But (and I know this is suspenseful), I have a sneaking suspicion that Daou will settle on "they lack the evidence to back up their claims".
My free advice to him, which I will be posting in his comments when I have fine-tuned the snark - just go ahead and declare victory now. No one on the left will dispute you, and no one on the right will care.
Posted by: TM | February 21, 2006 at 12:02 AM
It's more important to decide where to place the Authoritarian Shrine anyway. Do you think we should hire a feng shui shaman as a consultant? I've never been involved in a cult before but there has to be some sort of manual or something, right?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 21, 2006 at 12:17 AM
Maryrose,
If I had to vote today for 08
President - it would have to Rudy.
He is smart, talk straight, stay with what he believes is right
and he has managed New York City,
a more difficult job than being
Governor of a lot of states.
McCain gets on my nerves with his
media suck up and I will never forget his dissing of the Swift
Boat Vets. (my take was he wanted
Kerry to be elected, knowing he
would be so terrible that he,McCain
would be shoe in in 2008)
And if anyone could have demanded that Kerry release all his Military
records it was McCain. So I just
don't really trust him.
I really admire and respect Rep.
Duncan Hunter and I love his never
quite totally put together look.
Either the hair is sticking up, or
a shirt collar is askew, sometimes
both collars - but he looks like a real man. So do Rumsfeld, Cheney
and GW for that matter.
Romney and Allen and Frist
need some rumpling - too perfect -
too metro - I read that as vain.
(Kedwards comes to mind)
But what do I know - just don't like smooth operaters ANYMORE!
I would be comfortable with Condi
- but not sure she could win.
Posted by: larwyn | February 21, 2006 at 01:06 AM
larwyn..don't fogrt Kerry offered to outsource to McCain defense and foreign policy is McCain would run as his VP.
If we're to have a real cult, we need a cult goddess..would it be considered immodest to throw my name in the hat, there? Just asking..
Posted by: clarice | February 21, 2006 at 01:10 AM
Clarice - Cult Goddess sounds
good to me.
And we have a body of your word
already published as "cult dogma".
{do cults have dogma?}
fingers and brain both going -
be back tomorrow.
Posted by: larwyn | February 21, 2006 at 01:22 AM
Peter would have a fine time yakkin it up on PressThink where Steve Lovelady still doesn't think the Burkett memos are disproven.
==============================================
Posted by: kim | February 21, 2006 at 01:28 AM
Do cult goddesses jump out of cakes?
=======================================
Posted by: kim | February 21, 2006 at 01:36 AM
"where Steve Lovelady still doesn't think"
Just performing an "edit for concision" exercise. I don't believe anything is missing.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 21, 2006 at 01:39 AM
larwyn re: McCain and the Swifties: Grrrrrr!.
What bothers me even more than his contempt for the Swifties was that he responded without even looking into the matter. Is that anyway to run a country or the world? There were other denizens of the Hanoi Hilton who had a different take on the matter. This was not a trivial matter for an off-the-cuff response, and needed correction, which he didn't do even after Dole weighed in. Despicable.
As far as I'm concerned the Swifties destroyed Kerry's chances in '04 and McCain's in '08.
================================================
Posted by: kim | February 21, 2006 at 01:44 AM
"would it be considered immodest to throw my name in the hat, there? Just asking.."
I woud certainly have no objection - but are you sure you have the authoritarian aspect of this nailed down?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 21, 2006 at 01:46 AM
Jumping out of cakes is for vestal virgins..Cult goddesses just officiate at major celebrations, wear expensive Italian clothes and stuff..Gee, I thought everyone knew that!
Posted by: clarice | February 21, 2006 at 01:47 AM
I gave him hell one fine day because I thought he was the editor responsible for the CJR article about the Burkett memos. He isn't, but I had a great time raging away, anyway.
=============================================
Posted by: kim | February 21, 2006 at 01:48 AM
How hard can getting down "authoritarian be"?
Posted by: clarice | February 21, 2006 at 01:48 AM
So 'Italian' and Yellow 'Cake' must be the passwords, tonight.
Open, Sesame.
