The great thing about having a radio show or a blog to call your own–or both–is your missives fly out into the ozone and you know lickety-split whether you’ve pierced the veil on something or not.
That said, it would seem that I’m really onto something here.
Like most things on my show “Con Games”–including the show itself–it happened by accident. Bill Bennett, the talk show host and former Secretary of Education was nice enough to do 25 minutes live while he was in Aspen a week or so ago, and his appearance left me with another 90 minutes or so to fill. So I do what I do: I started to talk in the hopes somebody might (a) listen and might (b) call in. In the course of the usual circumlocutions, I came up with the idea of using the language against conservatives the way they use it against liberals.
I know, I know. I stand accused and probably convicted of stooping to partisan tactics. But I was doing it as “an exercise,” as I stated on the air, to make a point. Now I’m beginning to think it’s not an exercise at all, but central to understanding why conservatism in its existing ways, shapes, and forms is so far out in left field it’s somewhere behind the Green Monster and the Citgo sign.
Let me give you an example:
“Conservatives don’t care about the environment.”
Of course this is not literally true because scads of conservatives will tell you they do care faster than you can say “scat.” Then I ask them if they voted for George W. Bush or Al Gore. They say Bush, of course, and I say: “Then you don’t care about the environment.” And then I ask them who else they voted for, and it’s clear their candidates have leaned toward conservative politicians who have given short-shrift to the environment for decades.
Decades.
Ergo my conclusion that conservatives don’t care about the environment.
Here’s another whopper:
“Conservatives want your teenagers to have anal sex.”
This, of course, is not literally true, yet many conservatives, particularly those on the Christian right, favor abstinence programs that require a pledge by teenagers that they will not have intercourse until they’re married. So many of those true-blue teens do what teenagers do: they have sex by other means. Among those who pledge, instances of oral and anal sex go up faster than, well, an erection.
Thus, conservatives want your teenagers to have anal sex.
Or how about this:
“Conservatives want us to be dependent on oil.”
Look at the record of the Grand Oil Party, the record profits of the oil companies, the two CEOs from Texas now atop our government, the clandestine deliberations of Vice President Dick Cheney and his Big Energy cronies when it came to setting entergy policy. I think this one actually is literally true.
One more for now:
“Conservatives don’t want equal rights for homosexuals.”
Yeah, sure, most conservatives are all for equal rights for homosexuals as long as it doesn’t include marriage–but how can the rights be equal if the fundamental union of two people is not available to all? There’s a phrase for that kind of equality: it’s called “seperate but equal” and there can be no true equality for those who must sip the same water from a seperate fountain.
So conservatives don’t want equal rights for homosexuals.
I could go on and I will–I’m just getting starting with what is no longer an exercise. The conservatives have managed to make “liberal” such a dirty word that you can count the talk shows who call themselves “liberal” on one hand in the entire country. (Including mine.) Liberal politicians don’t exist any more. So it’s up to me to make “conservative” a dirty word.
Why? Divisiveness? Partisanship?
Not even close. The idea is to kick them when they’re down, to completely dismember the conservative movement in the marketplace of ideas so that they never again bring us a war in Iraq, or throw a roadblock up against scientific research, or shove the Ten Commandments down our throat, or allow corruption to become the sine qua non of doing business with government.
The exercise is over. Let the games begin.
Michael,
I appreciate what you’re trying to do, but not with what you offer as a solution.
[The idea is to kick [conservatives/Republicans] when they’re down, to completely dismember the conservative movement in the marketplace of ideas so that they never again bring us a war in Iraq, or throw a roadblock up against scientific research, or shove the Ten Commandments down our throat, or allow corruption to become the sine qua non of doing business with government.]
Looks like you’re back to putting the wood to the conservatives and Republicans again. Are you trying to restore your far-left credentials? Whatever your intentions, your radio broadcast this Morning was both amusing and as difficult to listen to as Brittany Spears’ VMA performance was to watch.
“This war belongs to conservatives and neo-cons and no one else…” you asserted in your conservatives-do-not-support-the-troops argument (and, yes, I acknowledge this was but one leg of that argument). This you meant to exonerate the left and their elected leadership in the Democrat party of any kind of support for the Iraq War.
