Over at Ellen's Blog, the True Believers (Ellen, Democat and mom Corinne, plus a handful of other zealots) have been spending a lot of time lately trying to vilify Ann Coulter and paint her statements (which, as far as I can tell, are mostly designed to benefit only Ann Coulter) as representing the Republican Party at large, and Mark Kirk in particular. If you are not a regular Ellen reader, the premise that statements from someone like Coulter could be ascribed to Congressman Mark Kirk, a mainstream moderate Republican, may seem fairly absurd on its face. Ellen's theory, however, is that Mark Kirk is solely responsible for the content of any speech of any individual that has any connection to the Republican Party, or even conservatives in general, if such speech does not meet Ellen's standards for decency and appropriateness and is not immediately denounced by Congressman Kirk.
As I've pointed out in the past on Ellen's Blog (before she booted me and other non-liberal commentors), the notion that Mark Kirk is guilty by silence for the rantings of every pundit on the air/cyber waves that is not a liberal, and with which Ellen does not agree (especially the speech that she brands as "hate" speech, which seems to include almost everything coming out of everyone else's mouth but her's, lately), is illogical and just plain silly. I for one do not hold Mark Kirk accountable for what Rush, Ann, Bill or any other self-proclaimed conservative pundit wants to say. I don't think they speak for the Republican Party (they sure don't speak for me), although their target is obviously a conservative audience (you can contrast this with MoveOn.org, which I think does claim to speak for the Democrats, and certainly is a juggernaut that even the Hillarys and Obamas cannot seem to stand up against).
I for one don't want Mark Kirk wasting his time monitoring the rantings of every pundit out there to satisfy Ellen that he does not accept their views. Not only are some views so absurd on their face (i.e., Coulter's latest pronouncement that the Jews need to be "perfected") that they really require no affirmative statement by someone like Kirk to go on record as not agreeing with (to put it mildly, I'm sure), it is equally proper to demand that all Dems take a stand against every stupid thing that comes out of the mouths of Louis Farrakhan, Al Franken, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and every other ultra-liberal camera hog.
I wasn't going to even engage Ellen on this issue, but I noticed in today's Herald (an Associated Press story) that there was an $11 million judgment against a fundamentalist Kansas church that made national news for picketing military funerals on the grounds that God was punishing the U.S. by killing its soldiers because the nation is too tolerant of homosexuality. See the story here. In fact, the actions of this group prompted a number of state laws that banned such protests from funerals.
I think it's safe to say that Mark Kirk would denounce the actions of this church, based as they are on hatred of homosexuals for no other reason than their sexual orientation. But, as far as I can tell, Kirk's office hasn't released anything yet this morning (of course, neither had Dan Seals or Jay Footlik). Can we take by his silence that he supported the actions of these wackos? If you ascribe to Ellen's theory, maybe you should. But, then you better be ready to live with the notion that Kirk is responsible for the hateful and malicious speech and actions of everyone, everywhere, and the only way to return our wonderful country to the Pre-Kirk Salad Days is to elect Dan Seals. And I guess if you are an Ellen fan, you may believe exactly that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
It's possible that Ellen's incantation has turned from "Lies! Lies! Lies!" to "Hate! Hate! Hate!" She is her own worst enemy. Nevertheless, her blog does keep the viewpoints of the far left wing Democrats freely visible, so I suppose that's useful. I was suprised to see that she doesn't seem to know the difference between "who" and "whom" on her latest post. I hope that's a typo, as she constantly chided her commenters for not being smart or informed. That is, in the old days, when people hung out there.
I noticed on Ellen's blog site in one of the comments she equated Farrakhan's anti-Jewish rants to mere "antics" yet Coulter's idiotic Jewish comment is "hate" according to Ellen.
One of the commentators said it best (I guess he/she got through without being "banned") that hate is hate and both represent hate and should be condemned.
Left unanswered by Ellen is if Farrakhan can be considered a Democratic spokesman by the ultra-left.
Kind of like Illinois politics in a way. Republicans condemn corruption even when it comes from Republicans. Democrats condemn corruption when it comes from Republicans and grow silent when it comes from Democrats.
Louis G. Atsaves
TA, thanks for this on target post. The Shrill voices over there are now way over the top. She and her buddies have gone from lies to, as Publia states, Hate with a capital H. I think the success of your Blog is just driving all of them nuts. Way to go! And yes, she and her loyalists are their own worst advocates!
Could everyone please turn down the volume a little? I thought this was supposed to be a "refined, intelligent open forum."
Name-calling and "ad hominem" criticism is pretty boring. How about some substance?
True ad hominem attacks are instantly identified and criticized here, and if they persist, commentors will be deleted. But don't confuse calling Ellen out on her lies and sedition with personal attacks on her. It's her actions and statements, not her character, that is fair game on this blog. And, unfortunately, when the coin one such as Ellen deals in is largely over-the-top hyperbole, it is hard to even discuss such antics without seeming to stoop to that level yourself.
Nevertheless, let's keep up the common demoninator everyone--we'd like to set the high, not the low, standard for political discourse in this district.
This comes from the top inside baseball d.c. publication. Kondracke is a top political journalist. Needless to say we are getting our money's worth.
Really sucks Mark hasn't figured out a way to translate his policy excellence into political dominance in the district.
