« NC-7 Ilario Pantano for Congress and the Primary Losers Who Won't Accept Defeat | Main | Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ »

Submitted For Your Consideration

I've only been casually following the foofaraw surrounding the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, and that half-an-ear hasn't really heard too much to grab my attention. In cases like this, I tend to just go with my gut instinct, my first reaction -- and in this case I have an utterly unsubstantiable vibe that she'd be OK on the Court. Obviously, I'm not too rooted in this opinion, and could be swayed by something suitably persuasive, but for now I'm going with my instincts.

Then I read Ace's piece on Supreme Court nominations, and that got me angry -- and thinking. Why the hell should Obama's nominee get an easy ride?

I remember the nomination process of Clarence Thomas. The Democrats put that man through hell. Reporters even obtained records of his video rentals.

More recently, I recall the nomination of John Roberts. When he was introduced, his wife had an instant of a facial reaction when their son Jack was mentioned. Left-wingers immediately went on a tear, speculating that the lad was probably gay and a source of shame for the parents. When that theory fell apart (it was soon discovered that the flaming little fruit was all of four years old), the New York Times tried a new angle. They discovered he was adopted, and tried to get the adoption records opened. No, not because they had some inclinations that there was something fishy about it, but purely because they thought there might be something worth digging up in there.

So, with those sterling examples of how Supreme Court nominees are treated, why the hell should Kagan get the kid glove treatment?

The Democrats are already launching pre-emptive strikes against anyone who might say "boo" to her. Kagan's affinity for softball is a major part of what the public knows about her (it's certainly been hyped by her supporters who would rather steer attention away from her judicial philosophy and past accomplishments), so the Wall Street Journal ran a picture of her playing softball.

A WOMAN playing SOFTBALL! Why, that's the same as calling her a lesbian! After all, what kind of heterosexual woman would play softball? Haven't you heard that nasty slur, "Diamond Dykes?"

Yeah, me neither. 'Cuz I just made it up, I think.

The "female athletics are dominated by lesbians" myth has been around a long, long time. Softball, tennis, golf -- all are supposed to be hotbeds of predatory gay women.

Me, I wouldn't know. I have a tremendous apathy towards sports in general. But really, who cares?

The point is, hardly anyone is discussing Kagan's sexuality in the context of her qualifications for the bench. But that's not keeping Obama supporters from trying to push their little fantasy that that's at the core of opposition to her.

It's reminiscent of how the left treats the Tea Party movement. There, the "sin" they're pushing as the core of the movement isn't homophobia, but racism. In both cases, they're taking something that's a factor for a very tiny fraction of the group and pushing it as the unifying factor.

And why are they doing it? Because they think that that's a fight they can win. If they can make the fight about homophobia or racism, then they have a better shot at victory.

That it's a lie is utterly irrelevant to them. What matters is that they win.

But back to Kagan. She's in line for a position that she will hold for several decades, in all likelihood, and hold major influence on the lives of all Americans for those decades. Before we grant her that tremendous power, we should scrutinize her very, very carefully and find out as much as we can about her philosophies, her beliefs, her formative experiences, her opinions, her past words and deeds.

Whether she prefers "innies" or "outies," "pointers" or "setters," doesn't enter into it. And we should treat those who want to make that an issue with the contempt and derision they deserve.

And while she has no adopted children whose records we could poke through, I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't have a history of video rentals or library books borrowed we could examine for insights. After all, it's already been established as fair game...


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/39061.

Comments (76)

Agreed. The left are like ... (Below threshold)
mag:

Agreed. The left are like serial killers. They kill brutely without any conscious and yet when they were being judged/sentenced/executed they claim unusual and cruel punishment. That justice had no right to kill them no matter how horrible their crimes were.

I say go after her with everything they have, like Jay said she can be decades on the bench. Sometimes you have to get down and dirty.

The tactics of the Left hav... (Below threshold)
Eric:

The tactics of the Left have been from the gutter for decades. That doesn't mean that we should eat food from the gutter too.

It is tempting to hoist the Democrats by their own petard and do to them what they do to us. But it only continues to drive the state of politics downward as both parties try to out do each other in sleeziness.

Jay your first reaction is to act honorably. Do you think acting dishonorably will teach the Democrats anything? Do you think acting dishonorably will make you a better person?

I'm not suggesting we should rubber stamp her nomination, but she can be tested in the Senate without resorting to sleeze, like the Democrats do.

I disgree with the philosophy "Bork on to others as others would Bork onto us."

Eric, Ace's idea is not tha... (Below threshold)

Eric, Ace's idea is not that we should stoop to the Democrats' level, but lean heavily in that direction. Because if we don't incur some kind of penalty for their own conduct, they have no incentive to act more decently.

And it's a compelling argument. You have idealism on your side, but his has a compelling pragmatism to it.

J.

Look, if we did block Kagan... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

Look, if we did block Kagan, the next nominee will be worse - check the short list - because Obama knows there is no way we could mount two successful filibusters in a row. So, suck it up - this is the cost of the conservatives and independents who stayed home in 2008 because McCain was . . . well, McCain. Elections have consequences. Obama is going to have at least one more pick, and it will probably be the one we need to block. Save the nukes for when they might help.

So where did this myth that... (Below threshold)
epador:

So where did this myth that one can't mount two successful filibusters in a row come from? Kos?

