Jonathan Chait: Victim
The term "victocrat" was coined by Larry Elder, insinuating that many Democrats on the Left take up the "I'm a victim" argument. Jonathan Chait, a writer for the LA Times has gone all the way back to February to pick on Hugh Hewitt. Hugh interviewed him regarding a piece he wrote where he said Hillary was not an angry person. This is, in part, what Mr. Chair had to say about his interview with Hugh.
I blame George W. Bush's election for many ills, and, to that list, I can now add the fact that I have been publicly shamed for not owning a gun. My unwilling confession took place a month ago, while I was being interviewed by the right-wing radio talk-show host Hugh Hewitt. He asked me whether I owned a gun and whether I had ever owned a gun (in what seemed to be consciously McCarthyite language). Later, he proceeded with a lengthier inquisition into whether I had friends or relatives in the military. He asked a version of this question some half-dozen times. ("Is there anyone that you want to bring up, like your aunt or your uncle, or the guy down the street?") I volunteered that my next-door neighbor and friend is a naval reservist, but this failed to mollify him. "Do you know anyone who's been back and forth to Iraq and been deployed there?" he asked. Sadly, I was unable to produce any evidence for my defense. In the court of right-wing talk radio, I was convicted of being a blue-state elitist.
Before we continue with that, I would like to quote him and Hugh during that interview. What Mr. Chait does here is misrepresent the conversation. He did the one thing that many of those in the MSM do. He took the conversation out of context. Below is part of the transcript--the part in question--from Generalissimo Duane.
HH: Okay. So you're a young guy. How old are you? Are you 32?
JC: I'm 33.
HH: 33. Okay, so you're 33 years old, you've voted for Democrats your whole life. Have you ever voted for a Republican?
JC: Good question. I live in places where there aren't...where there isn't a Republican Party. I live in Washington, D.C., and I have for most of my adult life. So basically, there aren't any Republicans running, so it's always like you have a Democratic primary, and that turns out to be the general election, like the Mayor's race is really the Democratic primary, et cetera.
HH: Okay. So do you own a gun?
JC: I don't own a gun.
HH: Have you ever owned a gun?
JC: I'm thinking of getting one after this conversation.
HH: (laughing) Have you ever owned a gun?
JC: Never owned a gun.
HH: Okay, and do you support same sex marriage?
JC: Yes.
HH: And were you against the tax cuts?
JC: Yes.
HH: And were you against the invasion of Iraq? You said you did support the invasion of Iraq.
JC: I quite forcefully supported the...
HH: Would you have supported it knowing what we know now about the WMD?
JC: No way.
For those not keeping score, this area of the conversation goes to Hugh establishing that Mr. Chait is a liberal, with liberal beliefs and ideology. Granted, Mr. Chait did not say he was against people owning guns, however he made it very clear that he did not own one. Most of those on the Left do not, in fact, own a gun. This was harldy reminiscent of Joseph McCarthy.
This is a very odd cultural moment we find ourselves in, where there is a stigma attached to not owning a gun or not having friends shipped out to Iraq. This isn't a moral question; military service is obviously admirable, but knowing people who serve is no more admirable than knowing people who donate to charity. It's a cultural question. Since Bush's election, and especially since his reelection, liberals have grown painfully aware of the cultural gap with the white working class. The approved liberal posture is cringing self-flagellation. We brought the catastrophe of the Bush administration upon ourselves with our latte-sipping ways, and we must repent. Conservatives are gleefully pressing their advantage. Did you mourn Dale Earnhardt? Do you sport a mullet? Well, why not?
They did bring this on themselves, but I wonder if people like Jonathan Chait understand waht "this" is? I can sum it up succinctly for them. You let the extremists get control of your party, and run it into the ground. You have given up the esteemed history of your party. You have lost the way of the FDR/JFK/Reagan Democrats that were strong on national security, and strong on the economy. You have, in essence, reduced your party to that which represents the powerful and the elite; spoiled brats they still are despite growing up. The old adage remains true today: Just because you grow older does not mean you always grow up. Mr. Chait, I do not dislike you because you do not own a firearm, or because you "despise" (his word during that interview, not mine) the president. I dislike you because along with the rest of those within the MSM, you are blundering your way through the early years of this new millenium, and in the middle of this way, without even a partial clue as to what is going on in the world.
The Bunny ;)
The term "victocrat" was coined by Larry Elder, insinuating that many Democrats on the Left take up the "I'm a victim" argument. Jonathan Chait, a writer for the LA Times has gone all the way back to February to pick on Hugh Hewitt. Hugh interviewed him regarding a piece he wrote where he said Hillary was not an angry person. This is, in part, what Mr. Chair had to say about his interview with Hugh.
