extremism

Charles Johnson’s Character Problem, Exhibit #6,174

Calvin Freiburger Andrew Breitbart, Barack Obama, birth certificate controversy, blogosphere, Charles Johnson, dishonesty, extremism, hypocrisy, tea parties

Andrew Breitbart recently got into a fight with WorldNetDaily’s Joseph Farah over WND’s idiotic obsession with Barack Obama’s birth certificate.  Now, one would imagine this would be reassuring to those who devote considerable attention to the problem of “extremism” and “bad craziness” on the Right, and that perhaps someone like that would give credit to Breitbart for standing up to Farah.

Unless, of course, that someone happens to be slanderous knuckle-dragger Charles Johnson.

To him, the story is – despite having quoted absolutely nothing to imply anything of the sort – that Breitbart somehow “want[s] us to think [he] didn’t see it coming” that Birtherism would come up at the Tea Party Convention.

There’s no reasoning with you.  The only real flaw with Dennis Prager’s takedown of your lies is that he seems to think you still have a modicum of conscience to which he could appeal.

An Open Letter to the Family Research Council

Calvin Freiburger conservatism, extremism, homosexuality, law, scandal, sex, strategy, stupidity

To Whom It May Concern,

I have always been an admirer of the Family Research Council’s work in support of the right to life, true marriage, religious liberty, and other traditional American values.  For years, I have also worked towards those goals in my community and on my weblog.  I fought fiercely for Wisconsin’s Marriage Protection Amendment in 2006.  Like most conservatives, I have often been slandered as a bigot because I oppose same-sex marriage, civil unions, and gay adoption.

I say this so that, when I express how shocked, offended and betrayed I felt upon seeing the conduct of one of your spokesmen recently, you understand my full meaning.

FRC Senior Fellow for Policy Studies Peter Sprigg recently appeared on MSNBC to discuss the issue of gay soldiers serving openly in the US military with Chris Matthews.  The segment ended with the following exchange:

MATTHEWS: Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?

SPRIGG: Well, I – I think certainly it’s defensible.

MATTHEWS: I’m just asking you, should we outlaw gay behavior?

SPRIGG: I think the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws in this country, was wrongly decided.  I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.

MATTHEWS: So we should outlaw gay behavior.

SPRIGG: Uh, yes.

When I saw the headlines announcing, “Family Research Council Spokesman Advocates Criminalizing Homosexuality,” I was certain they had to be lies, more out-of-context distortions of honorable conservative beliefs.  But for once, the Left appears to be correct.

Both as a matter of moral principle and of political common sense, Mr. Sprigg’s comments are indefensible.  Our Founding Fathers clearly wanted American to be guided by a firm sense of morality, and believed that Judeo-Christian religious values were essential to the continued survival of a republic.  But they also established the principle of limited government, authorized only to do a certain number of things and dedicated to preserving individual liberty.

The question of whether society should formally endorse homosexual behavior via civil marriage is fundamentally different from the question of whether or not homosexuals are human beings equally entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or whether or not it is just for any level of government to criminalize sexual activity between consenting adults.  Indeed, one can even recognize that Lawrence was an instance of judicial overreach without supporting the merits of the statute in dispute.

As a Christian, an American, and a conservative, I am appalled that it would ever cross any of my leaders’ minds to advocate such an un-American policy as criminalizing gay behavior.  Not only would such beliefs constitute genuine persecution of American citizens, but they would set the stage for a dangerous expansion of governmental power over individual liberty.

Regarding political common sense, it is baffling to me that, given the Left’s long-standing history of demonizing believers in traditional values, a prominent, experienced conservative spokesman such as Mr. Sprigg would not instantly recognize Matthews’ question as a trap and know enough not to take the bait.  Liberals and gay activists have wasted no time in seizing upon his comments not just to condemn Peter Sprigg, but to condemn all of us.  It is bad enough that defenders of true marriage routinely have to deal with false charges of bigotry and extremism; the last thing any of us needs is a true one.

Naturally, I would appreciate an explanation from Mr. Sprigg as to just what he meant, if he misspoke, but his comments seem clear enough that I have a hard time imagining that he did not understand the question, or that he meant something other than what he said.  Mr. Sprigg’s reckless and un-conservative remarks have harmed the battle for true marriage, and they threaten to tarnish all of the good work the Family Research Council has done in the past, and will continue to do in the future.  It pains me to say it, but I see only one way for the FRC to preserve—and, indeed, to deserve—its credibility: Peter Sprigg should be relieved of his duties with the organization, effective immediately.  Thank you for your time.

