Dumb And Less Dumb

Update: I've just been informed that ED Kain has updated his post to tone it down. I credit and thank him for that. But I don't pull posts back as a rule, so I'll have to update. I will politely debate anyone on policy or politics anywhere, at any time, assuming I'm interested in the topic just then. My issues with Conor have nothing to do with his, or anyone's political ideas. I have been consistent in that all along.

I simply won't permit people who claim to be aligned with the Right, particularly the grassroots, who engage in activities or projects I believe only damage the movement and fuel the Left, without calling them on it, as I did Conor. I don't care what they think if I view it as destructive to our cause. That is at the heart of my issue with Conor, not politics in its substantive form.

Evidently one of the boys from Little League wants a piece of me now. Usually they just collect loose change outside the supermarket on Saturdays and Tuesday nights. Nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately, I can't spare much today. I'm moving on for now.

It always amazes me how so many people who fancy themselves great thinkers can be so dumb. The nonsense with Conor has nothing to do with policy ideas, or the recorded discussion at OL.

We just got done with a whole campaign for and against the Fairness Doctrine, with which the Libs would like to shut down Right-side talk. And a bobble-head who fancies himself an elite thinker when he's not can't seem to appreciate why the Right would see him as an enemy, as opposed to a friend when he takes out after Mark. Seriously, how dumb is that? That, or the term useful idiot comes to mind, just as Dreher and Frum pimped Conor out to take a swipe at a best-selling author when their own books rotted on the shelf. Then they abandoned him just like the libs always do with those whom they would use.

I felt he was foolish to reject a chance to change the course of all this when I reached out to him generously last night here.

That's a character issue, purely in my opinion, of course. But it's his problem, not mine. Like I said, I'm moving on. His friend is all the more foolish for trying to stir it right back up, especially when he doesn't even seem to know what's going on.

* I altered the last graph to remove an unnecessary personal attack provoked by the anger I was feeling after having read the original OL post.

Comments

[Jamie Lockett]

Again you seem to be confusing popularity with being correct on issues. This confuses me, as there are a great many people you would not agree with that are far more popular than Mark Levin.

The hilarious thing is that what you wrote in your second paragraph is exactly what Conor is doing re: Mark Levin. Calling out, and fisking, someone who he believes is damaging the cause of conservatism. He has laid out several points across two blog posts where Mark has either obfuscated the truth or downright fibbed in order to prove a political point. You have yet to address those specific points other than to say Conor is an idiot. In this entire post you do not address one single argument - you attack people personally and allude to shadowy nebulae of people with whom Conor is now persona non grata.

P.S. Still waiting on responses to posts I made in your "Cross" thread. However, using your own logic I will assume you have "abandoned" that thread because you can't come up with anything substantive to say. This, after all, is the same metric you used against Conor.

[mark l.]

a question about the creation of the conor/dan-league hosted debate.

who was the first to initate the whole deal? what was the chain?

conor to league to dan?

[simple conservative]

The cleavage between the elite conservative thinkers and the grassroots is amazing. This political world that the RHINOS want conservatives grassroots to live in is analagous to not cheering for the home team, not screaming at the ref when a bad call is made, and being required to get mad at the cheerleader(s)for making unneeded noise when the other team scores our our quarterback drops the ball. If the Conor's of the world can answer the following questions with conviction and truth, then I might possibly understand their big tent theory: Why not bash Obama instead of Levin? why not bash Geitner, not Rush? why not bash McCain for running a terrible campaign, not Palin for being the most watched VP candidate in the history of the US and a very strong and good Governor? Why not scream at the House and Senate for the spending, not Coulter or Hannity for calling them on it? and why not tear Colin Powell a new one for endorsing obama and voting for him? Please, prove me wrong, and demonstarte that you really do care and understand something about the simple conservative's politcal needs in fly over country, those Republican that served his or her country in the military, went to a simple school, listens to Rush and Levin, as well as reads Riehl and Coulter's posts, and maintain a simple set of values: God, Country, and Family!

[Dan Riehl]

Mark - I checked my email to confirm. Scott from the League reached out to me in email. If I'm not mistaken, my entire awareness of Conor up until that point was maybe seeing his name at Stacy's blog in a post I didn't really read, or care about. By and large, I focus on news and substance here - with some snark, perhaps and only the occasional flap.

People know that, I would hope. Long time readers also know that when something irks me, it isn't a secret. I think Jonah Goldberg was the last big dust up I had with NRO. The notion that I am some a lock-stepper is a farce.

As I said here in a post some time ago, I had never heard of culture whatever it was until I read of the total flop. Someone used that to try nd marginalize the Right for closed-mindedness - Larison I think. Not sure I even bothered to respond, though I may have.

Scott at the League set it up and has been nothing but a competent, amiable fellow in my experience. I have no intention of geting into it with the blog. I was amazed at what I first read and even had to write a friend to find out who ED Kain was.

