Saturday, January 13, 2007
|
|
Don't Hit a Gadfly With a Sledgehammer
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
5:25 PM
|
|
If there’s one thing political strategists learned from Bill Clinton, it’s to attack the attacker. Do you remember what James Carville said about Paula Jones? “Drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park and there's no telling what you'll get."
In short, the Clinton team taught a generation of consultants that the way to avoid an attack is to attack the credibility of the attacker.
The most recent campaign to utilize this tactic is the Mitt Romney exploratory committee.
Here’s the background: In an AP story on Friday morning, Brian Camenker, a man the AP described as a “conservative gadfly” criticized Gov. Romney’s past positions on gay marriage and other social issues.
By Friday afternoon, Romney was attacking Camenker’s credibility on his own exploratory committee site. Camenker and his friends responded with a letter signed by several conservative activists – including respected conservative leader Paul Weyrich.
Now, I don’t know Mr. Camenker. And for all I know, he is, in fact, a gadfly. I have no reason to doubt Townhall’s own Dean Barnett, who describes Camenker as being, “obsessed with gay issues.” My goal isn’t to defend Camenker – it’s to make the point that a frontrunner (such as Gov. Romney) has nothing to gain by attacking a conservative activist – especially if he is a gadfly.
If Camenker is so irrelevant, then why is Romney trying to take him down? Why not let someone else take down Camenker (heck, the AP is already doing the dirty work by calling him a gadfly)? Get a surrogate, for crying out loud, Gov. Romney, but don’t dirty your hands on this man ...
As a source close to one of Romney's potential rivals told me, "This is the dumbest stunt by a tier one presidential candidate since George Romney claimed he had been brainwashed by the generals and diplomats."
This race is going to get ugly, folks.
|
|
Those of us who are conservative and still live in Massachusetts admire and respect Brian Camenker (and several others who work with him). Yes, Dean is out to lunch. Brian is a brave man who has stood up again and again to the GLBTQ crowd in Massachusetts.
For those who don't live in Massachusetts, google fistgate sometime for some interesting reading... |
|
If you don't have reason to doubt Dean Barnett is it because you didn't bother to read what you linked to? I did and it smacked to me of misplaced grudge. I DO doubt Barnett's take on
Camenker. I doubt his use of the term "obsessed" given his barbs about Camenker's "anger" and the implications of intolerance. In fact I doubt Dean Dean's take on this SO much I not only wonder who the angry and intolerant man is here, I wonder if the "obsession" does not lie in wanting to expunge all references to moral opposition to Homosexuality from Conservative discussion. In this I offer the evidence of my repeated challenges to the Town Hall Community to engage Wille and the Kraut (George and Charlie) over their diatribe against Conservative Christian Creationists as those who have ruined the Republican Party and are single handedly responsible for the failure of Conservatism. I ain't seen nothing yet. Fact is that I now think I have reason to believe Dean Dean to be one of those who want to run away from certain Conservative Moral Values as fast as he can. How close he strays over into the Faux-Conservatism of the Gilded Bird Cabin Republicans or even toward the FauxLibertarian--"I want my drugs and porn" part of the spectrum I don't know yet.
I deeply resent Dean Dean's implication that opposition to Homosexuality on Moral Grounds is a kind of intolerant act. And we do not even have THAT here. What he is critical of in Camenker is his mere opposition to the PROMOTING of Homosexuality in the Public Sphere!
So, you may have "no reason" to doubt Dean Dean,
Matteo, but I do, indeed I do.
the big mick |
|
"The Swifties Lied Kerry Died" hmmmm? (this from the guy who lied about where he was in Nam, about his medals, about his men--about voting against before for.) Now that I'm off the floor having collapsed in a spasm of hillarity--speaking of Hill-err-ity--"a lesbian nymphomaniac"--the Ice Dragon???--now THAT's funny! I WOULD believe she was stringing Vince Foster, now. But who needs to "attack" the Hillbilly when we have her on tape playing "mother superior" to us all (after Wild Willie stuck his finger--and thank God it was only his finger-up our nose) and telling us all to "take a deep breath, this vast right wing conspiracy will all blow over" (if something is vast CAN it blow over--oh, and how bad a choice of metaphor, from the "smartest woman in America" was the immortal words "BLOW OVER"?). Now it seems to me she is either the DUMBEST woman in America for being the last person in the White House to know Der Slickster was boffin the hired help, or she is the most cold blooded (insert word that the bad word checker keeps out) in the WH since Elanor The Red!
Face it JJ, the credibility of the Dumbolcraps, Clintonistas and Move On With Marx-ers commenting on ANYBODY else's believability constantly flounders on the Jagged Rocks of such classic CQs like Sandy (I was just checking the underwear lint in my socks) Burgler. You guys have been buying the Big Lie so long that when the Truth finally bites you on the butt you think it's fore-play.
You want a CLASSIC example of CQ politics of personal distruction? Go to Durham and observe the Lynching of the Raped Duke Lacross Team.