Calvin Freiburger

(Update: cross-posted at NewsReal.)

Why Is Sarah Palin Endorsing Ron Paul’s Son?

Calvin Freiburger 2010, conservatism, extremism, foreign policy, Iraq War, Rand Paul, Republican Party, Ron Paul, Sarah Palin

Y’know what I love? Devoting several hundred words to defending somebody, then watching that person turn around and do something stupid.  But sadly, that’s exactly what just happened with Sarah Palin.  Via the Other McCain, she has endorsed Rand Paul in Kentucky’s GOP primary for the 2010 Senate race.

Yeah, the son of that guy.  Rand may not come across as droolingly-insane as Daddy Dumbest, and in fact is a little more hawkish (he supports Afghanistan), but his foreign policy judgment is still foolish and simplistic, including opposition to the Iraq War and paranoia over the military-industrial complex.

(For what it’s worth, there’s a website dedicated to tearing down Rand as “Too Kooky for Kentucky.”  Not having followed the race until now, I can’t vouch for its substance, and I have to admit that I get a LGF-esque “guilt-by-association” vibe from some of their stuff, but there it is.)

What does Palin think of the fact that Rand’s foreign policy views differ from her own?  Does this mean victory in Iraq isn’t as big a priority for her after all?  Is she at all concerned about giving mainstream credibility, however indirect, to Rand’s deranged father?  What is so important about this race that it’s worth the PR headaches of associating yourself with the nuts of the party?

If it’s merely because Rand’s an “outsider” like she is, then maybe, just maybe, liberals are more right about her intellect than any of us would like to admit…

Dennis Prager Drop-Kicks the Little Green Football

Calvin Freiburger anger, blogosphere, Charles Johnson, conservatism, Dennis Prager, dishonesty, extremism, liberalism, resercons

The great Dennis Prager has penned an excellent takedown of libelous abomination Charles Johnson that really deserves to be reposted in full (hat tip to Robert Stacy McCain):

On Sunday, The New York Times Magazine featured an article on Charles Johnson, whose website — littlegreenfootballs — had for years been very popular among conservatives and among all those who believed that Islamic terror and Islamic religious totalitarianism were the greatest expressions of contemporary evil. The reason for the article was that Mr. Johnson has made a 180-degree turn and is now profoundly, even stridently, anti-right. This is my letter to him.

Dear Charles:

As you know, over the years, I was so impressed with your near-daily documentation of developments in the Islamist world that I twice had you on my national radio show — both times face to face in my studio. And you, in turn, periodically cited my radio show and would tell your many readers when they could hear you on my show.

So it came as somewhat of a shock to see your 180-degree turn from waging war on Islamist evil to waging war on your erstwhile allies and supporters on the right. You attempted to explain this reversal on Nov. 30, 2009, when you published “Why I Parted Ways With The Right.”

You offered 10 reasons, and I would like to respond to them.

First, as disappointed as I am with your metamorphosis, I still have gratitude for all the good you did and I respect your change as a sincere act of conscience. But neither this gratitude nor this respect elevates my regard for your 10 points. They are well beneath the intellectual and moral level of your prior work. They sound like something Keith Olbermann would write if he were given 10 minutes to come up with an attack on conservatives.

1. Support for fascists, both in America (see: Pat Buchanan, Robert Stacy McCain, etc.) and in Europe (see: Vlaams Belang, BNP, SIOE, etc.).

Associating the American right with fascism is done only by leftist ideologues and propagandists, not by serious critics. It is akin to calling everyone on the left a Communist. As for the specific examples, forgive me, but in 28 years as a talk show host and columnist, I had never heard of Robert Stacy McCain or of Vlaams Belang. Nor did the BNP or SIOE register on my intellectual radar screen.

I looked them up and found that McCain is a former editor at the Washington Times charged with racist views. So what?

The BNP is the British National Party, a racist group that in the last U.K. general election received 0.7 percent of the popular vote. So what?

SIOE stands for Stop Islamisation of Europe. I perused its website, and while there are ideas I disagree with (e.g., the group does not believe that there are any Muslim moderates), the desire to stop the “Islamization” of Europe is hardly fascist; it is more likely animated by anti-fascism.