The truth is that notable liberal Democrats, including Bill and Hillary Clinton, Madeline Albright, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Bob Graham, John Murtha, Henry Waxman and a host of others declared Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq a threat to Iraqis, the Middle East, and world at large. Of course, you’d never be able to tell this by what they say these days. Moreover, almost to a person, Senate and House Democrats lined up like lemmings to go on record in support of military action prior to voting in favor of it.
A fairer statement is: “The war does not belong strictly to Republicans and conservatives.” Based on what you wrote in your post and what you said on the radio today, I conclude you’re not interested a notion of fairness based on truth. Instead, you seek to “dismember the conservative movement in the marketplace of ideas.” If this is your purpose, peddling unsupportable generalizations is a good place to start.
You also intimated on the radio that conservatives and Republicans do not support those who serve because the Bush Administration did not send enough troops to annihilate the enemy… as if an Administration headed by Gore or Kerry would have taken the gloves off and punished Saddam and the insurgents like they were Michael Vick’s dogs. You need to be careful here. Your far-left credentials can be withheld if you’re too much of a meany, and you failed to completely embrace abject pacifism. Gore and Kerry were and are keenly aware of this, which goes a long way toward explaining why every Democrat Presidential candidate running today is in favor of some form cessation of the Iraq War, despite past statements and votes to the contrary.
Cheers,
[I conclude you’re not interested a notion of fairness based on truth. Instead, you seek to “dismember the conservative movement in the marketplace of ideas.” If this is your purpose, peddling unsupportable generalizations is a good place to start.]
Say what! The whole point of Michael’s exercise is that conservatives have not been interested in “fairness based on truth.” Instead, they seek to “dismember the liberal movement.” Until now, peddling unsupported generalizations has been the exclusive realm of conservative politicians, talk show hosts and the Bush administration. It’s about time we fight fire with fire!
[every Democrat Presidential candidate running today is in favor of some form cessation of the Iraq War, despite past statements and votes to the contrary]
…because they sense the shift in public thinking. When Americans were afraid after 9/11, every politician wanted to appear strong and active against terrorism, so they supported taking down Saddam. Now the majority of Americans are against the occupation, so they support ending it. Liberals biggest liabilities are that they are wishy washy and will say anything for approval.
Conservatives are successful because they don’t give a shit what anyone thinks, they’re going to do whatever it takes to stay wealthy and powerful.
You go Conniff! Break that liberal mold.
Conservatives can dish it out, but they sure can’t take it.
What about the conservative commandment of personal responsibility? Are you trying to tell me Joe Biden is the cause of the war in Iraq? Sure, to my dismay, dem Dems voted for it. No argument there. But to act as if this is anything other than a war by, for, and about conservatives and neocons is laugh-out-loud funny.
So stop whining, conservatives. Admit it: when you had the power for the last six years, you botched things up so badly it will take generations to recover. Stand up and take your medicine like a (gay) man.
You’re not blaming this war on the liberals!
Best, Michael!
In a two-party system, any attack on one party is de facto support of the other.
I don’t buy the politics you’re peddling, and your decision to adopt the kinds of smear tactics employed by the political right is stooping to the level of the shamelessly unscrupulous. Worse, you are abandoning the form of thoughtful debate you fostered on AspenPost. If I wanted a diet of this kind tripe, I’d be reading the Daily Kos.
Cheers,
The president and his administration had the information necessary to understand Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. They willfully dispensed misinformation to the contrary.
Were this private, they would be exposed to RICO statutes. Conspiracy and premeditation are part and parcel of the following actions leading to the Iraqi theatre of the absurd. Taking down the Republican boy, Saddam Hussein, had nothing to do with any war on terror or American security enhancements — nothing.
Almost any outside analyst would declare the opposite.
If the neocons didn’t “know” before hand, it was a mistake, but they had plans predating 9/11. There never were concerns about American security, this was just a neocon lark and wishfull exercise turned into reality, by the convenience of 9/11.
How the losses don’t add up to treason is beyond me. This isn’t Winston Churchill’s Gallipoli campaign a mistake. This was willfully premeditated. Even Viet Nam was more legitimate.