Drop War Talk, Cut Off Iran’s Gasoline, Mark Kirk Urges
By Mort Kondracke
Surely there are better ways to stop Iran’s nuclear program than Republican war threats or most Democrats’ hat-in-hand diplomacy. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) has several good ideas.
Co-chairman of the bipartisan House Iran Working Group, Kirk for three years has been advocating cutting off Iran’s gasoline supplies to supplement other economic sanctions and weaken President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s hold on power.
Kirk also is trying to persuade the Bush administration to block $870 million in World Bank loans to Iran, including one for a water-treatment facility near the Islamic republic’s nuclear facility at Natanz.
As co-chairman of another bipartisan ad hoc House panel, the China Working Group, he has been pushing for creation of a multi-national fund to develop alternative sources of energy for China in order to weaken Chinese diplomatic support for Iran.
And as a Naval Reserve intelligence officer, he is advocating inclusion of Israel and Bahrain in the U.S. national anti-missile defense system against Iran.
A leader of the moderate Republican Tuesday Group, Kirk has a reputation for developing creative “third way” ideas, including the GOP “suburban agenda” designed to appeal to Democratic-leaning districts like his own, located north of Chicago.
He formed the Iran Working Group with Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) and the China Working Group with Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Wash.) to give Congressional backbenchers a role in developing policy. The two panels now have 35 and 75 members, respectively. Kirk has a formal foreign policy swatch as a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs.
In an interview, Kirk told me he differs from the Bush administration and most GOP candidates for president in favoring direct negotiations with Iran and in avoiding talk about military action. He also favors tougher measures than the “unconditional” diplomacy advocated by most Democrats.
“I do agree that we should be talking to [Iran],” he said, “because direct negotiations with [former Yugoslav dictator Slobodan] Milosevic were part of undermining his will. And there were a number of direct discussions with [Libyan ruler Muammar] el-Qaddafi and we undermined him. So, I think we should always talk because the discussion can weaken the will of the other side.”
Kirk said he favors talks not only with Ahmadinejad, but with his Iranian political rivals, including former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.
As to GOP presidential candidates’ talk of bombing or blockading Iran, Kirk said, “If you are running for president, you could BE president, so the best thing to do is talk about what you would do if you actually WERE president of the United States, not just playing one on TV. ... If you actually were president, you would look at the most robust economic sanctions that would actually work before launching any kind of unpredictable and hugely expensive military operation.”
On the basis of unclassified sources, Kirk said he’s convinced that Iran is at least two to three years away from developing fissile material for a bomb, “so we’re not talking about an urgent crisis right now.” It would take even longer to manufacture a deliverable weapon that would threaten Israel and other U.S. allies, he said.
He said it largely has escaped notice — “because it’s a good-news story” — but “10 years of tough sanctions and diplomacy” convinced Qaddafi to give up Libya’s nuclear program. “He just called up the CIA and they carted it away to Oak Ridge, Tenn., where it’s buried,” he said.
As to war threats by the Bush administration, Kirk said, “I don’t think it’s necessary. A president should always be ambiguous as to what he would do or not do to protect the U.S. and its allies. And, war planning should go on behind closed doors, which is the work of the Pentagon anyway.
“But my recommendation is, it’s far more productive to advance the cause of effective sanctions because this is a big step for our allies,” who may be reluctant to participate in a runup to war.
Among the Democratic candidates, he said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) was “responsible” during Tuesday night’s TV debate in Philadelphia by advocating a policy of sanctions plus diplomacy.
As to other candidates, though, “if you say, ‘well, we’re not going to take action against terrorism and undermining the non-proliferation policy of the West,’ what are you going to do? She’s pretty good. For the rest of them, I’m not sure where they are.”
For several months, Kirk has been urging Bush to adopt the kind of stiff sanctions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps that the administration announced last week — a move denounced by Clinton’s Democratic rivals as a step toward war.
For even longer, Kirk has been advocating a “quarantine” to cut off Iran’s gasoline supplies. Even though Iran is a major oil producer, it imports 40 percent of its gasoline, and this summer Ahmadinejad imposed gasoline rationing, causing riots in Tehran.
If sanctions were imposed on Iran’s gasoline suppliers — the Dutch energy broker Vitol, ship insurer Lloyds of London and refineries in India and the United Arab Emirates — shipments likely would stop without naval action, he said, though it would be a backup.
“Ahmadinejad’s nuclear program is very popular,” Kirk said, “but his domestic program is not. The moment the average guy starts to have problems running his business or getting to work, Ahmadinejad is going to have real political problems.”
So far, the administration opposes a gasoline cutoff, fearing $100-a-barrel oil. But Kirk said that Saudi Arabia, which fears Iran, could prevent a price spike by increasing production.
China has undercut other sanctions because it imports oil from Iran, so Kirk has been urging the administration to establish a lending program for Central Asian sources. The administration also is reluctant to cut off World Bank loans, but Kirk argues, “imagine the embarrassment of ... cutting a check from 19th Street in Washington to the government of President Ahmadinejad.”
As a backup, Kirk advocates including Israel and Bahrain as sites, along with Poland, in the U.S. missile defense system. All this makes eminent good sense to me, far better sense than talking about invasions, bombing raids, World War III — or “unconditional” talks.
Post a Comment