Vlaams Belang is a Flemish nationalist political party that won 17 out of 150 seats in Belgium ’s Chamber of Representatives. From what I could gather from a cursory glance at the party’s platform, it is an ultra-nationalist Flemish party, many of whose language protection and secessionist ideals are virtually identical to those of the Party Quebecois, a party passionately supported by the left.

In any event, what do any of these groups have to do with mainstream American right institutions such the Hoover Institution, the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute; or with mainstream conservative publications and websites such as the National Review, the Weekly Standard, Townhall.com or Commentary; or with mainstream American conservatives such as Bill Kristol, Thomas Sowell, Hugh Hewitt, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Bill Bennett, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, as well as Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh?

2. Support for bigotry, hatred, and white supremacism (see: Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Robert Stacy McCain, Lew Rockwell, etc.).

I agree with the late William Buckley that some of Pat Buchanan’s views could be construed as anti-Jewish; I don’t know who McCain or Lew Rockwell represent among mainstream conservatives; and to label Ann Coulter a white supremacist (or bigot) is slander.

3. Support for throwing women back into the Dark Ages, and general religious fanaticism (see: Operation Rescue, anti-abortion groups, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, the entire religious right, etc.).

“The entire religious right” wants to throw “women back into the dark ages?” As a religious (Jewish) conservative, perhaps I am a member of that group, and I find the charge absurd. The one example you give — anti-abortion — is invalid. To those who regard the unborn as worthy of life (except in the almost never occurring case of it being a threat to its mother’s life), opposition to abortion is no more anti-woman than opposition to rape is anti-man. The only people who wish to throw women into the dark ages are the people you, Charles, used to fight. That is why your change of heart has actually hurt the battle for women’s dignity and equality.

4. Support for anti-science bad craziness (see: creationism, climate change denialism, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe, etc.).

So, Charles, all those scientists who question or deny that human activity is causing a global warming that will render much of life on earth extinct are “anti-science?”

Has the possibility occurred to you that those who are skeptical of what they consider hysteria cherish science at least as much as you do? In fact, they suspect that — for political, social, financial, psychological and/or herd-following reasons — it is the “global warming” hysterics who are more likely to be anti-science.

Activist scientists, liberal media and leftist interest groups brought us the false alarm of an imminent heterosexual AIDS pandemic in America , the false alarm about silicon breast implants leading to disease and the nonsense about how dangerous nuclear power is. They were anti-science, not us skeptics who have been right every time I can think of.

5. Support for homophobic bigotry (see: Sarah Palin, Dobson, the entire religious right, etc.).

This charge is particularly ugly. It appears that you have decided to fight all the “hate” you allege to be on the right with your own hate. Why exactly is it “homophobic bigotry” to want to maintain the millennia-old definition of marriage as the union of men and women? The hubris of those who not only want to change the definition of the most important institution in society but believe everyone who ever advocated male-female marriage was a bigot — meaning everyone who ever lived before you, Charles — is as breathtaking as it is speech-suppressing.

6. Support for anti-government lunacy (see: tea parties, militias, Fox News, Glenn Beck, etc.).

What you call “anti-government lunacy” most Americans regard as preserving the greatest protector of individual liberty — limited government.

7. Support for conspiracy theories and hate speech (see: Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Birthers, creationists, climate deniers, etc.).

I am no fan of Alex Jones, who, coincidentally, has attacked me on his website as a “Jewish propagandist.” But please. The amount of hate speech in one Keith Olbermann commentary dwarfs any 12 months of Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. In any event, the real irony here is that before your inexplicable change, it was you who devoted years to documenting the greatest amount of hate speech on earth today — that coming from within the Islamic world. If you still hated hate speech, you would still be doing that important work.

As for believing in conspiracy theories, your new team wins hands down — from multiple assassins of JFK to the American government being behind 9-11 (it was even believed by a high-ranking member of the Obama administration) to the war in Iraq waged on behalf of Halliburton.

8. A right-wing blogosphere that is almost universally dominated by raging hate speech (see: Hot Air, Free Republic , Ace of Spades, etc.).

From what I have seen, your examples do not justify your charge. Moreover, for every right-wing “raging hate” speech website, there are probably three on the left. The major conservative sites are overwhelmingly rational and devoid of “raging hate.” Given my longtime respect for you, Charles, it pains me that it is your list of 10 reasons for abandoning the right that is a prime example of “raging hate.”