If the thesis paper from th... (Below threshold)
epador:

If the thesis paper from the 80's is real, that's enough to torpedo this nomination and add a BIG socialist stain to Barry's Administration that will be a lot harder for them to wash out.

A noble effort, but I'm bot... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

A noble effort, but I'm bothered by something.

We're living with the result of electing Obama present without honestly examining his lack of experience, when we had every indication that he was a hard left community organizer with a penchant for utopian, ultra-partisan thinking. To this day, his entire presidency has been driven by narrow-minded, get-even politics. He never has risen above it, and 20 years from now, it will be the hallmark of his failure as a president. He has never understood that he is president of the entire United States, not just the titular head of the left wing of the Democrat party.

The left-leaning media bought the whole package and helped push him into power. Today's news story on Drudge is Obama saying "No, you can't have the keys back." His impact on the health and welfare of the country is appalling.

That's what happens when you give a public figure a pass. Personally, I don't have strong feelings about Kagan either way. I couldn't care less if she's a womanizer, like so many in Congress. What somebody does in the dark is of no concern to me.

But the real issue is that she is completely without judicial experience, she has no real history, and she has a lifetime as a liberal academic, selected by a partisan president primarily because he believes she will deliver predictably liberal opinions on the Court.

I'm not swayed by the argument that she hired three conservatives at Harvard. She also hired 47 liberals. I think it's fair to argue that that's how she will rule in the Supreme Court - about 6 per cent conservative, and 94% liberal. Is that what's most important for a Supreme Court Justice?

It should be cause for some concern. The job of a Supreme Court Justice should be about evaluating legal argument in light of the Constitution, fairly and without favor, not delivering legal wins for the left. Her nomination has a lot more to say about Obama's nasty partisanship than her worth as a justice, but we're going to have to live with her for a very long time, and she has had some troubling things to say about constitutional issues over the years, in particular issues related to the first and second amendments.

Should we spend our time going through her laundry hamper and her garbage cans? Hell, no. What we should be concerned about is her judicial thinking. Will she rule on cases according to the actual constitution, or will she be smearing around the constitutional ink the way that so many liberals want to do?

If, as I suspect, she's just another "living Constitution" type, she should not be confirmed, because her job is to defend the Constitution, not just the Democrat party.

Call me a skeptic.

Remember what Obama arrange... (Below threshold)

Remember what Obama arranged to have done to Jack Ryan, while pretending that he would have nothing to do with the release of the divorce records. He let his minions do the dirty work.

JT, I still think going sle... (Below threshold)
Eric:

JT, I still think going sleezy even a little bit is wrong for several reasons.

1) It is sleezy, unethical and dishonorable. Two wrongs still don't make a right. If we give up doing the right thing how are we any better than the Democrats?

2) Us going sleezy won't teach the Democrats anything. They don't view THEIR tactics as sleezy. In their minds they are the righteous standing up to evil (us). They will ONLY view it as same old same old evil Republicans and that will justify them to do the same again in the future.

Cops don't punish bank robbers by robbing banks themselves. If you want to teach them something, teach them that judicial nominations can be done honorably and without the sleeze. Behaving the same way they behave doesn't give them incentive to act differently, it reinforces the behavior.

Its like being a parent. If one child is hitting another child, you don't fix that problem by spanking.

3) Blocking her for the sake of blocking her feeds into the perception of Republicans as the "Party of No". Obama is NEVER EVER going to nominate a Conservative justice. But we need to be careful of what the alternatives are if we block her for no good reason. There are a lot of other Justices left and a lot of time left on Obama's clock. Obama can go very far to the Left.

Again I am not saying that her record shouldn't be examined or that she shouldn't be grilled, only that it be done in a respectful and honorable way. Pretty much the opposite of how the Democrats approach these things. See Bork, Thomas, Roberts and Alito

Why not make the case that ... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Why not make the case that the Democrats' usual M.O. is to smear, slime, fling poo and denigrate, while stating that the GOP won't stoop to such 5-year-old tactics?

Oh, wait: This is the GOP we're talking about, the party that's 90% of the time ready to castrate itself to avoid being perceived as "mean."

Eric, I'm not calling out f... (Below threshold)

Eric, I'm not calling out for a full-bore, "stop her at any cost" assault, just a roughing up. Not a smackdown, a bitch-slap. A wake-up call to the Left that they can't keep getting away with waging all-out warfare on Republican nominees while their own get the kid glove treatment.

This could be a "teachable moment."

Damn, that phrase has potential. I just might run with that...

J.

No compromise. No quarter. ... (Below threshold)
Michael K:

No compromise. No quarter.

J, you are the one referenc... (Below threshold)
Eric:

J, you are the one referencing Ace (who is also one of my favorite blogs). But I still disagree with this...

I think most of the time I personally fall on the Dirty/Tit for Tat side. I endorse the exact same level of fairness and kind dealings towards my political opponents that they would extend to me -- that is to say, virtually none whatsoever, and I think I'll continue having this tendency until the left begins to start showing some trepidations about destroying inconvenient persons.

I don't think you stop bad behavior by demonstrating the same bad behavior.

The Republicans must stand ... (Below threshold)
RickZ:

The Republicans must stand up to Kagan's nomination, whether successful or not. They rolled for Sotomayor, who is an extrememly unqualified 'wise Latina'. People need to quit worrying about who would be Obama's pick should Kagan fail. That is for later. In the here and now, though, Kagan is the one up for the nomination, and is the one who must be stopped due to her lightweight background, her no judicial experience, AND her marxism.