I blame George W. Bush's election for many ills, and, to that list, I can now add the fact that I have been publicly shamed for not owning a gun. My unwilling confession took place a month ago, while I was being interviewed by the right-wing radio talk-show host Hugh Hewitt. He asked me whether I owned a gun and whether I had ever owned a gun (in what seemed to be consciously McCarthyite language). Later, he proceeded with a lengthier inquisition into whether I had friends or relatives in the military. He asked a version of this question some half-dozen times. ("Is there anyone that you want to bring up, like your aunt or your uncle, or the guy down the street?") I volunteered that my next-door neighbor and friend is a naval reservist, but this failed to mollify him. "Do you know anyone who's been back and forth to Iraq and been deployed there?" he asked. Sadly, I was unable to produce any evidence for my defense. In the court of right-wing talk radio, I was convicted of being a blue-state elitist.
Before we continue with that, I would like to quote him and Hugh during that interview. What Mr. Chait does here is misrepresent the conversation. He did the one thing that many of those in the MSM do. He took the conversation out of context. Below is part of the transcript--the part in question--from Generalissimo Duane.
HH: Okay. So you're a young guy. How old are you? Are you 32?
JC: I'm 33.
HH: 33. Okay, so you're 33 years old, you've voted for Democrats your whole life. Have you ever voted for a Republican?
JC: Good question. I live in places where there aren't...where there isn't a Republican Party. I live in Washington, D.C., and I have for most of my adult life. So basically, there aren't any Republicans running, so it's always like you have a Democratic primary, and that turns out to be the general election, like the Mayor's race is really the Democratic primary, et cetera.
HH: Okay. So do you own a gun?
JC: I don't own a gun.
HH: Have you ever owned a gun?
JC: I'm thinking of getting one after this conversation.
HH: (laughing) Have you ever owned a gun?
JC: Never owned a gun.
HH: Okay, and do you support same sex marriage?
JC: Yes.
HH: And were you against the tax cuts?
JC: Yes.
HH: And were you against the invasion of Iraq? You said you did support the invasion of Iraq.
JC: I quite forcefully supported the...
HH: Would you have supported it knowing what we know now about the WMD?
JC: No way.
For those not keeping score, this area of the conversation goes to Hugh establishing that Mr. Chait is a liberal, with liberal beliefs and ideology. Granted, Mr. Chait did not say he was against people owning guns, however he made it very clear that he did not own one. Most of those on the Left do not, in fact, own a gun. This was harldy reminiscent of Joseph McCarthy.
This is a very odd cultural moment we find ourselves in, where there is a stigma attached to not owning a gun or not having friends shipped out to Iraq. This isn't a moral question; military service is obviously admirable, but knowing people who serve is no more admirable than knowing people who donate to charity. It's a cultural question. Since Bush's election, and especially since his reelection, liberals have grown painfully aware of the cultural gap with the white working class. The approved liberal posture is cringing self-flagellation. We brought the catastrophe of the Bush administration upon ourselves with our latte-sipping ways, and we must repent. Conservatives are gleefully pressing their advantage. Did you mourn Dale Earnhardt? Do you sport a mullet? Well, why not?
They did bring this on themselves, but I wonder if people like Jonathan Chait understand waht "this" is? I can sum it up succinctly for them. You let the extremists get control of your party, and run it into the ground. You have given up the esteemed history of your party. You have lost the way of the FDR/JFK/Reagan Democrats that were strong on national security, and strong on the economy. You have, in essence, reduced your party to that which represents the powerful and the elite; spoiled brats they still are despite growing up. The old adage remains true today: Just because you grow older does not mean you always grow up. Mr. Chait, I do not dislike you because you do not own a firearm, or because you "despise" (his word during that interview, not mine) the president. I dislike you because along with the rest of those within the MSM, you are blundering your way through the early years of this new millenium, and in the middle of this way, without even a partial clue as to what is going on in the world.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:54 AM
3 Comments:
Um... no. The point is Hewitt's reverse-elitism in assuming that "real" Americans own guns and like NASCAR -- that blue-state Americans are less American than red-staters. This is an outrageously stupid slander.
As for the Democratic party, the party is of course dominated by political moderates (Howard Dean, supposedly a lefty, is actually a budget-balancing pro-gun moderate who supports most wars). However, we are to the "left" of the Republicans, but only because the Republicans have shown themselves to be such crazed extremists.