9. Anti-Islamic bigotry that goes far beyond simply criticizing radical Islam, into support for fascism, violence, and genocide (see: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc.).

I saw Pamela Geller’s site (The New York Times Magazine article about you cited it — Atlas Shrugs — and mentioned nothing remotely approaching your charges against her or her site) and I’ve interviewed Robert Spencer. Your charges against them only cheapen the words “fascism,” violence” and “genocide.”

10. Hatred for President Obama that goes far beyond simply criticizing his policies, into racism, hate speech, and bizarre conspiracy theories (see: witch doctor pictures, tea parties, Birthers, Michelle Malkin, Fox News, World Net Daily, Newsmax, and every other right wing source).

The charge is a lie. Period. Those who cannot argue with the right always accuse it of racism. It used to work, Charles. But it is increasingly obvious to all but fellow leftists that the charge is specious. Opposition to President Obama has nothing to do with his race. Indeed, he continues to be more popular than his policies.

When you were on the politically and morally right side, Charles, you provided massive evidence for your positions. Now you throw verbal bombs. What happened? If you would like to tell me on my radio show, you are invited to do so. I miss you.

The Vile One promises a more comprehensive rebuttal tomorrow, but claims that Prager’s last point is invalid because…somebody anonymously left a “racist” comment on his article.  Grow up, Chuck…

I’d love to see Johnson take Prager up on his offer for a radio interview, even if it would be kinda like Jackie Chan vs. Jackie Mason.  Adding Stacy into the mix would be icing on the cake.

Rave Reviews 2!

Calvin Freiburger anger, blogosphere, extremism, humor, me, Rave Reviews, stupidity

It’s back, by popular demand! (And by “popular demand,” I mean “I felt like it.”)

“I know young Mr. Freiburger considers himself to ba a Christian; I wonder: what part of ‘thou shalt not bear false witness’ doesn’t he understand?” – Closet-Commie

“… you are an angry man!” – naturboy

“Freiberger is a perfect example of what’s wrong with this country and why it is becoming ungovernable.” – lisleil

“I do, however, find it disturbing when someone of that age simply repeats the tripe dished up on right wing radio.” – radioguy2

“This rant is nothing more than bitching by the right over Obama being elected!!” – geekyandwhatnot

“The same old ‘cut and paste’ rhetorical blather isn’t worth the time and effort necessary to conduct a ‘direct discussion’. However, it’s important to me that guys like Calvin know that I’m taking the time to read the work of others being passed off as his own.” – Marvin49

“…speculative drivel and unfounded conjecture…” – Justinfdl

“Just keep barking at your fellow citizens like a good little puppy and completely ignore the oligarchs screwing us all over.” – M_miller_t

“Wow, bigoted much?” – Michelle

“I need to ask if Calvin’s relatives own the Reporter? Is there any other reason they would continue to print this gibberish?” – FDL54935

“Bat s*** crazy seems to be an understatement when describing you…would you even recognize sanity, conscience, or even integrity if you saw it?  I doubt it.” – Chris Liebenthal

“Using fallacies for the purpose of making a point just makes you pathetic at what you do.” – Oscar M

“You people See a Black face and automatically assume, Democrat!!!!!” – Houston

“I do not have much respect for your standards of evidence or with what has and has not been proved to you.” – Alonzo Fyfe

“Mr. Freiburg along with much of the right simply do not believe in equality and justice for all.” – kalebgage

“I’m wondering if he honestly doesn’t see himself implementing the very tactics that he criticizes on the political left. I also wonder why he won’t concede a single point.” – Gerald

“…the Neo-Cons like this blogger and their platform has been proven a complete failure…” – Gmartine

“Partisan sniping without any actual evidence.” – Anonymous

“You are losing. You are wrong and your are ‘Nuts.’” – Derrick Gaskin

“Oh!! It’s so much fun laughing at you pious little war warmongers. Your little shrieks are becoming more and more ridiculous as each day passes.” – Sex Panther

“Hello, Dr. Freiburger. Your astute knowledge of Psychology must be astounding to deduce and diagnose such a mental ailment from merely reading one comment in a blog post. Unless, that is, you’re practicing without a license, are you? I can understand it’s mush easier to label people then correct their error with reason, logic, and/or facts.” – Professor MacNamarra

“Back to the television my sheepish friend, I hear that they’ve found some new meadows for you to graze upon.” – Dan N