==================================================
Posted by: kim | February 21, 2006 at 01:56 AM
You still asked a question. Goddesses have to pronounce. I guess some questions might be okay - on the order of "Who asked you, twerp?". Gotta get the tone right - think Cheney looking at Moran and Gregory and intoning: "Frank, the 12ga, double ought, both barrels."
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 21, 2006 at 02:00 AM
Speaking of which, why doesn't Libby ask in discovery for details of Fitz's interviews with Cannistraro and Hersh?
And what sort of offering will it take to get you to just command Joe's head off?
==============================================
Posted by: kim | February 21, 2006 at 02:03 AM
Cool. On the order of: "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome ambassador." I think Clarice already raised that one. Joe Wilson as Thomas a Beckett - except that Beckett was sort of innocent.
If there's gonna be a Star Court, I volunteer for chief magistrate.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 21, 2006 at 02:08 AM
I've never been involved in a cult before but there has to be some sort of manual or something, right?
I should think a membership card and secret handshake are in order.
At the very least a discount day at Disneyland or a punchcard from Ralph's.
And...
I gotta echo Larry. I consider myself a "Liberal", but now I'm forced to make the distinction between a Big L and Small L liberal. Another perfectly good word coopted.
Posted by: Soylent Red | February 21, 2006 at 02:15 AM
Oh lordy, at 10:22 your time I was
bowing out for the night - and made
one last stop....and
WOW!
WOW!
DOUBLE WOW!
This link must be posted at Salon!
Dr.Sanity picked these excerpts and
then did some lyrics and titles
her post "Springtime for Lefties"
But Vanderleun's essay must be read
in full.
Vanderleun's "Radical Roots and the Conquest of the Democratic Party"
by Vanderleun February 19, 2006
EXCERPTS:
If it were only the denizens of these fringe groups that supplied the ideological cannon fodder of the American Left, it would be a small matter to marginalize them since their very mindsets marginalize them from the square numbered "1." Indeed, just a few years ago, they could only exist within the rarified environment of on-campus humanities and ethnic-studies departments. Once removed from these hyperbaric chambers, their failure to thrive in the world outside -- absent a position in various media companies and Washington Wonk Tanks -- was assured. They were, if not really useful idiots, harmless idiots.
Sadly that is no longer the case. Recently a very large and significant American institution has stripped down to the buff and made itself freely available to the tender mercies and tough love of the American Left. Indeed, the capture of this group is the single significant achievement of the American Left in decades. With the elevation of Howard Dean, the canonization of Hillary Clinton, the deification of Ted Kennedy, the renovation of Nancy Peloisi, and the self-defenestration of Barbara Boxer, it is clear that the political base of the American Left has now migrated from the fringes of our political arena to the dead center of the Democratic Party. And it is there to stay.
Sigh. How true. Read it all and weep for the Party that was once relatively sane and at least used to love this country.
Dr.Sanity's SPRINGTIME FOR LEFTIES IN AMERICA
SPRINGTIME FOR LEFTIES IN AMERICA
The left was having trouble
What a sad, sad story
They needed desperately to restore
Their former glory
Where, oh where could they hide
All the hatred inside?
They looked around and then they found
The Party whose own soul had died...
SENATOR KENNEDY:
And now it's...
Springtime for Lefties in America !
Lefties are happy and gay!
We're marching to a faster pace
And lyrics only get funnier.
PS American Digest email didn't work - tried to send to TM.
CLARICE: Recall that godesses
may also say "SHOVE IT!"
Posted by: larwyn | February 21, 2006 at 02:15 AM
tags test
looks like /em didn't work on post.
Posted by: larwyn | February 21, 2006 at 02:19 AM
I tried for Cult Goddess once, but I dropped my flaming baton during the talent competition. So yeah, clarice, the title is totally yours.
Posted by: MayBee | February 21, 2006 at 02:43 AM
Now you've had me laughing so hard
I'm awake.
Goddesses should wear Isadora Duncan scarfs - not many spoked wheels to worry about - but revolving doors can be a b---h!
Elbow length pale leather gloves
also recommended.
Goddess headwear must include jeweled clouches.
Are we The Authoritarian Cult or an authoritarian cult?
If the latter, we can pick our own
name...but actually TAC is "bad" so
it's good.
Posted by: larwyn | February 21, 2006 at 02:46 AM
out, tags!
ooh, you are going to get in trouble with MJW.
