In my latest for the Guardian, I argue that President Obama’s inaugural address succeeded in separating serious conservatives like David Brooks and Peggy Noonan from right-wing loons like Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin. It’s not really about getting conservative support so much as it is expanding the field on which he needs to govern.
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How about a follow-up counterpoint Guardian article, in which you argue that President Obama’s inaugural address succeeded in separating serious liberals like (Phil In The Blank and Square Peg In Round Hole) from left-wing “moonbats” like (Rush of Mary Jane To The Head and Michelle Ma Rijuana)? 😉
And by “serious” you mean conservatives you take “serious” as opposed to conservatives who have certain objective or subjective characteristics which make them “unserious.”
The more conservatives are in the fore and not in the weeds, the greater damage it does to the wilderness dwelling GOP. So good luck to wingnut punditry telling everyone what their eyes didn’t see.
O’Reilly: Yes. I get to decide. In fact, I am the sole arbiter. Sorry if you feel left out.
FYEO O’Reilly – “Dan Kennedy … exercises the blogger’s imperative to bloviate beyond his expertise.”
I don’t disagree with your thesis Dan just your language. “Serious” is a blunt tool to describe the differnce you percieve between these two types of conservative. Sorting out what you mean by that can make for a stronger argument. That is what I meant and I apologize for having, myself, been unclear.
O’Reilly: Here’s a starting point. If you’ve ever muttered darkly about Obama’s birth certificate, or said that we don’t really know if Obama is a Muslim or not, then you have forfeited your right to be taken seriously.I wouldn’t limit it to just those things, but I think that would cover a lot of the ground I’m trying to describe.
I see, conservatives that don’t separate fact from fiction in making political arguments or more accurately don’t care to research the facts if the argument serves their political purposes… not unlike O-FISH-L calling Carolyn Kennedy and anti-Semite.
I think there is something to Paul Mirengoff’s argument that pre-Obama American political disagreements cannot all be explained away as childish. Yuval Levin made basically the same point (I think a valid one) that there are genuinely good reasons for these disagreements. There is nothing immature about two sides taking different stances on a legitimate policy and debating the issue fully. To claim that you are going to somehow transcend this whole decision making process is not only naive, but it would be irresponsible were it even possible.