“Having read this entire thread, the concept that you think you are not only intelligent but funny as well is the most entertaining post for me by far.” – Devon

“Your opinions in this thread are simply not supported by anything other than your own myopic world view. How dare you attribute some simplistic slipshod approach to me. You do not know me…You basically just stuck your tongue out at me and said ‘Now you really done it! You’re stupid for thinking that’. Tell us why!” – Todd Owens

“You are a sad person and we all thank you for showing your true character…oops, lack of character. Now go back to sleep….sleep…sleep my friend. Just do as you are told and believe as we tell you to believe and go back to sleep.” – Marvin K Johnson

“…if you’re going to write a slanderous piece on Dr. Paul, you better watch out because it’s going to get ugly and his supporters won’t back down.” – Mike

“Calvin Freiburger does exactly what he purports to disdain, and that is too stick dogmatically to his simplistic beliefs about how the world works, then congratulates himself for being so objective.” – Thinkingman

Calvin Freiburger Online: Shouldn’t you be reading?

A Case Study in Republican Rhetorical Incompetence

Calvin Freiburger conservatism, Democrats, dishonesty, extremism, healthcare, liberalism, Republican Party, resercons, strategy, stupidity

Robert Stacy McCain has excerpts from a speech by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), in which he goes completely nuclear on opponents of ObamaCare.  In Whitehouse’s alternate dimension, it seems Republicans have filled the debate with lies and distortions all aimed at frightening the American people, all because “The ‘birthers,’ the fanatics, the people running around in right-wing militias and Aryan support groups, it is unbearable to them that President Obama should exist.”

Of course, it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that nationalizing healthcare is a really bad idea with an abysmal track record.  Heaven knows the right-wing “lies” couldn’t possibly be true, and that it couldn’t possibly be the Left who’s been lying.  No, no, better to attribute the whole thing to extremists and be done with it.

Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) has responded to Whitehouse’s un-medicated tirade with an explanation as to why people oppose ObamaCare in good faith, along with the following criticisms of his colleague’s outburst:

I don’t know whether it’s frustration or maybe just the lens through which partisans view things and their opponents, unfortunately, that spawned the remarks earlier today from one of our Democratic colleagues…I wonder if my colleagues really believe that our position is animated by hatred. Why else would we oppose this legislation?

If why Democrats routinely engage in hate-mongering still mystifies you, then maybe you shouldn’t be entrusted with a seat in the US Senate.  It’s not that complicated: THEY DON’T CARE WHAT THE TRUTH IS.  To the Left, it’s all political—tell any lie, ignore any evidence, shoot any messenger, all in the name of doing maximum damage to their opponents and intimidating as many as possible into silence.  Punks like Whitehouse keep doing it because they know there’s no price to be paid.  At most, they’ll get a timid, bumbling response like Kyl’s.

The GOP’s problems are many, but one of the biggest is that there are virtually no Ann Coulter types—people willing to talk frankly about the severe consequences of liberalism and honestly about the motives and character of their opponents—in Congress.  Every time some liar pipes up about racist Republicans or conservatives hating poor people, he should be met with such a firestorm of condemnation that the very thought of trying it again should make him wet himself in terror.  The Democrats understand that contemporary American politics is a knife fight—it’s time for Republicans to stop bringing pillows.

A Case of Mistaken, Rabid Identity (Updated for Hypocrisy!)

Calvin Freiburger blogosphere, extremism, humor, me, misc, moonbats, stupidity

Milwaukee blogger Chris Liebenthal (Boots & Sabers regulars may know him as Capper) has a cookie-cutter post about the tightrope future Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker will supposedly have to walk between the crooked & incompetent GOP establishment on the one hand, and the tea-party lunatics on the other.  Blah blah blah…

Amusingly, the centerpiece of the post is a comment from somebody named “Calvin” on this post from Charlie Sykes’ blog.  Out of the State of Wisconsin’s five-and-a-half-million people, there’s apparently only one right-winger by that name, so Capper pegs me as the commenter.  I’m sorry to disappoint you, but you’ve got the wrong man.

I do, however, appreciate being recognized as a “rabid right winger.” Remember, kids: Calvin Freiburger is precisely the kind of ignorant, intolerant, right-wing extremist scum your Homeland Security Secretary warned you about!

Calvin Freiburger Online: shouldn’t you be reading?