Who cares if Republicans are labelled/libelled the party of 'NO!'? The Tea Parties are proving that 'NO!' is just what many people want to see and hear from Government, the majority in fact want that. Stand and fight, tooth and nail, over everything this Adminsitration does, over any candidate this Adminsitration proposes for any position (because they will be elite university clone marxists). You can't win if you don't fight. Just like some primaries recently held threw out incumbents across the country, November starts right here, right now by fighting this nomination.

Eric, it's the endless stru... (Below threshold)

Eric, it's the endless struggle between idealism and pragmatism. And as noble and right as the idealism is, it doesn't always work.

If an idealist is being abused, and there is no penalty exacted on the abuser, then there is no reason for the abuser to stop.

There HAS to be a way to punish the abuser, to deter further abuses. If that means using some of the abuser's own tactics against them, then so be it.

J.

Why not just demand to smel... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

Why not just demand to smell her panties?

My advice: Keep your powde... (Below threshold)
James H:

My advice: Keep your powder dry on this one. You don't want to turn every single SCOTUS nomination into a partisan deathmatch. This one's really not that controversial.

There HAS to be a ... (Below threshold)
Eric:
There HAS to be a way to punish the abuser, to deter further abuses. If that means using some of the abuser's own tactics against them, then so be it.

Your assumption here is fatally flawed. Punishment comes from someone with the authority to exact punishment. The two parties don't have that power over one another. Instead their behavior is more like two kids hitting each other, screaming "he hit me first" and thinking they are punishing the other.

The way to punish politicians is at the ballot box and the ultimate authority is the voter. See Bob Bennett and Alan Mollahan. We are not going to sway the voters by acting like children ourselves.

If you want revenge for the behavior of the Democrats, remember the old Klingon saying, "Vengence is a dish best served cold." It is very cold in November.

Thought about it, Adrian, b... (Below threshold)

Thought about it, Adrian, but I didn't see any way to pry them away from you.

James, who knows when there will be another Supreme Court nominee? There HAS to be some pushback on this one, some reminder that the Democrats have been playing by an entirely different rulebook than they've demanded be followed for their own nominees.

Again, I'm not calling for a full-blown war. Just a few shots across the bow.

Ever heard the story of the farmer who was hitting the mule with the two by four? When he was asked why he was beating the mule, he said he wasn't abusing it -- just trying to get its attention.

That's what needs to happen here. We need to get their attention. We don't need to or even want to kill the mule, but we do need to get its attention.

J.

Why not just deman... (Below threshold)
Eric:
Why not just demand to smell her panties?

Adrian, the point is not to behave like a Democrat.

Ever heard the sto... (Below threshold)
Eric:
Ever heard the story of the farmer who was hitting the mule with the two by four? When he was asked why he was beating the mule, he said he wasn't abusing it -- just trying to get its attention.

You forgot the elephant that is acting like the mule and expecting the mule to behave better as a result.

Remember the definition of insanity.

Kagan is as qualified for t... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Kagan is as qualified for the Supreme Court as Obama is to be president......er...hold on......

"The point is, hardly an... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

"The point is, hardly anyone is discussing Kagan's sexuality in the context of her qualifications for the bench. But that's not keeping Obama supporters from trying to push their little fantasy that that's at the core of opposition to her. "

Check out the photo caption contest. A large number of the captions submitted relate to labeling Kagan a lesbian.

Here's one that received a lot of votes.

"You're the perfect choice, so representative of the average American woman. Never married, no kids, you think boys are icky, killing babies at will...confirmation should be a walk in the park."

and

Arlen:

"I used to be a republican."


Elena: "I used to be a man."

and

Arlen: I knew a guy that could pull his penis this high.

Kagan: I can only pull my penis this far... and still can't see it over my belly

And of course you spent numerous paragraphs talking about Kagan's sexuality - an excuse to spread the smear further like a good little republican toadie.

But I know that you aren't homophobic, Jay. In fact you've frequently eloquently stated a compassion and caring for Gay Americans, Jay - and you're to be commended. As a single, unmarried male with the name "Jay Tea" I'm sure it's heart warming for gay Americans to see you stand up for them and support them so strongly.

lol.

You go, Jay *snap!

lol.

Eric, Justice Sotomayor was... (Below threshold)

Eric, Justice Sotomayor was treated respectfully by Republicans.

Justices Ginsburg and Breyer were handled decently.

Roberts, Alito? Not so much.

Eric, I submit that your way is the "insane" one. "Borking" -- even a partial Borking -- of Kagan would be the thing not tried before.

J.

Oh, Lee, you're on to us. O... (Below threshold)

Oh, Lee, you're on to us. Our soooper-seekrit plot to derail Kagan is based on people making cheap jokes in a caption contest. Oh, noes, we're ruined!

Let's see... you've failed epicaLEE at "exposing" me as a liar. You've failed epicaLEE at your laughable attempts at amateur psychology. Now you're failing epicaLEE at your old game of implying that I'm gay.

Just for the record, I'm not gay. And even if I was, I'd convert back to being straight just to avoid the slightest chance that I'd fulfill your Larry Sinclair fantasies that you apparently have about me.