Ed,
The Republican/neocons are a slippery bunch. If it could be PROVED Iraq was premeditated and the administration lied us into war, no mistake about it, we could impeach AND convict. But though there seems to be plenty of evidence, there still is no proof.
Mitch,
I think you need to watch Caddyshack. Laugh a little, lighten up. Michael’s not serious, he’s just illustrating a point. I think it’s brilliant. It really shows how things work in politics. The conservatives are willing to go for the jugular, but when liberals do it, the cons cry foul and accuse the libs of dealing a low blow. The strategy works! Look how you fell right into the party line.
Conservatives have so degraded Liberal morals and ethics that even Liberals don’t want to be called Liberals anymore (with the exception of Ed and Conman of course). I sure ain’t no Liberal!!!
“Caddyshack”? “We have a pool and a pond. The pond would be good for you… because you’re a LIBERAL.”
How about “The Elephant Man”? “I am not a LIBERAL.”
Or maybe “Ransom”? “Give me back my noun”…
Cheers,
In re smear tactics:
On the radio yesterday, Glenn Beck said liberals think soldiers are “baby killers.”
On the radio today, Rush Limbaugh referred to MSNBC as PSNBC. He regularly calls John Edwards “The Breck Girl.” And he used to characterize all liberals with a gay lisp until one of his callers called him on it.
In contrast, on “Con Games” I have said things like “Conservatives don’t care about the environment” and then gone into a lengthy discussion of what I mean. There has been no smear, no name-calling. All of it has been fact-based.
If conservatives are concerned with smear tactics, why not turn the concern on those they love? Let’s face it, conservatives have grown intellectually flabby, the equivalent of the liberal movement at its nadir just as Rush began to take off in the early 1980s.
Conservative, heal thyself.
Best, Michael!
Michael,
You draw a contrast between you and Limbaugh that stands up. Limbaugh’s “PMSNBC,” “Breck girl,” and “new castrati” rhetoric constitutes vulgar entertainment. Your “Conservatives want your teenagers to have anal sex” rhetoric constitutes unmitigated sophistry.
I was probably one of your first regular listeners, back when you had a Sunday morning hour when the faithful were getting ready to worship and the profane were sleeping it off. I, on the other hand, worked Sundays so I could spend time with my daughter on Fridays.
Back in the day, I listened as you tried to find a voice, and when you did, I rarely agreed with you. Still, I listened.
I can type fast. Very fast. On August 1, 2004 I transcribed this:
I often disagreed with you to such an extent that I embarked on my own quests for information. Some of my conclusions substantiated your positions. Some contradicted them.
The point is, I didn’t blindly lap up what you were peddling then, and I’m not about to start now.
Cheers,
Thanks for listening, Mitch, though I wish you wouldn’t keep saying I was “peddling” my ideas, as if ideas go begging. I stand by what I said In August 2004. The only word I would change is “terror.” I think “jihad” is far more to the point than “War on Terror” which now means nothing.
I don’t want ANYONE to “lap up” what I’m saying. I just want them to think, as you do so well.
Right now, I’m busy lapping conservatives.
All best, Michael!
I feel we liberals need to fight back with facts. The Petraeus hearings of the last 2 days and the Bush visit to Anbar province have been falsely using Anbar to prove the surge in US troops has brought stability to an area of Iraq. It is false. The Sunni insurgents in Anbar (some call war criminals) initiated getting rid of al Qaeda before we hooked up with them. They have violently expelled the Shia from their towns and are now are collecting big bucks from the US. The Shia who managed not to be killed are now living in slum camps.
Iraqi citizen Hiba Dawood who was on the Conman show in early Aug. coordinated 2 videos of interviews on Anbar by her journalist husband, David Enders and another reporter who spent 1 1/2 months in Iraq this summer. The videos listed below can be seen on YouTube:
Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naJQc6vFlFY
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsQ6twcWevY
These videos were on Democracy Now 9/11.
[In contrast, on "Con Games" I have said things like "Conservatives don't care about the environment" and then gone into a lengthy discussion of what I mean. There has been no smear, no name-calling. All of it has been fact-based.]