UPDATE: Understandably embarrassed at his blunder, Capper is digging in his heels in the comments, insisting that some nonexistent inconsistency between my words here and there somehow proves Sykes-Calvin and I are one and the same.  Apparently his brilliant mind cannot grasp the concept that, in the comment he imagines to be a smoking gun, I was responding to a specific claim by Anonymous (who, now that I mention it, is probably the same “Anonymous” from that other article I was reading last week!).  With such a tenuous grasp on reality and utter disregard for truth, no wonder the guy’s a liberal.

In all honesty, though, I should have known better than to waste my time wading into Capper’s cesspool – after all, a central tenet of the liberal playbook is to make a scandal out of the very act of defending one’s self from a vapid liberal attack.  Live and learn, I guess.

In honor of what feels like the ten-thousandth time one of these bozos has given blogging a bad name, it seems like a great opportunity to revisit this Steven Crowder classic:

UPDATE 2: So it turns out that yesterday, Cappy whined about falling victim to the very same thing he did to me.  You can’t make this stuff up…

UPDATE 3 (12/22/09): The Capster’s paranoia has been going on for even longer than I thought.  If it weren’t so stupid, I’d be flattered.

Little Green Freakshow

Calvin Freiburger anger, blogosphere, Charles Johnson, dishonesty, extremism, race, resercons, Rush Limbaugh

There’s a special place in hell waiting for Charles Johnson, regardless of whether or not he believes it’s really there.

Once one of the heavy hitters of the blogosphere (he helped in blowing the lid off Rathergate and founding Pajamas Media), in the past couple years Johnson has shifted the focus of Little Green Footballs to rooting out any perceived extremists (real & imagined alike) from the right-of-center, a venture that has its place (I’ve made clear my opposition to Birthers, Paultergeists, and other genuine loons & bigots), but for Johnson that crusade has morphed into something else entirely: a smear campaign based on specious (if any) evidence against…well, darn near every conservative blogger & commentator who isn’t him.

Ever expressed doubt as to man’s contribution to global warming?  Evolution?  You’re an extremist who has to be destroyed.  Host a blog, but don’t police the comment threads to Johnson’s exacting, jackbooted standards?  You obviously endorse every word there, then.  Is there an out-of-context or unsourced quote attributed to you floating around the Internet?  Good enough for Chuck!  Burn the witches!

Mind you, I hate Ron Paul every bit as much as the next sensible conservative, but that doesn’t justify dishonest attacks on him.  Likewise, I happen to believe in evolution (yes, I’ve changed my position since reading Godless, thanks in part to the excellent work of Dr. Francis Collins), but is creationism in public schools really a dire threat to the Union?  Please.

It was only natural that Johnson would jump on the bandwagon to keep Rush Limbaugh out of the NFL, and his conduct in this matter perfectly illustrates the (empty) content of his character.  Ace picked up on Johnson’s sleazy peddling of a fraudulent list of racist Rush quotes, and his utter indifference to their veracity.  Now the Media Research Center has released a report on the smear campaign, in which they mention Johnson as one of the perpetrators.  Johnson’s reaction?  Does he feel a shred of professional or personal obligation to honesty?  Nope: “I’ve finally made it. I’m an “offender” in this Rush Limbaugh idolizing article at the far right Media Research Center. My life is complete.”

That and a list of “racist and race-baiting quotes from Rush Limbaugh that are sourced and verified”:

“Right. So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela — who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia. You do the same thing.”

If Johnson or Media Matters would care to explain how speculation about the motives behind inconsistent stances on Iraq & Darfur (right or wrong) constitutes racism, I’d love to hear it.  Speaking bluntly about racial components to political issues is not “race-baiting.”

“Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”

Rather than a “look at those violent blacks on the field!” comment that Johnson would like you to believe this is, it comes from a larger discussion on class & maturity in NFL culture—in which he compliments San Diego Chargers running back LaDainian Tomlinson and Philadelphia Colts wide receiver Marvin Harrison as “the two most classy individuals playing in the National Football League today, in skill positions.”  As clicking on their names reveals, a little context can be a dangerous thing.

“Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”

I can’t find context for this one (maybe Rush was trying to prod lefty sensibilities), but okay, it sure doesn’t sound good.  Absent a good contextual basis, he should apologize.  But is Rush Limbaugh a racist?  Ask his producer.

“Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.”

Rush apparently said this early in his radio career, to an unintelligible black caller.  Crude?  Insensitive?  Yes, but Rush openly regrets it, and an ill-considered quip uttered in frustration is hardly worth crucifying the guy over.