So, what's next in your repertoire of tricks to avoid actually discussing issues, and instead considering your personal (albeit laughable) crusade against me? Do you have a fourth one, or is it back through the cycle of the same three ones over and over again?

J.

Eric, I submit tha... (Below threshold)
Eric:
Eric, I submit that your way is the "insane" one. "Borking" -- even a partial Borking -- of Kagan would be the thing not tried before.


Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor and said,

Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is--and is often the only--protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.

So now you look to emulate Ted Kennedy and his treatment of Robert Bork. To paraphrase Joe Welch, "Have you no sense of decency, sir?"

You know reading the argume... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

You know reading the arguments here and Ace's article reminds me of the Geneva Conventions as applied to the war on terror. The terrorists don't follow them, but we do and thus put ourselves at great disadvantage.

I'm not sure where I stand on this yet. Eric makes good points, but so do Jay and Ace.

(P.S. I apologize to any terrorists I may have offended by comparing them to the Democrats.)

Goodness, she wants our gun... (Below threshold)
Don L:

Goodness, she wants our guns and an Obama civilian army's waiting behind cap and trade, and amnesty and making official the veto power of the new union czar.

And Lee Ward, how typical o... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

And Lee Ward, how typical of a bigot like you to consider discussing someone homosexuality or lack thereof to be a "smear". Go back to the 18th century where you belong.

Eric, I respect your positi... (Below threshold)

Eric, I respect your position. And I respect you for taking it. But I disagree.

I think it's not only possible to use some of the Democrats' tactics against them, but absolutely necessary in this case. Because until they are given a solid reason to stop doing it themselves.

Think of it as how to deal with a bully. Sometimes confronting the bully, and meeting his force with force, is the only solution. And yes, it is using the bully's own tactics.

But it works. And it doesn't make the abused one a bully.

J.

Sample question for Ms. Kag... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

Sample question for Ms. Kagan:

"What do you think about when you masturbate?"

Hey Jay - how many of your ... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Hey Jay - how many of your sockpuppets are gay?

"John Locke" - was that sockpuppet gay?

How about "bunnythief"? Were you pretending to be gay when you used that sockpuppet name?

What about "Hamish" - were you channeling a gay man when you used that sockpuppet?

I don't have time to ,look up the other sockpuppet names you used - but how many of them were gay, Jay?

lol. You being a 40 year old unmarried male - it takes a lot of guts for you to stand up for gay Americans, Jay, in the face of your largely homophobic and bigoted readership. Huzzah, Jay *snap!

(your secret is safe with me, Jay)

lol

I think, once, a long time ... (Below threshold)

I think, once, a long time ago, Lee was able to actually discuss a topic.

Now, he just sits around and fantasizes about me, trying new ways to get my attention.

Had I pigtails, he'd be plotting to dip them in an inkwell.

It's almost flattering, in a creepy stalker sort of way.

J.

Think of it as how... (Below threshold)
Eric:
Think of it as how to deal with a bully. Sometimes confronting the bully, and meeting his force with force, is the only solution. And yes, it is using the bully's own tactics.

I agree that it is better to stand up to a bully than to cower in fear. But I don't think your analogy is valid in this case.

This is not about confronting a bully, this is about becoming a bully ourselves. The object being bullied is a specific person not a Party.

You wouldn't be standing up to the Democrats you would be bullying a person who has the temerity to be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If some guy hits your child, your solution is not to punch him in the chin, your solution here is to hit his kid instead.

So how are you any better than the other guy?

Glad to see you're not lyin... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Glad to see you're not lying again, as you have in the past, and denying that you used those names, Jay.

John Locke
Hamish
bunnythief

By my count you used 3 or 4 more, bringing the total up to around 7 or 8. at least - those are the one I know about - the ones that got you banned from Wizbang Blue TWICE - new record!

Good boy, Jay - even if you haven't the guts to admit outright that you used all of those sockpuppets at least now you aren't continuing to lie and deny it.

Lee:Could you do m... (Below threshold)
James H:

Lee:

Could you do me a personal favor and please SHUT UP!! Every single damn thread I've seen you in, you show up and try to settle an old score with Jay over Wizbang Blue.

Get over it.

And, Jay, sorry to say this, but that goes for you, too. Every time you poke him back, it gives him a little validation. Is he really worht the effort? The answer, in case you're wondering, is no.

Lee, it's been almost a yea... (Below threshold)

Lee, it's been almost a year since Kevin fired your ass and shut down Blue. Have you ever thought about looking into just why that happened? Your own personal failings?

Nah. Instead, you wanna keep porking that chicken.

The only thing worth discussing about Blue is just how badly you screwed it up. It's a textbook case of how to take a blog that had all the ingredients to succeed, and can still be run into the ground when a raving sociopath asserts total power, and goes unchallenged.

J.

"Could you do me a perso... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

"Could you do me a personal favor and please SHUT UP!! Every single damn thread I've seen you in, you show up and try to settle an old score with Jay over Wizbang Blue. "

I'm doing so for three reasons. (1) Jay has repeatedly lied about his use of sockpuppets on Wizbang Blue, claiming he only did it once when inf act he used 7 or 8 different names over a period of several years, and (2) Jay has repeatedly called me a liar for claiming he used multiple sockpuppets on Wizbang Blue and I'm entitled to respond to that smear, and (3) Jay has lied about the reasons he and others were banned from Wizbang Blue - again, repeatedly.