Posted by: MayBee | February 21, 2006 at 02:53 AM
A day & dollar late & short, as usual (well, not short really), but on behalf of all you wingers over here, I've risen to the Daou Bait on the erstwhile semi, demi Quasiblog.
Have to admit, I quit while it was still fun, partway down his list, leaving plenty of examples for anyone else who likes shooting clay pigeons now and then.
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 21, 2006 at 03:23 AM
Maybee, may be I need to lighten up with the tag thing, but everyone needs a cause.
Posted by: MJW | February 21, 2006 at 03:23 AM
I admire your persistence, MJW. Your cause is a noble one. :-)
Plus, you fixed the problem. You are a doer, that's what I like about you.
Posted by: MayBee | February 21, 2006 at 03:44 AM
Heh. If you want a laugh follow TM's link above (seminal) where he calls them out in the comments.
The response? Crickets chirping.
I have a lot of thoughts on the basic thought process that underlies what Dauo & Greenwald are babbling about but instead of a long post I'll just say they apparently don't understand mainstream conservative thinking very well. Moreover, it has become apparent to me they (folks on the left) don't even want to understand, and that is not uncommon on the left.
Posted by: Dwilkers | February 21, 2006 at 08:59 AM
Its a lot easier than clay pigeons, more like shooting fish in a barrel...that is listing Clinton's terminal sins.
Even worse than pardoning Marc Rich was pardoning Susan Rosenberg (I am sure the spelling is wrong...so pardon) who was convicted and sentenced to 50 years but was also indicted for the Conn. armored car robbery where a couple of working class guys with families were murdered (she was in the pokey so why bother with another trial was the thought I guess). SOME WORKING CLASS HEROINE!!! Then along came Clinton's get out of jail free card.
Posted by: noah | February 21, 2006 at 09:54 AM
The pardonning was eclectic; some thoroughly evil, some remedying prosecutorial evil.
==============================================
Posted by: kim | February 21, 2006 at 10:16 AM
Some times I worry about Stephen Jeff.
Dipsomanio ain't no phunnio.
Hepatocytes, Heal Thyselves.
Brain webs flimsy as spiders' labor.
Some things break like crystal crocken'.
======================================
Posted by: kim | February 21, 2006 at 10:28 AM
Clarice,since this is the internet should not that be Virtual Virgins? It would also seem an easier job description.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 21, 2006 at 12:10 PM
Then Tom would have to change his borders to yellow.
============================================
Posted by: kim | February 21, 2006 at 12:15 PM
clarice:
You would be the ultimate Authoritarian Goddess . Will ritual sacrifice be required and if so who?
Posted by: maryrose | February 21, 2006 at 12:32 PM
Or we sacrificing virtual virgins? I prefer to sacrifice virtual roosters, but that's just me.
Posted by: Sue | February 21, 2006 at 12:37 PM
Or...are...my goodness...I think a rooster to the goddess of typos is in order...
Posted by: Sue | February 21, 2006 at 12:43 PM
Well, Frist & Malkin have both challenged the Bush-backed UAE port deal. Now they're liberals too. Crap.
Posted by: beautifulatrocities | February 21, 2006 at 12:45 PM
We sacrifice the occasional beer, or cuppa joe, to the keyboard.
===========================================
Posted by: kim | February 21, 2006 at 12:48 PM
I've said for years that if I haven't spilled coffee on myself by Noon, then I have to do it ritually, you know, like dip a hem in it or something. Why Noon? Well, if it isn't caffeine jitters, or hypoglycemic shakes by then, you have to take matters into your own hands. Jitterbug time, CDTers.
=======================================
Posted by: kim | February 21, 2006 at 12:55 PM
Greenwald's point was twofold, but by focussing on only one aspect of it, you appear to have successfully convinced yourselves (surprise!) that he's entirely wrong.
The idea that one can be termed a 'liberal' for the mere act of disagreeing with Bush is arguable, as TM has shown. What's far more cogent is the concept that the fundamental conservative principles - limited federal government, states rights, fiscal responsibility, accountability of elected officials, even national security - have been thoroughly betrayed by this administration yet are regularly apologized for by right wing bloggers and politicos alike. As a result, there is no longer any meaningful definition of the word "conservative" in American politics. If conservativism means unlimited porkbarrel spending, intrusive government, skyrocketing deficits, even our port security sold to nations that fund terrorism...then what does 'liberal' mean, other than a nyah nyah epithet to throw at anyone who opposes this now empty ideology and those who still champion it?