I appreciate what you’re attempting to do Michael, but I have to call you on something. Since no candidate is going to represent ALL of an individual’s values, you must vote for the one who represents most of them. That sometimes involves voting for a candidate that may short change you on one or more of those values.
Voting conservative does not mean you hate the environment. It means you voted for a conservative.
[Liberals biggest liabilities are that they are wishy washy and will say anything for approval.]
Then how do you explain Ed Troy?
Cheers,
He’s not a politician, he’s a liberal thinking person.
I should have said “Liberal politicians running for office biggest liabilities…” Although I do know quite a few liberal thinking people who also are wishy washy and crave approval. One thing you can say about conservativepoliticians as well as conservative thinking people, is they are NEVER wishy washy, and most could care less what anyone thinks of them.
That’s how I know I’m a Conservative.
[One thing you can say about conservative politicians as well as conservative thinking people, is they are NEVER wishy washy, and most could care less what anyone thinks of them.]
Is this conservative attribute what liberals mean by the term, “judgmental”?
Cheers,
I prefer “confident.”
[I appreciate what you're attempting to do Michael, but I have to call you on something. Since no candidate is going to represent ALL of an individual's values, you must vote for the one who represents most of them. That sometimes involves voting for a candidate that may short change you on one or more of those values.
Voting conservative does not mean you hate the environment. It means you voted for a conservative.]
mountaingrown:
But if conservatives consistently dis the environment, that means you’re endorsing the candidate who doesn’t care because it’s not your priority.
At the very least, it’s fair to say conservative defenders of the faith have voted consistently for candidates who don’t make the environment a priority. At worst, conservatives have tried for decades to pigeonhole anyone who cares about the environment as a “wacko.’
(Why don’t you decry this practice, Mitch?)
Now the liberals at the ones who are looking smart and far-sigthed about the environment, while the conservatives are looking just plain dumb.
Is there anything funnier than Newt finally talking about “green entrepreneurship? Where have you been, Professor Stupid? What’s next, french fries?
Oh mountainous one, if you continue to vote for candidates who do’t care about the environment, then it’s fair to assume you don’t care all that much.
Best, Michael!
[(Why don't you decry [the practice of calling anyone who cares about the environment a 'wacko'], Mitch?)]
Well, if it’s OK for you to characterize conservatives as supporters of teenage sodomy, why should I care about being called a “wacko”?
Cheers,
We the people have allowed the discourse and practice of politics, to plunge below cloacal expulsions from a snake in the gutter. Ultimately, we get what we deserve. The conservatives do need a beat down, but then we need to proceed collectively toward higher ground, without psychoactive substances. This beat down should continue until an admission of failure fiscally, economically, domestically, environmentally and the Iraq idiocy, and finally of getting the negative crap rolling in a professional way a la Atwater and Rove. I would love a responsible conservative counterbalance to most of my positions.
I have run as a politician, my positions were fically responsible while being socially progressive — all to develop citizens for the economic battles ahead. I want solutions that are approved, not personal approval. Mitch and G know I don’t give a damn for that, hopefully everyone else does too. Love through strength!
Mitch:
Conservatives simply have to come up with a better answer than “liberals are worse than we are.”
Best, Michael!
[conservatives do need a beat down...]
Written like an echo of Michael’s radio rants this week. In defiance of the first Amendment’s spirit, let us step on the necks of those with whom we do not agree, even if it means walking on the spirit of Martin Luther King.
Let us go then, you and I, when the evening is spread out against the sky… Let us submit to the weaknesses of our nature and listen to what Michael peddles. What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow
out of this stony rubbish?
I like to fish for trout on the Roaring Fork. Truth be told, angling is not just a favorite pastime, it is my gift…
Many times I have sat upon the shore after angling, with an arid plain behind me… Perhaps I shall I at least set my lands in order.
Cheers,
[I like to fish for trout on the Roaring Fork. Truth be told, angling is not just a favorite pastime, it is my gift...
Many times I have sat upon the shore after angling, with an arid plain behind me... Perhaps I shall I at least set my lands in order.]
I suspect that like your incomparable Guacamole, fishing for trout would be infinitely preferrable to fishing for the truth, yet as summer exhales her floral breath, the stink of truth will displace flower for decay of shrub and bush.
I am ready to learn the art of angling for finned delights.