And he's done so in a response to practically every single comment I post on Wizbang - even when my comment has nothing to do with him or his pathos.

He insists on lying every single day - so I'm inclined to respond every single day to his repeated lies.

I understand your sentiment, James - but clearly Jay's need to lie is pathological - he can't stop himself. He literally cannot stop himself from lying.

Watch - he won't be able to stop.
depp=true

Eric -I understand... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Eric -

I understand where you're coming from, but the other side has already demonstrated that they will obey no ethical boundaries, no rules, and what's important to them is that they WIN by whatever means. If it involves smear tactics, that's fine. If it involved lying, that's fine. 'Fake but Accurate' memos from the early '70s done on a laser printer w/Word - that's fine.

As P. Bunyan said, the idea of something like the Geneva Conventions is fine, but what do you do when your opponent not only doesn't observe them, but goes out of his way to violate as many of them as possible?

What's being done isn't getting the desired results. It's time to change tactics.

Just anothe... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Just another of Jay's lies... but watch, he won't stop there - he can't stop. He's a pathological liar.

Oh, hell, Lee - I used sock... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Oh, hell, Lee - I used sockpuppets on the Blue also, because you were banning anyone who dared disagree with you.

You got fired from the Blue because YOU killed it.

Jay Tea, Lee:Why d... (Below threshold)
James H:

Jay Tea, Lee:

Why don't both of you stop? Stop with the accusations of sock puppetry. Stop rehashing Wizbang Blue. Stop accusing each other of lying, cheating, or anything. Just stop.

Wizbang threads would be quite a bit more readable, quite frankly, if you two would stop going at it. And instead of dropping the fight, you're behaving like four-year-olds. "He did X!!" "He did Y!!!" "I won't stop 'cuz he started it!!!" Just stop. Both of you.

JLaw: Let's not encourage ... (Below threshold)
James H:

JLaw: Let's not encourage them, please.

James H,Amen.<... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

James H,
Amen.

I think we can all agree Lee is douche even if we discount his time over at Blue.

JLawson, James, SCSI:... (Below threshold)

JLawson, James, SCSI:

Vox populi, vox dei.

J.

James H has perfectly summa... (Below threshold)
Eric:

James H has perfectly summarized my entire thesis. Thank you James.

Lee and Jay are acting like the Democrats and Republicans. Sparring over every trivial little tit for every trivial little tat, and getting off topic.

The country is in a mess. Acting like children in the back seat of the car isn't going to solve the problems of the country.

JLawson, you get no argument from me about how unethical the Democrats have become. If we throw our values out the window how are we any better than them?

Don't be tempted to lose your own morals and ethics just to get even.

Crazy idea here...</... (Below threshold)

Crazy idea here...

Hey, Eric, here's a real-world practicum for your argument. What should I do about Lee Ward?

I swear, I'm not doing this as any kind of mockery of you. I am actually curious how your side of the argument (which, I repeat, I respect tremendously, but don't think it applies universally, and not in this case) would suggest dealing with his abuse of our hospitality.

Rebut him?

Ban him?

Ignore him?

Exercise editorial prerogative on his comments?

I'm not saying I will follow your recommendation, but I am curious as to how you would deal with it.

J.

Good question. Let me thin... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Good question. Let me think about it over lunch and get back to you.

Simple: Disemvowel every da... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

Simple: Disemvowel every damned post he makes.

You'll get no complaint from me over his hurt feelings or his delicate rights of free speech.

He adds nothing to the conversation whatsoever, not even the redeeming value of a contrary opinion. He's just plain unpleasant to read. I don't even bother any more.

Let him keep on posting as much as he likes. He'll eventually go find somebody else to annoy, once he figures out that his legendary brilliance can't be admired by other readers.


Okay so here is my solution... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Okay so here is my solution...

Let Lee be Lee, just don't be Lee, and set yourself free.

First off recognize that you have a power over Lee that neither of the parties in Congress possess over the other. You can completely stifle his speech by banning him or disemvoweling him.

We all know what Lee's response was to speech he didn't like. He demonstrated it over and over again, he banned anyone who disagreed with him. So as tempting as it may be, are you willing to be just like Lee and ban anyone who disagrees with you? Are you going to eventually ban me because I disgree with you in this thread?

I think the answer to both questions is no. Why? Because you have a set of morals that keeps you from banning someone for petty reasons.

Lee is his own worst enemy. He is a petty dictator with delusions of grandeur. His incoherent arguments, circular logic and moral relativism make him a terrible spokesman for his side. Why would you ever want to emulate that? Why would you want to betray your values to be just like Lee?

But that is what you are arguing in dealing with Kagan. The Democrats do bad things, so let's teach them a lesson and act the same way. That's a Lee-like argument.

The way to handle Lee is to let him be himself and for us to be better than him. Punch up not down.

The reason you haven't banned Lee is because he is so effective at beclowning himself. That's not to say that he shouldn't be confronted when he says something wrong, or that he shouldn't be disemvoweled when he crosses the line. But we shouldn't stoop to his level.

The best response to bad speech is good speech, not more bad speech.

Look at how effectively Breitbart has been with the racism charge against the Tea Parties. He is winning that fight. Not by emulating the Democrats and flinging poo, but by insisting that they prove their charge. He is not backing down and is stealing their moral highground as a result.