The right seems to have become addicted to scorn, ridicule and "so what,we always win" rhetoric as a substitute for reasonable argument. I have personally witnessed an extreme shift in perspective just within my own community. Increasingly, it is only wingnut radio and wingnut blogs that still cling to their philosophy that Ignorance is Bliss. The American people, as they waken gradually to what has been done to their country, are beginning to deprogram from the Cult.
Posted by: AB | February 21, 2006 at 01:02 PM
What a pity that the American people dont recognize you and your ilk's brilliance, AB/JayDee. A true pity.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | February 21, 2006 at 01:18 PM
Peek outside of your cult once in awhile, gary, and you'll see that they are very much starting to. It's not brilliance. It's simple common sense.
Posted by: AB | February 21, 2006 at 01:36 PM
"The right seems to have become addicted to scorn, ridicule and "so what,we always win" rhetoric as a substitute for reasonable argument."
No,the Left have become such a wonderful source idiocy that scorn and ridicule flow easily and naturally.
At one time we would have designated you some awe inspiring title like Bolsheviks,but you are grown so ludicrous that we are at a loss what to call leftards.What does one call Wile E.Coyote on smack?
Posted by: PeterUK | February 21, 2006 at 01:44 PM
AB
"It's simple common sense."
Are you talking about all the famous "common sense" of
Dean?
Pelosi?
Cindy Sheehan?
Ward Churchill?
Al Gore?
Ted Kennedy?
Paul Krugman?
MoDo?
John Murtha?
I could type all day.
Tks for the laugh!
Posted by: larwyn | February 21, 2006 at 01:49 PM
PeterUK, Exhibit A of the card carrying cult member. Has no idea what he believes in. Has no idea what the "left" believes in. Just enjoys feeling superior. There is a powerful psychological component to this self identification with the cult.
Posted by: AB | February 21, 2006 at 01:49 PM
larwyn, Exhibit B.
Posted by: AB | February 21, 2006 at 01:50 PM
Of goody, are we doing lists, now, larwyn? I love lists.
"Five of these things are not like the others"
"Where's Waldo?"
"Come up for air, man, before it's too late."
Posted by: Nash | February 21, 2006 at 01:58 PM
Virtual virgins, of course.*smacking hand to forehead* As to sacrifices? Liberal arts professors. Especially in ethnic and peace studies, but I'm willing to be eclectic.
The other(anti-authoritarian) cult, BTW, has just offered up its first sacrifice of the season:Larry Summers.
Posted by: clarice | February 21, 2006 at 02:01 PM
Two ( now three as I type) responses from the Great Charles Winchester III, and guess what, two ( now three ) ad hom attacks using the "cult" meme. Anyone see something quite similar to "scorn,ridicule and so what...rhetoric". The irony is so thick its competing with the BS for first to fill the room.
But you long ago earned my scorn and ridicule Charles. Nonsense flows form you like detritus from a goose.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | February 21, 2006 at 02:04 PM
Defend the point, Gary Maxwell. Why do 'conservatives' continue to support and sychophantically apologize for an administration that has betrayed virtually ALL conservative principle?
Posted by: AB | February 21, 2006 at 02:08 PM
AB,And what a splendid little Toon you are to be sure.What cult would that be exactly?
On cults in general,members are absolutely certain of the veracity of its core beliefs,so if you do not know the definition of the word,why not just colour in the pictures and join the discussion when you are older?
Posted by: PeterUK | February 21, 2006 at 02:08 PM
Okay, I spewed the coffee on this one...
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/02/the_rise_of_the.html#comment-14217132>Common sense?
Posted by: Sue | February 21, 2006 at 02:10 PM
Defend the point Gary. AB demands it. Defend it or die. Or something silly like that. ::grin:: You realize in his world, as in Mr. Daou's world, if you don't staunchly defend something they say, it is because you can't, certainly not because it isn't worth it. ::grin::
Gotta love 'em...