As for Jamie's return above, no offense, but he can pound sand. I'm not re-visiting what I have repeatedly made clear. I'm not going to be pulled into it again and again. I'm not even going to re-visit old threads. It isn't worth the time or trouble.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Mark,

Yeah, Scott reached out to me too -- he saw "one inning" e-mail debate between Dan and I (I approached Dan by e-mail about that) and suggested we do something on audio. We both accepted.

[E.D. Kain]

Dan - I did go over the top with that post. Mainly I think that some of the digs thrown Conor's way were uncalled for (here and elsewhere). You may disagree. Either way, I retracted a large portion of what I'd written because it was by and large not what I set out to write. I'd rather not make enemies - and I have a propensity to shoot first from time to time and ask questions later, which gets me in trouble as often as not. In any case, the spat between Conor and you (or whatever it is) is really none of my concern. I think Conor's a good guy, and I think that his is definitely a voice worthy of inclusion in the larger conservative debate. Writing him off is a mistake. But that's neither here nor there. You write:

I simply won't permit people who claim to be aligned with the Right, particularly the grassroots, who engage in activities or projects I believe only damage the movement and fuel the Left, without calling them on it, as I did Conor. I don't care what they think if I view it as destructive to our cause.

I think this is a fair statement, but I'd also say that a lot of critics of the mainstream conservative movement believe the same thing. They are arguing that policies within the movement are destructive to conservatism. Beyond that, I think there's little need to worry about the Levin's and Limbaugh's of the world who, after all, have a much larger following, a much taller pedestal, and a much louder megaphone than any of the dissident conservatives out there. They can pretty well take care of themselves.

That being the case, is it really even potentially damaging to the conservative movement to have these dissident conservatives vocalize their concerns with certain policies and/or approaches within the movement itself? Since they aren't likely to actually cause any real damage, then isn't it possible that instead they'll spark much needed internal debate? And if not, why? Is internal debate not needed?

Nobody is denying that there is a problem right - the numbers don't lie, and there's a steep hill to climb - so there must be room somewhere for internal debate and criticism within the movement while still maintaining some sort of unity. That's what Reagan achieved, bringing together the social cons, the defense cons, and the fiscal cons as well as some Democrats and libertarians.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Sorry, that got garbled -- rather, Scott saw the "one inning" debate that Dan and I had on our blogs, which I suggested to Dan in an e-mail. And then Scott asked both of us to debate on audio.

[Mrs. Peperium]

I recall Conor's work vaguely from C11. Frankly, C11 did not appeal to me as I am over 40 and do not reside in the Beltway. After reading Joe Carter's C11 requiem "A Beautiful Mess", I understood that C11 was never meant to appeal to me. They specifically went for the under 40 crowd for writers. And even more frankly, that was their mistake besides blowing through a million dollars in less than six months.

Folks over 40 have something the C11 crowd does not value but ironically, the guy a lot of them voted for (Obama) does - life experience. The most revolting aspect of the entire Conor imbroglio is Conor's complete lack of respect for men older than he. Men with far more gravitas in one pinky than he has in his entire body. He went after Mark Levin because he thought Mark was a soft target. A target upon which he could make a name for himself. (Think of the long in the tooth Letterman needing ratings going after Palin). Well, that's youth (and Letterman) for you. But there's something more there - RSMcCain nailed it - Conor is a punk. Watching him try to intellectually battle back from the hole he dug with his own typing fingers was like watching that video that was floating around the blogosphere last winter...it features some * boys * who had taken over some building of some NY institute of higher learning - when security forces shoved through their ridiculous barricade aside, you could not only hear the sincere fear in their voices but one of the boys saying of the beefy security guys, "They probably drink Corporate water.".

Dan, I'm guessing you drink corporate water too. And I raise a glass of it to you. Cheers!

[mark l.]

fair enough.

you two are the veritable "odd couple"...lemmon/matthau. a credit to the league's selection.

[Dan Riehl]

"dissident conservatives vocalize their concerns with certain policies and/or approaches within the movement itself?"

Look guys, I really only want to say this once again here. I doubt you can find a post where I went after Frum, Dreher, or even Sullivan on policies they support, excepting perhaps Sullivan on his support for gay marriage and certain hate crimes legislation, perhaps, which will not fly with the base and only serve to fracture a coalition the Rs need to win.

Sullivan bashes Christians (christianists in Andy speak) and I attack him for that, because he is attacing them. IE He invites attack by initiating it, but hell, he's allowed. So am I.

While Conor and I disagreed on some policies stuff, mainly on Iraq, none of any of that had anything to do with the subsequent spat. I have made my case very clear. For heaven's sake, I turn the radio off when in the car and Sean is on - he just isn't my thing and I have no idea how he attracts the audience he does. But HE DOES.

There are rants Mark has done - the only one I recall as significant was back during the Dubai Port debate - I thought he was too angry on it. I turned it off. So what?

