'Daily Howler' is already taken, right?
I'm finding it difficult to write posts these days. I'm sure part of it is vacation hangover, but the real culprit is the primaries. Trying to express anything substantive about them is practically impossible-- something that's obvious with a glance at pretty much any progressive blog. The campaign coverage is devoid of substance, the press is devoted not to informing the public but in creating their lazy narratives and gossiping about candidates' spouses. And, as always, it pretty much plays out in the MSM as feckless Democrat versus tough, serious Republican. Only this time, it isn't going all that well on the GOP side since all the candidates are frightening or nutty in some very tangible way.
Glenn Greenwald found a way to cover all of that, and add a cherry of racism on top, in his discussion of prominent conservative leaders' and the successes of Barack Obama.
Over at National Review, Jonah Goldberg has a "theory" about what might help Obama win in the general election. After noting that Obama will be "the first serious mainstream black contender for the White House," Goldberg warns (emphasis added):
I think it's worth imagining a certain scenario. Imagine the Democrats do rally around Obama. Imagine the media invests as heavily in him as I think we all know they will if he's the nominee -- and then imagine he loses. I seriously think certain segments of American political life will become completely unhinged. I can imagine the fear of this social unraveling actually aiding Obama enormously in 2008.
I wonder: in Jonah Goldberg's "imagination," which (ahem) "certain segments" of the American population exactly will "become completely unhinged" if Obama loses and thereby spawn "social unraveling"? And who are the people who are going so deeply to fear this "social unraveling" that they vote for Obama just in order to keep those "certain segments" in line and well-behaved?
This actually fits a couple of Republican maxims: A) If they accuse you of it (the whole "liberal PC thought police" routine), they're doing it themselves, and B) the more outrage they express, the more accurate the accusation. Oh, and it's unfathomably retarded. And yes, outraged Republicans, it's hopelessly racist. The dog-whistle racism isn't fooling anyone, no matter what David Brooks would like to think.
He also touches on one of the most under-reported stories of the decade-- the oppressed, white, Christian males flown from D.C. to Florida to deny people the right to have their votes counted in 2000. Which, if memory serves, much of the MSM presented as "regular folks" expressing such a surprising amount of angry indignation that they must be onto something valid.
One thing about Greenwald's post: it has a thousand comments! And I hate to even look at them. Not just because there's going to be plenty of outrage from the aforementioned picked-on, powerless white Christian males (and Michelle Malkin), but because there will undoubtedly be a fair amount of chomping-on-the-bait silliness from liberal commenters. No, I can't bear to look. But I'm sure I will at some point. Sigh.
Glenn Greenwald found a way to cover all of that, and add a cherry of racism on top, in his discussion of prominent conservative leaders' and the successes of Barack Obama.
Over at National Review, Jonah Goldberg has a "theory" about what might help Obama win in the general election. After noting that Obama will be "the first serious mainstream black contender for the White House," Goldberg warns (emphasis added):
I think it's worth imagining a certain scenario. Imagine the Democrats do rally around Obama. Imagine the media invests as heavily in him as I think we all know they will if he's the nominee -- and then imagine he loses. I seriously think certain segments of American political life will become completely unhinged. I can imagine the fear of this social unraveling actually aiding Obama enormously in 2008.
I wonder: in Jonah Goldberg's "imagination," which (ahem) "certain segments" of the American population exactly will "become completely unhinged" if Obama loses and thereby spawn "social unraveling"? And who are the people who are going so deeply to fear this "social unraveling" that they vote for Obama just in order to keep those "certain segments" in line and well-behaved?
This actually fits a couple of Republican maxims: A) If they accuse you of it (the whole "liberal PC thought police" routine), they're doing it themselves, and B) the more outrage they express, the more accurate the accusation. Oh, and it's unfathomably retarded. And yes, outraged Republicans, it's hopelessly racist. The dog-whistle racism isn't fooling anyone, no matter what David Brooks would like to think.
He also touches on one of the most under-reported stories of the decade-- the oppressed, white, Christian males flown from D.C. to Florida to deny people the right to have their votes counted in 2000. Which, if memory serves, much of the MSM presented as "regular folks" expressing such a surprising amount of angry indignation that they must be onto something valid.
One thing about Greenwald's post: it has a thousand comments! And I hate to even look at them. Not just because there's going to be plenty of outrage from the aforementioned picked-on, powerless white Christian males (and Michelle Malkin), but because there will undoubtedly be a fair amount of chomping-on-the-bait silliness from liberal commenters. No, I can't bear to look. But I'm sure I will at some point. Sigh.
posted by Matt Sandwich | 1:42 PM
<< Home