As for national security, Bush is of course the weakest President in living memory (including Carter) on national security. The essence of national security strength is to pursue wars when they are in America's interest and avoid wars when they are not in America's interest. Bush invaded Iraq even though it was (and is) not in America's interest to do so; hence he is weak on national security. Not to mention that he has ignored all the Democrats' proposals for strengthening national security at home (port security, chemical-plant security, etc).
Clearly the Democrats, while they have their problems, are the only party for people who are serious about national security. That's why Iraq war vets mostly run as Democrats; that's why Reagan's former Secretary of the Navy James Webb is running for Senate as a Democrat. Republicans have destroyed our national security, and Democrats will help restore it.
MA:
Try again. Hugh has never stated that "real" Americans own guns, or like NASCAR. For the record, I despise NASCAR.
It's your look at it being "slander." All anyone needs to look at is how the Democrats react to certain things. This was evident in the ENTIRE interview.
Chair was evasive on the question of anger, which was the reason that Hugh had him on. (It was in response to Chait's piece that Hillary isn't angry.) She may not be angry be she's extremely condescending, and when her emotions do show through--such as her rant after 11 Sept. when she was screeching about rights and freedom of speech. No one has put an end to free speech, nor was anyone stating that they couldn't disagree with the president.
Conservatvies were demanding a level of personal responsibility from the Democrats who were shrieking that they didn't know nothing about nothing. That was clearly not the case with regard to Iraq (remember the '98 bombing campaign that was JUSTIFIED by Clinton because of their WMD stocks?) or to al Qaeda (who orchestrated the '93 WTC attack). The Democrats knew what al Qaeda was capable of, and it was cool when they did something about it, but not when our side does.
Back to Chait and the interview, Hugh conducted that interview as he does with anyone on the Left. He wants the answers to the questions he has, and he wants every one of his listners to hear what they stand for. The point that Chait made was that he was attacked, a la Joe McCarthy.
I listened to the interview when it happened back in February. Chait was offended that Hugh saw her differently than he did. That's the gist of the tone he took throughout the whole interview.
The Democrat Party has definitely forgotten it's roots; willing to allow them to be subverted by those that are in the cat-bird seat right now. That's everyone from Howard Dean to Michael Moore, and John Kerry to Hillary Clinton. THEY are the FACE of the modern-day Democrats. If this face is continued you're going to end up driving people away; Dean's fundraising alone shows that.
Iraq was not in America's interest? Since when? I suggest you go back and read some of the post we've done recently, and check out those documents we've been talking about. Saddam's connection to al Qaeda was more than enough to warrant his removal. The WMD question will be a debating point for years to come, or until those WMDs are found. And no, the president hasn't ignored the security problems here at home, at least not the way he's decided to handle border security, which looks more like the recent Democrat proposal that would take away the criminalization of the crime that illegal aliens commit.
And as for the Democrats on national security, in closing, show me where they are better? Democrats block ANWR; that's a security issue. In the here and now, the less oil we receive from the world is the best route to take. It is a key natural resource, and we shouldn't be making ourselves vulnerable through it. Second, what about the watered-down Patriot Act? The Democrat's temper-tantrum over it--running the same mantra that they did when it was passed--was very telling for America. They watched a party argue against a law in place that had been working. In a time of war, they insisted it be weakened. And, to top that off, which is the party throwing the biggest hissy over the NSA program. A Republican didn't march to the floor of the Senate, and make a complete @$$ of himself like Russ Feingold did.
Publius II
This is one of the favorite right-wing tricks, to talk about the "angry left." But it's nonsense. The right is filled with anger (see Limbaugh, Hannity, Dobson, Robertson, Cheney -- all angry people). The left is much less angry and hateful. Michael Moore, who just attacks Republican politicians and businessmen, is far less hateful than Rush Limbaugh, who encourages people to hate all liberals -- in other words, Rush Limbaugh encourages people to hate their neighbors and relatives. The hate and anger and divisiveness is on your side.
As for throwing a "hissy fit" over the NSA program, the program is illegal, and Bush wanted to spy on Americans without anything to prevent his team from abusing the power to spy on us. (Maybe he's just spying on "terrorists," but maybe he isn't. We don't know because no one has the power to oversee the program.) That's not a "hissy fit," that's just upholding the law. We cannot protect America unless we respect the laws that make America what it is. Without respect for the rule of law, there is no America -- and by breaking the law, Bush shows that he hates America and American values.
Post a Comment
<< Home