Posted by: Sue | February 21, 2006 at 02:13 PM
"Why do 'conservatives' continue to support and sychophantically apologize for an administration that has betrayed virtually ALL conservative principle?"
The answer to this assertion of course is,no they don't.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 21, 2006 at 02:14 PM
No, in fact cults are not defined by their members' beliefs, but by their unshakable faith in a charismatic leader, by an us-against-them paranoia and by intense secrecy. The usefulness of this new paradigm is that it does in fact describe the residents of wingnuttia. There are NO conservative principles being upheld - and once again, not one of the braying hyenas on site can or will refute this. There is just childlike, absolute faith and "trust" in an unlimited executive, fueled by an irrational and excessive hatred of all who oppose him.
Posted by: AB | February 21, 2006 at 02:16 PM
AB, if you think vox populi is waxing loud about soaring deficits, intrusive government, and unlimited porbarrel spending, you gat another think coming. You've just described Democrats to most of them. Then you want to bring up security?
Har de har har, he laughs all the way the the Acme voting booth.
========================================
Posted by: kim | February 21, 2006 at 02:17 PM
Well, shoot me. I love the man. There are things he's done I disagree with, but the big issue:defendinng us he's done fantastically. The second big thing--the economy--he's done very well.
To do these things in the face of a hateful blinkered press, a spiteful mandarinate Fifth Column and impossible conditions is remarkable.
He will go down in history as a much maligned transformational president who reshaped a world when it most needed it.
Love. Love this man.
Posted by: clarice | February 21, 2006 at 02:20 PM
clarice, Exhibit C.
Posted by: AB | February 21, 2006 at 02:22 PM
AB, the hyperbole alarm is going off. You've described the acts and attitudes of leftists better than that of the authoritarian cultists here. We can find many problems with Dubya; they just pale in comparison to Democrats. You BDS sufferers are the cult.
=============================================
Posted by: kim | February 21, 2006 at 02:22 PM
One of my all time favorite scenes from the Start tRek movie series, was when Captain Kirk reduced to only his guile and wits in dealing with Khan, says" I am laughing at your superior intellect Khan."
Seems applicable here.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | February 21, 2006 at 02:23 PM
Considering the dems have been out of power now for six solid years, and every last one of the nation's problems must now be layed at the feet of the one party Repub leadership - please explain which problems the dems have made worse.
I realize that hardcore wingnuts like y'all will never stop swallowing the koolaid, but there may be a few here who can recognize that this is exactly the question that is dawning on your average apolitical American. Not only has the hard right created all the problems we face today, they are still trying to blame the exact people they have disempowered. That game can only go on for so long, and the timer is running out.
Posted by: AB | February 21, 2006 at 02:28 PM
Using "Braying hyenas" as an adjective =
"scorn,ridicule and so what...rhetoric"
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | February 21, 2006 at 02:29 PM
"No, in fact cults are not defined by their members' beliefs, but by their unshakable faith in a charismatic leader, by an us-against-them paranoia and by intense secrecy."
AB,do read what is written, which was "On cults in general,members are absolutely certain of the veracity of its core beliefs," that does not say cults are defined by their members beliefs,but that "members are absolutely certain of the veracity of its core beliefs," Belief is a central component of cults,religions and political parties.
Got that?
Posted by: PeterUK | February 21, 2006 at 02:29 PM
"braying hyenas" brayed Mowlitt's Ass, stomping his little hoof in disdain. Come, joust at my strawman, I dare and defy you! Oh, you'll see, you'll see come November when all will be made whole again and power will return to the just and righteous!!
Just keep staring out to sea - your ship is just o'er the horizon with a fair wind filling its sails.
It's a damn shame that it's blowing offshore, but if you wait and have patience, why, eventually, you'll starve to death and all will be well.
PS Anyone have a clue as to how a barking moonbat comes up with "braying hyena"?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 21, 2006 at 02:30 PM
The timer is running out = Dems are playing four corner offense and utilize time outs and prayers to try to keep the game close and hoping the referee gives us an unearned break
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | February 21, 2006 at 02:31 PM
And unshakable belief in the evil of Bush has become cultic. They are projecting, and writing about themselves.
