Wednesday, March 29, 2006

The Conservative Hall of Shame

One of the cornerstones that differentiates true conservatives from the loonie left (and a lot of the loonie right, too) is that conservatives don't follow the maxim "my guy, right or wrong." When we see wrong we demand justice - even if it means putting someone who we thought was intellectually in-line with us in jail. Witness Cunningham from California. War hero? Absolutely. Staunch conservative? So we thought. Someone we'll defend? Not beyond due process. He's confessed, and now it's time for him to pay his penalty.

I bring this up to point out two other conservatives that really have to be re-evaluated: Sean Hannity and Mark Levin.

Another cornerstone of conservatism is that we base our reasoning on facts, while liberals base whatever it is you call their mental process on visceral feelings, tea leaves, and how they were treated by their parents when they were young.

A couple of nights ago Alec Baldwin blew Sean Hannity off with very little warning. He was supposed to go on Sean's show to defend his insane rhetoric re: the Bush Administration, but at the last second he declined, leaving Sean having to fill time. It was an extremely unprofessional thing to do, but this is Alec Baldwin we're talking about. As my mentor once taught me, "what do you expect from a pig, but a grunt?"

From Sean what I expected was professional taunting, pointing out to his listeners that Alec had left him in the lurch. Pointing out that Alec wouldn't defend his shrill rhetoric, because it's insane. Pointing out that Alec is still living in the USA, etc. That's fair and fact-based. What Alec did stunk.

What Sean did, however, was worse. He confronted Alec on another talk-radio show a few days later. That, unto itself, is fine - but Sean wasn't looking to have a debate. In fact, he brought "The Great One," Mark Levin in with him. To argue anything beyond this being designed from the beginning as a frontal assault is ludicrous.

Sean and Mark are now gloating over how they "got him good." If by that they mean "we have stooped to the level of the ignorant left," they're exactly right. They didn't forfeit the Moral High Ground with a fight; they fled from it.

Here are some of the real "gotchas" that flew back and forth between Baldwin, his host (I don't know the person's name), Levin, and Hannity:

"Cabin Boy,"
"Butt Boy,"
"You have a two-digit IQ,"
"construction worker from Long Island,"
"Hey, why is your wife p*ssed off at you?"
"are you 40 or 50 pounds overweight?"
"Brokeback Alec."

I might be slightly off with some of the specifics, but at least 80% of those terms are verbatim.

Now they're fighting over who called who the worse names, and couching it in a pathetic attempt to call it a "debate." It was, and is, pathetic. What's more pathetic is that each side is claiming that the other is pathetic, when they both are. They're playing edited versions of it, to "make their case." Brilliant.

What's even MORE revolting is that they are trying to show how one side is morally bankrupt because of the *choice* of slurs that they chose. Evidently slurring someone as a former construction worker from Long Island is worse than slurring someone as homosexual. I see.

Loyalty to a side is one thing, but not at the expense of common sense and decency, and I'm afraid what Hannity and Levind did crosses the line. POLE VAULTS across it, in fact.

Had Hannity the common sense to now say "you know, I was angry and I shouldn't have confronted him. As a Christian man I gave a horrible example. Not only didn't I turn the other cheek, I went looking for trouble and I am sorry," his stock would soar. Instead, he has forfeited any claim he has made that conservatives debate on facts while liberals slur.

Show me one phrase from above that can charitably be called a "debate issue," and I'll hold up a mirror and show you a Kook-Aid (spelling intentional) drinker.


Post a Comment

<< Home