Some don't like his humor, a great deal of which I find funny - cool. Don't listen. I don't care. But as I said, especially on the heels of the Fairness Doctrine debate which, if the Dems ever do get their way, they will use to shut down the Right's largest avenue to reach millions of people??? With the on going regulatory effort to implement policies under so-called "localizaton" to shut them down anyway?? Are you even aware of that?

Whatever the case, when anyone aligned with the Right begins snipping text "they" don't like and trying to fuel a brush fire of negativity, no matter what their own agenda may be (IE - just tone it down) then all I can conclude is said individual has allowed their own personal dislikes to cloud their judgment and engage in an effort that, to whatever degree, will only hurt the Right) then I am compelled to speak up. And my strong sense of First Amendment protections only fuels that even more.

THAT is the entire extent of my spat with Conor - not his policy views. If thes talkers were truly over the line as determined by the masses of people who vote for conservatives, they would lose audience share and eventually be off the air because the market spoke. THAT is the controlling authority in this instance and no one else. And I can NOT rationalize anyone who claims to have "conservo-libertarian" leanings to think it wise for any one individual to conduct what I would term a witch hunt and smear campaign to alter the content they chose to air.

IMO Conor is letting the "worldly" in his self-defining quote to overrule principles he claims to hold dear. ANd because I believe that, I have and may again call him on it as I see it.

And now I'm done answering and explaining. Have a good night.

[Tim]

"Usually they just collect loose change outside the supermarket..."

That what E.D. "bitty brain" Kain's bowler hat is for.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IlkaW_vRj7Y/R4Ip5UGkpwI/AAAAAAAAAqY/33qAWYq6qBM/s400/Cocktail+Bowler+Hat+18+80+forever21.jpg

[Dan Riehl]

"Dan, I'm guessing you drink corporate water too"

Don't even need a glass, I just put my lips on the tap like any good rube!! ;)

[Ad rem]

Dan.....your instincts are sharp, and the rational well-founded. The only one missing in this sordid tale is Perez Hilton.....or is he? ;-)

[Jamie Lockett]

Just to be clear - Dan you refuse to engage me for no reason I can discern, refuse to answer go back into old threads while damning Conor for the same thing and refuse to answer questions legitimately asked of you.

One cannot assert "well I've answered that and therefore don't need to return to it." People are asking for you to define things because you have yet to make them clear. All this would be fine if you didn't hurl pathetic insults to mask your inability to argue.

P.S. saying "no offense" does not excuse one from being a jackass. Grow the hell up.

[Ad rem]

Maybe Jamie will hold his breath 'til he turns purple?

[E.D. Kain]

Dan - fair enough. Hell, I've criticized Sullivan repeatedly for the Christianist nonsense plenty of times. You make some very good points, and I think you're absolutely correct that a lot of what this boils down to isn't policy, but rather tone. I think that the Levins of the world - the talk radio right - serve a definite function. I also think that conservatives need ambassadors to the center and the center right, because when the perceived image and message of the conservative movement is purely divisive, that loses people. Conversely, when it's indistinguishable from the Left, that loses people too. I think a balance needs to be struck, and at some point this feud between seemingly disparate sides - that was largely born out of the Bush years - needs to draw to a close.

Thanks for the debate, and my apologies again for starting it off on the wrong foot. Like I said, I'm a shoot first kind of guy sometimes. Gets me in trouble. But I'm not going to stick by a stupid statement or a stupid post.

Cheers.

Oh, and Tim, that's really clever. How long did that take you to think up? I mean, really, that just really bowled me over man...

[Dan Riehl]

ED - The issue as I see it isn't a conservative one in terms of the grassroots. The Left has its Stewarts, Mahers, etc - we have radio talkers. The issue, as I see it, rests with the Republican Party. That is the entity that should worry about speaking out to the center you suggest.

That said, I personally believe that if they were more effective in reaching out with a fiscally conservative economic message, a clear vision for foreign policy at least rooted in the conservative view of peace from strength - they'd attract the voters they need. Their messaging has almost always sucked post Reagan - except somewhat w/ Bush in campaign mode.

But I don't believe it is the responsibility of the conservative movment to reach out to the center, any more than it is the responsibility of the Kos Kids on the Democrats side. And this goes back to my distinction between conservative as theory and as a political force.

The ideology is not inherently political, it is inherently philosophic in my view.

[E.D. Kain]

Dan, I couldn't agree more with fiscal sanity. Especially in the age of Obama. That's the message to be sure - these coming deficits are dangerous, and that needs to be made as clear as possible (and I would say, without the socialist meme which seems pretty ineffective these days...).

Also, while I agree that a strong defense agenda needs to be placed forward, it cannot mirror the irrational exuberance of the Bush years. I would say Bush Sr. is a better model for foreign policy.

Here's a question - if it's not the job of movement conservatives to reach out to the center than whose job is it? Or is it anyone's "job" in that sense? And are you defining movement conservatives as the equivalent of the far left Kos Kids or does the movement reach out further than the wings? If that's the case, and the movement is confined to a smaller group of ideologically homogeneous (at least on core issues) members, what are the steps needed to create a wider coalition a la Reagan...?