Ed,
That guacamole recipe and angling have one key characteristic in common: Neither was my idea…
Still, if you’d ever like to learn to angle, I’d be delighted to show you how, providing you first understand that no matter how delectable the high-mountain brookie or cutthroat may be, it’s not politically correct to harvest these finned delights. Where laws do not prohibit or significantly restrict trout harvest, you’ve got angling purists who’d sooner cut off their arm than touch a creel. Ironically, the very catch-and-release policy that arguably sustains greater finned biomass in our rivers and streams is viewed by PETA—who rightly or wrongly ascribes human thoughts and feelings to a salmonid with a brain about the size of a developing pea—as a personal affront to all life forms…
In angling, specifically your decision to harvest or release the trout you catch, you have a past-time that has the potential to piss off at least two groups of people, both of whom regard themselves as champions of “the environment.” So as you see, the desire to learn how to catch a trout on a fly is fraught with many important considerations. I have resolved this to my satisfaction.
…I have several favorite trout recipes, one of which requires Paonia cherry wood for smoking… The cherry wood was my idea.
Cheers,
I don’t have any bloody equipment, except patience and appreciation for the hoped for “Zen” truth in a living water garden. What is needed? One thing I certainly will not mind leaving behind, is any effort to find political truth.
As you can well imagine, I have left some of my friends, who used to be in my circles and possibly still within PETA interests, with mouths agape and rabidly foaming over hook and bullet organizations that want to preserve ecosystems for angling and hunting recreation.
For instance, I believe that elephants will have a secure future when there is a financial incentive keeping them alive that exceeds their value as ivory bearers.
So, Paonia cherry wood and…….
Ed,
If you’re sure that casting a fly on the Fork won’t revoke your gladiatorial status, what’s needed can be arranged…
I wrote that post yesterday as an allegory of this pissing match Michael has recently engaged in. Perhaps it was a stretch to think he, or anybody for that matter, would have read it that way…
I came upon the cherry wood idea quite by accident. When we lived in Redstone, I heated the house with wood . I used to buy a permit and cut dead conifers on Basalt Mountain , but when I could afford it, I’d augment the wood pile with some fruit wood from Paonia. One year, my supplier offered me a chord of cherry, so I said OK. Cherry burns at least as hot as apple, but it gives off a much sweeter fragrance. It wasn’t long before I had a half-dozen whitefish smoking over cherry… Based strictly on flavor, using cherry to smoke whitefish was a brilliant if not remarkably obvious, idea.
Yes, I did say whitefish. The truth is, trout are delicious smoked, but they are a clear second to whitefish–a species that is plentiful in the Fork, and no one, not even PETA for all I can tell, gives a crap about how many whitefish you kill–there’s not even a bag limit that I know of. The other truth is, in my opinion, smoking is about the only thing you can do to make a whitefish edible. I’ve heard whitefish is passable as the main ingredient in Cioppino, but I’d frankly rather brave a plate of liver and onions… It may defy reason, but whitefish are damn good smoked.
Cheers,
that gladitorial status is the last thing I worry about until necessary.
When PETA members are willing to to take the place of various animals for HIV and other exceedingly dangerous Pathogenic retroviral diseases, they’ll get my ear. Tonights entree; pig, cow and turkey grilled over traditional charcoal. If your not on the endangered species list, depending on palatability, you may be on the menu. I have a feeling whitefish may be part of my food chain.
Let us know when you are next going out and when it would be convenient/comfortable to do so.
Ed, you know you get some love from me, and I respect you greatly. But you gots to get off the shoreline when fishing for what you want, albeit fish or whatever.
Put on some waders and felt soled boots, get out there in the thick of the water, climb a rock, get nasty. Go home sore from overextending yourself in the rushing current.
You know what I’m saying….
Dive in, get to the thick of all this b.s. Separate it into good sh…t and stupid sh…t and do whats right.
You ain’t as liberal as you think you are, my friend, just as Mitch ain’t as conservative as we might think.
Mitch, I still gots your cutting board, knife, bowl and tupperware full of plastic on my dresser, … fyi.
Stay cool! Remember… keep striving for the number one, but along the way, don’t step in number two. –J