David Kirkpatrick

May 28, 2010

The right v. the ACLU

Conor Friedersdorf has a great post at True/Slant on one example of how the right (wrongly) vilifies the ACLU. That’s one thing I’ve always found very, very strange. The ACLU and the Cato Institute walk in virtual lockstep on practically every civil liberties issue. Since civil liberties are the sole focus of the ACLU and Cato is a decidedly right-leaning (actually libertarian) think tank, it seems a bit strange to try and label the ACLU as so anti-right wing. Personally I’m a pretty big fan of both organizations (you can find evidence of that in my blogroll).

From the link:

It’s almost as if the conservative media complex is systematically misleading its audience about the nature of the ACLU, so much so that right-of-center commentators across the Internet spontaneously mocked the organization for failing to intervene on the right side of this case, despite it being precisely the kind of case where the ACLU reliably does exactly what the critics themselves would want.

Perhaps the confusion comes from listening to talk radio hosts and reading blogs that cast all of American politics as a grand struggle between the left and the right, liberals and conservatives, tyranny and liberty. The rank and file, rightly judging that the ACLU operates on the left, automatically concludes that they are the enemy in any case worth caring about.

Awhile back, Jonah Goldberg doubted whether or not there were actually compelling examples of epistemic closure on the right. Well, there you go: an information loop so faulty in explaining the ACLU to its audience that even a blog called Stop the ACLU doesn’t understand what’s going on.

(Hat tip: the Daily Dish)

October 21, 2009

Pat Buchanan at it again

Buchanan is a wildcard as a pundit. He has a lot of very good, very serious ideas — and then he drops a load like this WorldNetDaily piece. Buchanan’s extreme prejudice (undeniable and very public) comes to the surface on a fairly regular basis and essentially undermines any serious points he adds to the overall political circus. Even people who agree with Pat on nine-out-of-ten topics are forced to shut their eyes and hold their noses when he cuts loose with the beleaguered white man act.

The title for the linked piece? “Traditional Americans are losing their nation.” And to make certain you don’t get confused about who these “traditional Americans” are Pat gives you this, “Neither they nor their kids ever benefited from affirmative action, unlike Barack and Michelle Obama.”

And a column like this does the GOP no favors. The party really doesn’t need any more help being defined as that old, white and cranky.

About those Oath Keepers? I truly hope they are just one more marginal group the right wing media is fluffing, because if a large number of ex-military and law enforcement are ready to take up arms against the United States of America however many hinges the crazies have to work with just lost a few supporting  posts.

From the link:

In the brief age of Obama, we have had “truthers,” “birthers,” tea party activists and town-hall dissenters.

Comes now, the “Oath Keepers.” And who might they be?

Writes Alan Maimon in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Oath Keepers, depending on where one stands, are “either strident defenders of liberty or dangerous peddlers of paranoia.”

Formed in March, they are ex-military and police who repledge themselves to defend the Constitution, even if it means disobeying orders. If the U.S. government ordered law enforcement agencies to violate Second Amendment rights by disarming the people, Oath Keepers will not obey.

“The whole point of Oath Keepers is to stop a dictatorship from ever happening here,” says founding father Stewart Rhodes, an ex-Army paratrooper and Yale-trained lawyer. “My focus is on the guys with the guns, because they can’t do it without them.

“We say if the American people decide it’s time for a revolution, we’ll fight with you.”

March 17, 2009

The GOP’s circular firing squad …

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , — David Kirkpatrick @ 12:31 am

… continues apace.

Ramesh Ponnuru laments:

That’s the approach that Jeffrey Kuhner takes to intra-conservative polemics. He attacks David Frum, David Brooks, Ross Douthat, Reihan Salam, Newt Gingrich, and me. We’re supposedly a bunch of Limbaugh-hating, Giuliani-supporting “elitists” who want to “abandon” the defense of the unborn. Yup, that’s me, all right. We’re also “effete” and “amateur Machiavellians.” Kuhner goes after Frum for being soft on immigration, which he isn’t; and he suggests that voters don’t care about health care. It is difficult to exaggerate how stupid the whole piece is. Apparently Kuhner has a regular column in the Washington Times.

March 12, 2009

Contrary to right wing noisemakers …

Filed under: Media, Politics — Tags: , , — David Kirkpatrick @ 4:56 pm

… the United States is not currently a “center right” body politic.

August 30, 2008

Lipstick on a pig …

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , — David Kirkpatrick @ 2:15 pm

… even if the pig in question is an ex-beauty queen.

Reading the right wing reaction to the Palin pick is sad and embarrassing for the most part.

Check it out for yourself. I have plenty of right, center-right, links in my blogroll. The Corner and Pajamas Media are two great kicking off points.

If you really want a kickstart, here’s some Corner-on-Corner fisking. David Frum in the reality corner of the ring and Mark Levin holding the makeup bag.

I’m sure somewhere Bill Buckley is proud of what he wrought.