Even 60 Mins is now on the band wagon for how badly 3 Non-black Boys guilty of watching a Black Woman while white, got hosed by the Racial Bigots in Durham and by the Duke Prez and faculty. You want Justice JJ? You want TRUTH?? M.L. King says "Justice Delayed is Justice denied." (Was that "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"?) Didn't he say something like "a threat to Justice anywhere is a threat to Justice everywhere?" M.L King dreamed of a world where 3 Duke Lacross players were not judged on the color of their skin. Tell you what, JJ, there will be NO JUSTICE in Durham, till every single CHURCH, Media, Civic Group and Person, who rushed to Judgement of those boys because of the color of their skin PUBLICALLY admits to committing the SIN OF RACIAL BIGOTRY. Don't hold your breath, your fellow dumbolcrap CQs don't have that kind of honesty and integrity in them.
But here's your real problem JJ, you are confusing the Hillbilly Clinton/Beechn Jimmy Carvel variation on the Joey Goebble's Big Lie Gambit with the far simpler Harry Truman Two-Step. Ya see "Give em HellHarry"--at least according TO "Give em HellHarry" never actually gave anybodyhell. Rather, as he put it: "I just tell the TRUTH on em and they THINK they're inhell." Now we know that "Giveemhell" actually came out of one of the most corrupt political machines in a state that raised corrupt political machines to God like heights--big MO.
(They're still at it--was it 2000 or 2k4 where a precinct in St. Louis had 100% voter turn out? Nobody sick, nobody out of town, nobody forgot or couldn't get there by closing,--sure sure--and all Gore/Kerry voters.) In other words, every word that came out of Harry's mouth about his opponents WAS a lie. So much for "telling the truth on em." But that doesn't mean Harry's political principle was wrong. Quite the contrary. What you are experiencing, JJ, is quite analogous to the Christianhell. There those who reject truth in favor of lie will forever be tormented by their choic. When guys like you scream like you have I know that some Conservative, somewhere, has "told the truth on you and you think you are inhell."
the big mick |
|
Well "me" I guess it really is about you--you underline your "me" no less! But being self-obsessed doesn't let you off the hook for not providing facts for your ad-hominem faux logic attack on "faux logic" leading to "jangly discord" (is that a new type of Rap? Or New Age Jazz?). "Me(underlined)", darling, your self-absorbtion not only has the thinkers laughing at you, it leads you to such hillarious blind-spot blunders (like all cqs) as consistantly assuming everybody else joins you in your a priori assumptions.
Seems to me the point about "Bechn Jimmy" Carvel, Dean of the Joey Goebbles School of the Big Political Lie, was well made. The Clinton team's dark principles WERE instructive to a generation of Political Consultants. Looks prima face to me--why do you think you (like all cqs) can simply pooh pooh your way through a non-rebutal rebutal? (man I wish this had spell check--bet everyone else wishes it for me.)
As for digging deeper than what Rush says--he's the first one I heard point out the Dumbolcraps never said anything without talking points. If he didn't "dig" that out, then he spread it. He already digs pretty deep--why go deeper when folks like you can't even rebut what's freshman first semester EIB stuff. When playing with beginners one has to keep the level of play to their level. Nice try (well it was pathetic actually, but heck let's be polite to a rookie) but you haven't made the ante yet. If you CAN present any "facts" to disprove the Statement about the Clinton practice of the politics of personal distruction being instructive to the politicos that followed them then DO so. Cute gets ya nothin.
the big mick
|
|
"If there’s one thing political strategists learned from Bill Clinton, it’s to attack the attacker. Do you remember what James Carville said about Paula Jones?"
Yeah, I also remember the Swifties, who lied about Kerry, All of the posters, bloggers, and columnists on this site, with a special nod to Ann Coulter, All of the right wing radio heads, with another nod to Savage, the relentless attacks on the integrity of Murtha, Hillary (oh, there was a right-wing book claiming that she was a lesbian nymphomaniac) Medved's claims that Richard Clarke was a liar when he described his meeting with Cheny and Bush on 9/11 (someone else who was there verified it) also, Medved's claims that Gore is clinically insane, etc. etc. Then there are the relentless attacks from the RW congress that Democrats are traitors, death lovers, (remember that ex-woman in Florida who was brain dead?)
Nedd I go on. What a self-serving idiot this columnist is. |
|
|
Effects can be cumulative. Ignore a single cut, and wake up one fine morning well on the way to bleeding to death. Unanswered accusations, especially those reported in the media, have a way of becoming "truth" after a little time has passed. It's foolish to ignore them. |
|
ya know, I thinks facts would just get in your way, so I'll just post a rhetorical “???” for ya.
so ya say it was the Clinton group that showed the world how to attack the attacker eh???
WOW!!!
it is shallow talking point faux logic like this that is leading conservatism down a jangly discordant slide toward eventual irrelevancy.
dig deeper than what Rush says, please. |
|
History teaches Republican potentials that the MSM will NOT take people down for you.
Also, the Kerry fiasco in the runup to the '04 election (not attacking) almost makes sure that ANY candidate will go on the offensive as fast as they can. What they want is for their comeback to be as fresh as the original attack, so when the news cycle is over, no one remembers anything except that the candidate had a swift answer to the 'accusation'.
ot: Act of war? (http://lordnazh.com/DailyRamble/2007/01/acts-of-war-one-way.html) |
|
|
|