=======================================
Posted by: kim | February 21, 2006 at 02:33 PM
AB thinks the average apolitical American hangs out in Koslandia.
No one disempowered anyone. They got beat at the voting booth. However it does garner a more sinister feel to say republicans disempowered democrats, republicans seized congress, republicans took over the senate. But, I bet that wasn't your goal was it? ::grin::
Posted by: Sue | February 21, 2006 at 02:35 PM
"Considering the dems have been out of power now for six solid years, and every last one of the nation's problems must now be layed at the feet of the one party Repub leadership - please explain which problems the dems have made worse."
They are getting people killed with their selfindulgent rhetoric,the Democrats sound like that other death cult al Qaeda.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 21, 2006 at 02:38 PM
If we reject the hate Bush time select elite how could we be other than closed-minded cultists? See, how easy that is?
Posted by: clarice | February 21, 2006 at 02:38 PM
AB
Braying Donkeys.
Laughing Hyenas.
Page seven of your nature book
Posted by: PeterUK | February 21, 2006 at 02:43 PM
Kim,
Nope, note a cult at all. Cultists put their money where their mouth is. They just put pixels where their mouth is.
Bye, bye, Hackett - we loved you dearly but we have very short arms - good for waving and clapping but they don't quite reach our wallets.
Oh well, Greenberg will do another poll showing that the "ship" is drawing every nearer - and it's a big ship, too.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 21, 2006 at 02:45 PM
The American people, as they waken gradually to what has been done to their country, are beginning to deprogram from the Cult.
What, again?
As for what "liberal" means now, that's simple: liberals are those people who are infuriated by the failure of this Administration to be conservative enough.
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | February 21, 2006 at 02:45 PM
AB
"the timer is running out"
Ain't it the truth! When Bush's second term expires, we'll probably hear the KosCrowd congratulating themselves for driving the guy out of office. Must be one of the longest wake-up calls in political history.
"If conservativism means unlimited porkbarrel spending, intrustive government, skyrocketing deficits, even our port security sold to ations that fund terrorism...then what does 'liberal'mean...."
Your irony meter must be totally busted.
"What's far more cogent is the concept that the fundamental conservative principles...have been thoroughly betrayed by this administration yet are regularly apologized for by right wing bloggers and politicos alike."
You don't seem to notice that the right is not apologizing. Defending? Yes, but what the left utterly fails to comprehend is that the right is, and always has been, a coalition, not a cult.
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 21, 2006 at 02:49 PM
Paul
"liberals are those people who are infuriated by the failure of this Administration to be conservative enough"
Too perfect, LOL!
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 21, 2006 at 02:53 PM
Paul,Karl said to rough him up a bit but leave him sane,we need someone on the inside.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 21, 2006 at 02:57 PM
larwyn
"Are we The Authoritarian Cult or an authoritarian cult?"
Any cultist worth his salt will tell you there can be one, and only one, Authorian Cult.
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 21, 2006 at 02:58 PM
"but leave him sane"
That's going to involve a rather lengthy therapy process, isn't it? I'd as soon leave him as he is.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 21, 2006 at 03:01 PM
Damn right! Now, for the construction of the forum where the goddess and the virtual virgins will reside and do their oracle shtick...
Posted by: clarice | February 21, 2006 at 03:01 PM
I nominate Kim for oracle!!
Uh, if that's OK, Clarice?
Don't we have to hire the feng shwei consultant priot to beginning construction? I know we would in CA but perhaps it's done differently elsewhere.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 21, 2006 at 03:06 PM
```AB;
You sir are Exhibit A for what is currently wrong with the dem party. If you read these blogs completely you will find a number of former democratic voters here. What's missing for them is a coherent messagefrom the dems and a sense the dems are SOFT on TERRORISM. The minute Kerry'Edwards voted against funding the troops in Iraq they LOST the election Talk about being TONE DEAF. For Kerry to make the statement- "I don't need the South to win the election was MORONIC. You can't arbitrarily write off a whole section of the country. They interviewed people at the Daytona 500 about voting for Hillary-guess how many votes she got-uh- zero. Get out of your bubble ,travel to Red States see how real people live and stop labeling people as cultists-that's going to get you tons of votes.````````````````````````````
Posted by: maryrose | February 21, 2006 at 03:08 PM