“I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve.”

This is commentary on media sensibilities regarding race, not race baiting.  Next.

“Obama’s America: white kids getting beat up on school buses. You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety, but in Obama’s America, white kids now get beat up, with the black kids cheering, ‘Yeah! Right on! Right on!’”

*sigh* Johnson has already been called out for this faux controversy.

Since I began writing this post, Johnson has updated his post with the Snopes analysis of the “disputed” (that’s LGF-speak for what the rest of us call “phony”) Rush quotes—y’know, the only ones that show any actual racism.  He offers them without commentary, expresses no regret for his role in peddling them, and probably didn’t add them until it occurred to him that they might help him save face.  To Charles Johnson, blogging means never having to say you’re sorry.

Why the obsession with smearing people?  Why the abandonment of integrity?  Who knows—maybe his departure from Pajamas Media left him with a chip on his shoulder.  Maybe he’s overcompensating for similar charges that have been leveled against him in the past.  Whatever the cause, Little Green Footballs is no longer worthy of its once-revered place in the blogosphere, and is now nothing more than a Little Green Freakshow.

Goliath Has Nothing to Fear from These Davids

Calvin Freiburger Bill O'Reilly, conservatism, David Brooks, David Frum, extremism, Glenn Beck, John McCain, liberalism, Republican Party, resercons, strategy, stupidity

David Frum is promoting David Brooks’ latest column, in which Brooks says:

Just months after the election and the humiliation, everyone is again convinced that Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and the rest possess real power. And the saddest thing is that even Republican politicians come to believe it. They mistake media for reality. They pre-emptively surrender to armies that don’t exist.

They pay more attention to Rush’s imaginary millions than to the real voters down the street. The Republican Party is unpopular because it’s more interested in pleasing Rush’s ghosts than actual people. The party is leaderless right now because nobody has the guts to step outside the rigid parameters enforced by the radio jocks and create a new party identity. The party is losing because it has adopted a radio entertainer’s niche-building strategy, while abandoning the politician’s coalition-building strategy.

The rise of Beck, Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and the rest has correlated almost perfectly with the decline of the G.O.P. But it’s not because the talk jocks have real power. It’s because they have illusory power, because Republicans hear the media mythology and fall for it every time.

This is delusional on several fronts. Brooks’ claim that the GOP is at the mercy of talk radio is totally undercut by his own column’s earlier observation about John McCain’s primary success, despite the longstanding bad blood between McCain and the pundits. But that’s not to say his other claim, that the talkers have no sway with the actual voters, is much better — just ask Harriet Miers, the United Arab Emirates, or the Republicans who wanted to ram amnesty through Congress (all issues talk radio sounded the alarm on) how far they got.

It’s interesting that Brooks attributes the GOP’s decline to the rise of Glenn Beck (who didn’t really hit it big until after Obama’s victory), Sean Hannity (who was a superstar well before any discernible GOP decline, and was doing his usual routine during Republicans’ Congressional gains in 2002 and both of George W. Bush’s victories in 2000 & 2004), and Bill O’Reilly (an independent with hawkish defense and law-&-order sentiments, but also a global-warming believer who spends half his time demonizing oil companies and treating any politician who might give him an interview with kid gloves), and not to what these supposedly-kowtowing Republicans actually did:

Bush and the Republicans spent massively, especially in Bush’s first term. We opposed that, mightily. The president’s most cherished initiative, probably, was the Faith-Based Initiative. We opposed that. Then there was his education policy: No Child Left Behind. We opposed that (mainly on grounds that it wrongly expanded the federal role). He had his new federal entitlement: a prescription-drug benefit. We of course opposed that. He imposed steel tariffs—for a season—which we opposed. He signed the McCain-Feingold law on campaign finance—which we opposed. He established a new cabinet department, the Department of Homeland Security. We opposed that. He defended race preferences in the University of Michigan Law School case; we were staunchly on the other side. He of course proposed a sweeping new immigration law, which included what amounted to amnesty. We were four-square against that.

I am talking about some things that were very dear to Bush’s heart, and central to his efforts—and self-image, as a leader. NR, the conservative arbiter, opposed those things. The Republican party, by and large, supported them—with one glaring exception: the immigration push.