"If we throw our values ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"If we throw our values out the window how are we any better than them?"

Well, that's a good question, Eric, and it's got some validity. But I might point out that if we don't adopt something resembling an effective course of action, we're not going to have to worry about our ethics and values. We won't be able to express them.

In WW2 our bombing of civilian populations wasn't intentional, at first. We attempted to, as much as possible, target military and industrial targets. 'Collateral Damage' was seen as a necessary evil - something we had to do in order to win the war. Of course, our weapons systems then didn't exactly allow for laying a single 2000lb bomb exactly on target. There was a LOT of collateral damage when we were going for industrial targets.

Then as the war went on, in return for the indiscriminate bombing of cities in England, the RAAF and AAF started bombing cities in Germany. Our ethics went out the bomb bay, so to speak, in dealing with the immediate problem at hand.

We killed MILLIONS of civilians. Screw Nagasaki and Hiroshima, they were pocket change. There's estimates that well over a million people died in the Tokyo firebombings. Germany's casualties? Over 8 million.

But when the war was over - we went in, fed the people, paid a hell of a lot to rebuild the two countries. A sense of guilt, perhaps? Hard to say - but it doesn't much matter at this point.

I dare say that if we'd LOST in WW2, neither Germany or Japan would have come to our aid - and we would probably not be enjoying the myriad comforts we've become accustomed to.

So I'm thinking at this point that we can go "Oh, our hands are spotless because WE would NEVER dig for dirt on a candidate" and console ourselves that while ANOTHER unknown is tossed into a position to set national policy for the next century or so, the values that are so maligned by the left are intact and we are unstained ethically.

For as long as they last.

Or we can get our hands dirty and actually find out what we're going to be getting. Because right now, she's pretty much a blank slate as far as the administration is concerned - and that just worked SO well with Obama, didn't it?

I've seen she's for limiting freedom of speech, and against gun rights. True or not? I don't know - but the fact that those two items have even come up are of concern.

We need to know a lot more. One thing about throwing your values out the window, at least you know where they aare when you want to get them again.

Solution's simple, Jay Tea.... (Below threshold)
James H:

Solution's simple, Jay Tea. You control the hammer. if you don't like him, ban him. Simple as that.

If somebody spent most of his time on my blog harassing me or regular users, I'd ban him with extreme prejudice.

Words cannot describe my de... (Below threshold)
Paul Hooson:

Words cannot describe my deep disappointment in the nomination of Elena Kagan. This seat was formerly held by Justices William O. Douglas and John Paul Stevens, one Democrat and one Republican who were both constitutionally correct that government has no constitutional rights to limit the First Amendment rights of the citizens. Both were also strong advocates of civil liberties.

Elena Kagan, on the other hand, believes in curtailing civil liberties and infringing on First Amendment freedoms. How she comes to this conclusion is incredible. Short of actually amending the U.S. Constitution or holding a constitutional convention, government is not supposed to infringe on First Amendment or other basic rights of the citizens.

"If somebody spent most ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"If somebody spent most of his time on my blog harassing me or regular users, I'd ban him with extreme prejudice."

I don't know, I think disemvoweling works better. It allows Lee to express himself as he wishes (which may be theraputic) and it spares us the need to read his regurgitations. It seems pretty clear that he's not going to go away, so another course of action may work in time.

Better be careful, James H - you're sounding more reasonable by the day. ;)

Uptick for ya, Paul.... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Uptick for ya, Paul.

JLawson, don't get me wrong... (Below threshold)
Eric:

JLawson, don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating that she is a fully qualified candidate. I'm not advocating that we shouldn't ask questions and find out more about her. I'm not advocating how anyone should vote for her. I'm certainly not advocating that we rubber stamp her. She should be questioned and her views debated.

My point is that we don't need to willfully get down into the gutter and treat her the same way that the Democrats have treated our nominees. Go back and refresh your memory about how Bork and Thomas were treated. It was disgraceful and shameful. That is no reason for us to the same damn thing.

Do you feel comfortable being just like them? I don't, and obviously, not many people agree with me here. I've got more negative numbers in this thread than Lee. Holy shit.

Oh, JLaw, I've always been ... (Below threshold)
James H:

Oh, JLaw, I've always been of a dictatorial bent when it comes to blogs. I also intensely hate spammers. If I were on a jury for a spam trial, they'd have to kick me out. I'd be the one sitting in the jury box with a little model electrical chair and grinning evilly at the defendant.

I would add this, Jay Tea. ... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

I would add this, Jay Tea. Arguing with Lee is like teaching pigs to sing. It won't work, and it's unpleasant to watch. Plus, he obviously likes it.

If you ban him, he'll just be back under a different IP address and one of his other personalities. Just vandalize the incoherent crap he writes, and don't think twice about it. Nobody's going to miss him.

"My point is that we don... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"My point is that we don't need to willfully get down into the gutter and treat her the same way that the Democrats have treated our nominees."

I think we do, I'm sorry to say. I wish you were right - but the evidence is against it.

Seriously, why WOULD they abandon what's proven to be an effective tactic on their part? The only way they'll dump it is if there is more to lose (as in THEIR candidates being shoved put under the same microscope, with the same morbid attention being placed on each and every fault and foible of the candidate) than there is to gain by their actions.

