Sunday, September 19, 2010

CRASH: Speaking The Truth

There has been  a tea-pot tempest in the blogosphere over Delaware Senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell.  Some, including Dan Riehl, seem to have appointed themselves "thought police" regarding revelations or comments from right bloggers and journalists.  That is a VERY disturbing trend.

The very things that make the Journo-listers so dangerous and despicable to anyone who loves this nation OR the ideal of truthfulness OR the idea of a free press and informed electorate are in play in this little dust-up.

Apparently, Riehl (who I often admire) simply cannot abide anyone publishing anything...including facts...that he perceives as detrimental to a conservative's campaign.  He immediately launches into a very personal, and often childish and profane attack on whoever transgresses his rule.

Weekly Standard's Ham Misleadingly Plays The RINO Viktum Card Over O'Donnell

Given that the Weekly Standard led the charge in trying to destroy Christine O'Donnell, it's little surprise it seems to have now gone to Mary Katherine Ham to distract from the real argument. She's using an Allahpundit-like playing of the RINO viktum card to do it. He is regularly singing the same sad old song at Hot Air.
As I said it yesterday and I'm going to keep on saying, in response to this superficial, if not self-centered, view of the issue - this isn't about pundits being so called RINOs.
This isn't and never was about purity, Mary Katherine or Allahpundit. If they genuinely believe that, they should try to employ a deeper reasioning, or at least try to get over themselves. The broader composition and balance of the GOP in Washington is far more important than what any one of us thinks, or supports politically as an individual.
Like the Journo-listers, apparently Riehl expects bloggers and journalists on the right to suppress facts or opinion for "the greater good".  That is outrageously wrong, and for the same reasons it was outrageously wrong for the Collectivists to do it.  It is EXACTLY the same urge at work.  I certainly agree with him about the good being sought, but deplore his approach to seeking it.

That said, I agree with Prof. Jacobson when he says:
Yet some of our leading bloggers and pundits are on a mission to prove that they were right, and that O'Donnell was not the best pick.  To that end, they regurgitate every snippet of gossip and every tape from the 1990s without context or reflection, much less waiting until the O'Donnell campaign has a chance to respond.
To the extent that is being done, and for those motives, that reeks.  It can and should be deplored in writing.

But where stuff that could remotely be injurious to O'Donnell (or other candidates) is being reported by right bloggers or journalists, with context and reflection and a response (if one can be had), that is right, proper and the American way.  IF it actually DOES hurt O'Donnell (or any other candidate) that is how the game is played.  We cannot fear the truth...or even the facts.  Nor can we ignore them.  Isn't that how Obama got elected?

Which is why I have to disagree with Prof. Jacobson:
Now that the primary is over, so too is the Buckley Rule.  Please take notice that the Lombardi Rule is in effect:
“The object is to win fairly, by the rules – but to win.” 
So [names of conservative blogs and pundits still dumping on O'Donnell deleted], get over it and get to work defeating Democratic rubber-stamp hack Chris Coons.
Because, as Hillyer says, "[w]e are fighting for our country here."
And winning that fight in November is all that matters.
I'm going to assume that Prof. Jacobson simply said more than he meant in that last line, because it disagrees with the Lombardi rule he quoted, and with who I understand Jacobson to be.  Winning in November is not all that matters.  If it is, we've already lost.


  1. You need to take extra care in reffering to St. Vincent of Lambeau. As one who in his wonder years sat on a steel bleacher at -15 degrees in Lambeau Cathedral [genuflect here] and witnessed the Packer miracle, I am bound to protect the legacy. [If there were a single "Lombardi Rule", It would more likely be, "Winning isn't everything, it's the ONLY thing" - the umbrella under which the principles cited fall.

    That said, dead on Rags. Conservatives are turning on eachother like cannibals, and unless someone gets control of the message and restores civility, they are gearing up to defeat themselves. We have met the enemy, and he is us.

  2. And we CANNOT win by becoming what we oppose.

    We might take political power, but at the cost of losing ourselves. That is WAY too high a price, IMNHO.

    O'Donnell can win, and she can win clean. We don't need anyone in the conservative camp enforcing a speech code to get her elected.

  3. I believe conservatism is morally right and liberalism is morally wrong. I will therefore never risk "becoming what i oppose", as i oppose wrong and support right. Honest bias, earnest work, openness and energy are called for. Riehl displays those. An artifice of trying to be SEEN as somehow fair is simply not important. Conservatism IS fairness. Leftism is vile and dreadful, as history ALWAYS shows. I think mirengoff and others forget what is at stake and how quickly we are LOSING what we care about. DEFEND it! Stand for it! Or lose it. Christine O is better for america than Coomunist.

    SAY SO!!! Instead of handicapping it like some sporting event.

  4. Is suppressing information a conservative value?

  5. You're in the wrong here, Ragspierre. No one is acting like thought police. No one is suppressing information.

    The only point is that Castle is out of the picture now. O'Donnell is the only choice left. Stop raggin' on her. Unless of course you think Coons would better serve America.

  6. Since when is 'not repeating,' or 'not jumping for joy over' anywhere near equivalent to 'suppressing'?

    Never, you say?

    Thought so.

    But keep plucking that chicken.

  7. blogagog, you find me raggin' on O'Donnell? That would be weird, since I sent her money.

  8. ThomasD;

    How did the journo-listers suppress information?

    By calling people names, for one, remember? (Racists)

    Like Dan's been doing for days.

    Or am I mistaken?