He might also do well to consider that McCain’s failed presidential bid was hardly in the mold of a Limbaugh broadcast, or, if he’s really feeling intellectually curious, he could ask himself what effect a primary field divided among multiple candidates with partial claims to certain aspects of conservatism (Romney on economics, Huckabee on social issues, Giuliani on terrorism, etc.) might have had.

David Brooks is dead wrong, but we shouldn’t be surprised that David Frum is enamored — these days Frum dreams of a new conservatism that looks suspiciously like liberalism, and spends more time hyperventilating about TV personalities’ occasional missteps than extremists in the White House.

(Cross-posted at The HF Blog.)

The Conservative Chessboard (UPDATED)

Calvin Freiburger conservatism, David Frum, extremism, resercons, strategy

David Frum’s attacks on Glenn Beck have spurred NewsReal’s David Swindle to pen an interesting take on the conservative movement and the roles of different types of figures within it.  He calls it the Conservative Chessboard:

The ideological, political war in this country is basically a chess match between the Left and the Right. Beck and Frum are different pieces with different styles and abilities. Beck, Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, most of Fox News, and most of talk radio constitute our side’s Rooks. They are strong, fast, blunt, effective (at what they do) and aggressive. They are tremendously valuable pieces in the game.

Frum and many other quieter, intellectual conservatives or center-right writers are more akin to our side’s Bishops. They’re not quite as valuable and effective as the rooks but they still provide an elegance and sophistication that is necessary in the defense of America. They do things that the rooks cannot do.

(And by now no one should be wondering where Coulter fits in. She exhibits both the aggressiveness of the rook and the intellectualism of the bishop. As I’ve stated before, she’s our queen — the most valuable piece on the board.)

The King of the Right is not an individual. It’s the American Idea — the one idea that all pieces are working together in their different ways to defend.

[…]

Who we cast as the Knights and the Pawns is something I open up for discussion. (Sometimes I wonder if we Generation Y conservatives might be somewhat Knight-like in the way we move. We might not yet have the reach and strength of the Boomer and Gen-X rooks and bishops but we can jump over many of the ideological stereotypes and problems of those that came before us.)

We could probably debate for some time precisely how to cast certain figures—while Hannity’s never going to be mistaken for one of the Bishops, Limbaugh frequently rises above the level of mere Rook, and for radio personalities who further blur the line between brain and brawn, look no further than Dennis Prager or Michael Medved.

Also debatable is just how far one can deviate from the norm and still be, on balance, an asset.  David Frum, for instance, is a stalwart defender of Israel and a serious observer of foreign policy, but when it comes to domestic policy, he spends most of his time arguing for a new “conservatism” that sounds an awful lot like liberalism, or hyperventilating about talk radio and Pat Toomey (and let’s not forget his dishonorable role in Tillergate).  In my estimation, as good as Frum might be on war & peace, he’s not offering anything that can’t be readily gleaned from thinkers who don’t have his baggage.

At the other end of the spectrum you have the real extremists and nuts, like the Birthers and the Paulistinians.  Robert Stacy McCain, while a supporter of neither, doesn’t think there’s much to be gained by freaking out over them; he says we should “get used to the idea that the conservative coalition of the future will be a loud, rowdy and unruly bunch, composed of diverse people with disparate beliefs.”  I think there’s some truth to that—this summer I wrote that “as anyone who’s ever tried to calm down Crazy Uncle Billy at Thanksgiving dinner should realize, it’s insane to expect that Michael Steele or Rush Limbaugh can somehow enforce behavioral lockstep among every member of a movement comprised of millions of people”—but I think Stacy’s a little too dismissive of the phenomenon.  Again, anyone who cares about a cause has to be concerned when wrong is done in that cause’s name, and while you should never expect credit from the Left for doing the “responsible” thing, I do think it’s useful to get on the record against true extremism, which isn’t the same as cowering in fear of whatever fake outrage the Left tries to make into political kryptonite.

On the whole, though, I think Swindle has come up with a great analogy, as long as we don’t mistake the Rooks’ specialty for aggression for an absence of the Bishops’ intellect, and vice-versa (which I don’t mean to suggest he has done), and as long as we maintain logical standards for the minimum expected of the pieces.

UPDATE: Many thanks to David for the feedback!  I’ll be sure to give it some thought and respond as soon as classwork allows.

UPDATE 2: Here’s my reaction.  The short version: “I believe Generation Y Conservatives can embrace and reinforce our generation’s potential while countering the arrogance of youth and fighting for the timelessness of truth, justice and the American way.”