Look at the candidates that Obama's put in place. Would ANY of them have survived the same scrutiny directed at a Republican?

They know at this point that they've got a free hand to examine anything they might want, for whatever reason. Nothing is too small to be overlooked for a Republican, nothing is too BIG to be overlooked for a Democrat. That has to stop, and the only way they'll stop is if it's done to them also.

James H -LOL! And ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

James H -

LOL! And I'd be right next to you making "Bzzzt" noises and asking you what kind of batteries it takes.

Spammers suck. And I hate the kind that go "You've got a really great blog here" and proceed to lard in all sorts of shopping crap.

Seriously, why WOU... (Below threshold)
Eric:
Seriously, why WOULD they abandon what's proven to be an effective tactic on their part?

I believe that voters are getting tired of picking the lesser of two evils. We need to show the voters that we are not just the better choice but the better principled choice.

If we can't show that we are better than them, how can we expect the voters to vote for our candidates? If we don't do it, another party will.

Just ask the Whigs.

By the way, I have no illus... (Below threshold)
Eric:

By the way, I have no illusion that anything we do will change the way Democrats behave. They'll go into the gutter no matter what we do.

So why follow them there? I'm not suggesting we appeal to the sensibilities of the Democrats. The ultimate authority is the voter. We need to show the voters who is the better choice, and who wallows in the gutter.

I think Eric has made some ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

I think Eric has made some great points and I really want to be on his side, but at my core I like to think I'm a pragmatist above all and therefore I have to side with Jay, JLawson, and Ace on this subject. It's just not practical to play by our rules when the press/Democrats get to play by their own rules, however morally questionably they might be.

And you know what? Doing that won't be so bad and we won't be selling our souls like the Dems do because even if the right does get down into the gutter we will do so HONESTLY and that is what will distinguish us from the left and continue to affirm that we can, even while in the gutter, hold the moral high ground.

I mean, just look at the quote from the evil, bloated alcoholic that Eric posted in #26. That was not ill-informed opinions it was outrageous lies and the senior asshole from Massechusettes knew it when he said it. I just don't think the right is even capable of that.

So I say lets hop down in that gutter and pound on Kagan, but with truth as our anvil and non-violence as our hammer (h/t Ghandi) and we will have nothing of which to be ashamed.

btw, When I read something... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

btw, When I read something posted by Hooson that not only didn't offend me, but actually made sense, "The World Turned Up Side Down" started playing in the back of my mind...

There is no moral high grou... (Below threshold)
Eric:

There is no moral high ground in the gutter. When you say "just this once", then you are willing to say "just some more". Who is playing the Moral Relativism game?

Pay attention to what is going on around the country. There is a serious changing of the guard. Old Republicans and Democrats are on notice. The voters really are hungry for change, and I think they want a positive force for good, not the same old same old gutter politics.

The "female athlet... (Below threshold)
Verbalpaintball:
The "female athletics are dominated by lesbians" myth has been around a long, long time. Softball, tennis, golf -- all are supposed to be hotbeds of predatory gay women.

I like to think of less as predatory and more as a bunch of long-haired female co-eds taking showers together, having pillow fights, wearing silk teddies... hmmm...wait. What was the question?

I play softball. I play gol... (Below threshold)

I play softball. I play golf.

I also like women. A lot.

I guess that makes me a lesbian.

Oh well.

Moving on....

Eric: "The voters reall... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Eric: "The voters really are hungry for change..."

"The voters" are far from being a homogenous group and thus cannot be broad-brushed like that. If you haven't read Ace's article that Jay linked to in the original post you need to. He makes some really great points about an important (sadly, but important nonetheless) segment of the voters. It is those voters who can be reached from the gutter in a "look over here at this shiny thing" sort of way.

I think what will appeal to many, many voters is honesty. That has been lacking in our media and political discourse for some time now.

I did read the Ace piece, b... (Below threshold)
Eric:

I did read the Ace piece, before Jay Tea linked it and again afterward. I agree against broad brushing the voters too much. But it is hard to escape notice that a 3 term Republican Senator just got ousted, a 15 term Democrat Congressman just got ousted, and a host of other long time incumbents are poised to get ousted.

Something is going on across the country, and it is affecting Republicans and Democrats.

As you said, "I think what will appeal to many, many voters is honesty."

You also said, "I mean, just look at the quote from the evil, bloated alcoholic that Eric posted in #26. That was not ill-informed opinions it was outrageous lies and the senior asshole from Massechusettes knew it when he said it. I just don't think the right is even capable of that."

This is what Jay Tea said, "Eric, I submit that your way is the "insane" one. "Borking" -- even a partial Borking -- of Kagan would be the thing not tried before."

It looks like Jay Tea is willing to do exactly the same thing as Teddy. That is not demonstrating honesty to the voters.

For God's sake, I am starting to think even a lot of Republicans don't get the Tea Party movement. Racing to the gutter is not going to win over the voters who want positive change.

Jay Tea: I remember the... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Jay Tea: I remember the nomination process of Clarence Thomas. The Democrats put that man through hell. Reporters even obtained records of his video rentals.

Too bad the FBI didn´t, then we might have found out if Clarence Thomas committed perjury in a rather substantial matter. As Mark Kleiman explains,

But of course it would have been easy to ask the FBI to review the records for the sole purpose of determining whether the film in question was or was not among those Thomas had rented. Joe Biden, showing his usual competence and courage, immediately folded, and the video records were never reviewed.

