Dafydd-

I understand and agree with your argument concerning the philosophical/political point made by Mr. Limbaugh. But you, as a professional writer, are more aware than most that words have emotional impact as well as meaning.

My first encounter with Rush’s notorious comment was nothing but a headline. It said, to paraphrase, “Rush says he wants Obama to fail.” My initial reaction was not to “bristle,” but more along the lines of, OMG, he couldn’t possibly mean he wants the country to go into a prolonged recession, could he? Shortly thereafter I learned the truth as you have outlined it.

I submit that my first response was normal and logical, based on the sound bite. But, being of a right-of-center persuasion, I figured there had to be more to it. Obviously many, including the left, the MSM (sorry for the redundancy) and the incurious, stopped at the sound bite.

The MSM have been playing this like a drum ever since. (So has Rush, but to a much smaller audience.) Rush was, of course, being intentionally provocative -- that’s what he does. He succeeded beyond, I expect, his own wildest dreams. His listenership and ad revenues are way up. Unfortunately, the hornets’ nest is still buzzing, too. Pundits on the right have been furiously defending, refining and interpreting Rush’s real meaning ever since.

I think the best response is the one you propounded in your previous post on the subject: Ignore it. The whole thing will then die a quiet, merciful death, way before the 2010 election.

I will if you will. (The ignore part, not the die part.)

You didn't even get close on my position in your restatement of it...totally wrong, to serve your own purposes

Iraq under Hussein was secular, not an example of 'militant Islamism'. I said clearly in my piece, I didn't want soldiers to die - and by the way, the soldiers that were killed and wounded are responsibility of the people who sent them to war, not the people opposed to it. Making America 'weak like Europe' is so weird I don't have a response...etc etc etc...

Stranahan:

I don't know for sure you are the same person who wrote the HuffPo piece, but I have no reason to believe you're not, so I'll assume you are.

I didn't just read that one piece of yours; I looked at a number of them and read several all the way through. Everything I read came across as the garden-issue, liberal Obama fanatic. Your response above -- that the Iraq war could not be about militant Islamism because Saddam Hussein was secular (as if he had not allied himself with the radicals) merely confirms what I picked up by reading your posts: You wish we had lost the Iraq war because winning it validated George W. Bush's approach of a strong America standing up to the so-called "jihadis."

Would you have preferred that we defer to the U.N.? The E.U.? I suspect you would have, and nothing I've seen from you here or on the HuffPo dissuades me from that suspicion. But that is precisely what I said... that what ticked you off most about the Iraq war was the standard liberal conception that we were "going it alone" and "acting like cowboys." (To guard against misunderstanding, I'm not quoting you here but the left-liberal chattering class in general.)

Wanting America to defer to the international consensus is, indeed, just the crime of which I accused you. If you are innocent of that crime -- if you prefer that the United States have its own foreign policy and base it on what's good for America, not what's good for the world; if you have no problem with us "going it alone" (just us and those forty nations in the Coalition of the Willing); if you accept that the best way to stop the militant, radical Islamists is a strong military defense, with or without the rest of the world's or the U.N.'s approval -- then please let me know and point me to a post of yours in which you articulate this surprising position.

I make no bones that I'm a nationalist, a Capitalist, an anti-leftist and anti-liberal, an individualist, and a warmonger -- where the war being mongered is directed against those who want to destroy Western Civilization.

(I wouldn't mind us fighting to bring down North Korea or prevent Russia from resurrecting its empire in Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the Baltics, the Balkans, Ukraine, Georgia, and the 'Stans, either.)

Can you please be as clear?

• What exactly do you believe is the best strategy to respond to Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, Bin Laden, Zawahiri, Nasrallah, Hamas, and that lot?
• What are your views on the efficacy of deep, across-the-board tax cuts for ending the recession and returning us to prosperity, versus tax increases to pay for massive deficit spending?
• What is your position on "Card Check?"
• What's your position on the Fairness Doctrine?
• How about the USA PATRIOT Act vs. "Gorelick's Wall?"
• Can you name any significant leftist issue about which you do not take the leftist position, but rather the conservative position?

Convince me that I'm wrong, and I'll admit it, apologize, and correct the post. But I sure haven't seen anything from you to indicate that I erred in my characterization of your basic philosophy. (And if I did, if you really don't agree right down the line with Barack H. Obama, then why in the world are you such an Obama cheerleader?)

Dafydd

Lee Stranahan:

I just read through your 20 most recent blogposts, which are linked here, and read the titles of all your other posts (back to "Grand Theft Election VIII," which appears to be your first Huffington Post blogpost, April 30th, 2008).

Yep... GI-issue left-liberal "Progressive." Everything I said before, in spades and doubled.

But I did find one amusing position you and I share: We both agree that "There's no argument you can make against a poly[amorous] marriage that wouldn't work just as well as an argument against gay marriage." We both agree that all arguments supporting same-sex marriage (SSM) apply equally well to polyamorous marriage (PAM) -- a.k.a. polygamy and polyandry.

We only part company on one minor issue: I oppose both same-sex marriage and polyamorous marriage, while you support them both.

But we agree the two are inextricably linked by logic, legality, and likely intent: If SSM becomes generally accepted, so too will PAM. To me, that is yet another reason to legally recognize only the traditional marriage of Western Civ: marriage between an opposite-sex couple of majority age, not too closely related, both parties able and willing to consent.

Dafydd

Excellent observation and rebuttal to a lame response. Democrats are so easy to refute simply because they are incapable of logical thinking past a time span of 5 minutes. They only emote, and therefore remain irreversably stupid for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, their stupidity is now effecting ALL Americans in a very negative way. The silent majority will rise up and remove the ignorant. The problem is how much damage will be done before that happens...

Swish-swish-swish

(The sound of the masked crusader's rapier carving a “Z” on the hapless victim’s chest.)

Dafydd,

I understand that you don't like a lot of what Stranahan has to say on issues.

His statement on Limbaugh is far more honest than almost any other from the Left. I'd rather disagree with him on policy than agree with David Frum.

Contemplating further...

I think the fundamental attack from the Left is on the belief in the truth and personal integrity, honesty and responsibility. All other attacks are vehicles for "collateral damage" on the main target.

Zorro strikes again! I need to drop by here more often…

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)