When one side wants evidence produced, and the other side demands that it be suppressed, it's not hard to guess which side expects that evidence to support its side of the story. It seems to me a reasonable inference that a review of those records would have shown that Thomas had in fact seen the "Long Dong Silver" tape; otherwise, he should have been eager to have them examined to as to refute his accuser. So without pretending to be impartial, I claim that I had and have a good reason to think that Clarence Thomas lied under oath at his confirmation hearings. Whether or not his treatment of Anita Hill was reason enough to keep him off the court, his perjury surely was.

So without pretend... (Below threshold)
Eric:
So without pretending to be impartial, I claim that I had and have a good reason to think that Clarence Thomas lied under oath at his confirmation hearings.

Well that settles it, you don't get more definitive, irrefutable evidence than that. That is like God coming down and rendering his judgement for all to see. /sarc

Steve go back to your basement, that was a complete waste of pixels.

Eric, I think you're half r... (Below threshold)
Mike G in Corvallis:

Eric, I think you're half right, and half wrong. To underline a point made by P. Bunyan upstream ...

The Democrats have had two tactics in dealing with nominees they don't like: (1) intense, aggressive investigation of all aspects of a candidate's past, and (2) outright scurrilous lies that sometimes, after the damage has been done, they've kinda sorta walked back from.

The problem is that in the past, the Republicans have brought knives to gunfights -- they haven't used either of these tactics.

The Republicans need to be more aggressive in questioning the records of Democrat candidates. They haven't turned on the lights to expose the cockroaches, and the mainstream media sure as hell won't do that job for them (or for the American people). Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor faced nowhere near the scrutiny and criticism of their pasts that Republican nominees have. Aggressive investigation and legitimate criticism should be our weapons, since they're already being used by the left ... and in most cases, there's nothing wrong with that. Hell, the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times tried to dig into legally sealed family records (and in Jack Ryan's case, succeeded), hoping to dig up dirt -- the media media have endorsed the standard, so who are we to avoid it? (But frankly, that's a bit dirtier than I'd want to play ... unless it's a record that's been sealed by order of the politician himself, and you know who I mean. What's in those college transcripts, Barack?)

Lying? Slander? Innuendo? Beyond the pale. We are better than that. Can you point to a case in which Republicans have done it? Leave that to the Democrats, and call them on it when they do it.

Jay T:An... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Jay T:

And those people should not be listening to those who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness

Eric, it seems very clear t... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Eric, it seems very clear that Clarence Thomas was lying, not Anita Hall...no irrefutable evidence just the different characters of the indivuduals who are liars (most people are, when there job is on the line) and the few who aren´t. She certainly didn't want to testify and at the time workplace sex harassment was very much under the radar and quietly accepted by men in power i.e. Bill Clinton and their victims. She took a polygraph test and passed it, while Thomas declined to be tested.
and this,

Doubts about her testimony were furthered by the widely publicized and later recanted claims of journalist David Brock, founder of the progressive Media Matters, in his book The Real Anita Hill. Brock, later describing the book as "character assassination", disavowed it and apologized to Hill; he also suggests that he used information provided by an intermediary of Thomas to threaten another witness, Kaye Savage, into backing down, which Savage confirms.[8] His recantation was published in the July 1997 issue of Esquire Magazine, in a piece titled "I was a Conservative Hit Man."[8] and, in his subsequent book, Blinded by the Right, he accuses himself of being "a witting cog in the Republican sleaze machine."

Perhaps there is hope yet for HughS and Jay Tea in their assigned roles as Conservative hit men.

Mike G,What you are ... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Mike G,
What you are saying is exactly what I have been saying. I support aggressive investigation and questioning. She needs to explain and defend her positions.

What I am opposed to is for us to adopt the kind of scurrilous, sleazy and unethical attacks that are the Democrats' trademark.

If you read Ace's piece and Jay Tea's comments, that is what they are endorsing. I am totally opposed to that and am troubled that they would even try to rationalize that kind of tactic.

From AoSHQ,

I think most of the time I personally fall on the Dirty/Tit for Tat side. I endorse the exact same level of fairness and kind dealings towards my political opponents that they would extend to me -- that is to say, virtually none whatsoever, and I think I'll continue having this tendency until the left begins to start showing some trepidations about destroying inconvenient persons.

From Jay Tea,

"Eric, I submit that your way is the "insane" one. "Borking" -- even a partial Borking -- of Kagan would be the thing not tried before."

The way I read those two comments, they are an endorsement of doing the same things as the Democrats.

I have some criticism, not ... (Below threshold)

I have some criticism, not against her, but against Obama's decision of choosing her: her lack of experience on the bench says.

Picking a judge without experience as a judge is a red flag for "we're choosing someone who will do exactly as he/she is told." Another reason, however, might be that Obama can't find anyone who shares his politics, who actually has both experience and a clean record.

Of course the president isn't stupid enough to pick anyone who might vote against his flagship program, Obamacare. And he's getting this change just in time (thanks much John Paul Stevens (who might've voted liberal on this one anyway)). (If I may share this url, I made a post a month ago, which I believe is relevant, about the leanings of each of the justices on the bench: http://www.lifeinsuranceonmyterms.com/ranting/states-sue-for-freedom-3-supreme-court)




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy