Contributors

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

The Rove

I'm not embarrassed to admit that it's taken me awhile but I think I've finally figured out a key tactic employed by the Cult. It is my hope that this will end, once and for all, the titanic and monumental level of frustration that is felt by those of us who call them on their insane bullshit. I call this tactic The Rove. Obviously named after Karl, here's how it works.

To the left is a photograph of my bald head. As we can all clearly see, I am folically challenged. Now, I want you all to imagine me walking up to a man with a full head of hair and shouting, "Hey!! Baldy!!! Nice chrome dome...can I brush my teeth in that gleaming reflection that is your giant melon?!!!?"

What would his first reaction be? What would yours be if you witnessed me doing this? At the very least, he and you would be flabbergasted. I'm obviously the one who is bald, not the Fabio dude with a full head of hair. It makes no sense whatsoever.

And that's just what debating a Cult member is like. They attack you with what is, in fact, their greatest weakness. They scream about the Constitution yet actively deny rights to a large percentage of our population. They decry government intervention, accusing President Obama of being a fascist, and yet support the AZ immigration law, extreme intervention in the name of national security as well as cheering jingoistic nationalism. They accuse President Obama of being a racist and preaching hate speech when they do it on a daily fucking basis.

In short, they are completely full of shit.

Even here in comments, we see it played out. I don't "talk about the issues" or "examine key points of legislation" even though I do all the time. All I do is call the right "Nazi homophobes" even though I just recently wrote about being completely wrong about Reagan. I am "unbending" and "refuse to see the facts" yet I have recently concluded that my ideas regarding good capitalism are woefully outdated thanks to Jim Manzi.

Look closely at the people who lean right here who post in comments. Have they changed their mind about ANYTHING? Will they ever admit that they are wrong about something? One would hope so, given the facts, but I'm not holding my breath.

The Rove essentially betrays a complete lack of knowledge on a particular issue combined with an eight year old stubbornness. It is an easy way to deflect serious thought on an issue and propel it into a realm devoid of facts, logic, and reasoning. To be fair, I think many of them don't even know that they are doing this. They are trained to say these things and really know no other way.

But there are those who do know and now that I have finally figured out this little tactic, I have noticed that my frustration level is at an all time low if even present at all.

I've conquered a mountain, folks. I'm surprised it's taken me this long but I'm certainly not perfect. Now that I can simply reply with "Ah...the Rove" instead of pulling those few hairs left on the top of my head (see above photo) out, I am free to focus on bigger and brighter pastures:)

15 comments:

MC Rove said...

Given the facts? What would you know about facts? You said "Basically that means that the police can ask for the papers of any non white person in AZ and be within their full legal rights. Any Time. Any Place."

That's wrong. The police have to pull you over for some other infraction. Wasn't that tall of a mountain you conquered.

Ed "What the" Heckman said...

"The Rove essentially betrays a complete lack of knowledge on a particular issue combined with an eight year old stubbornness. It is an easy way to deflect serious thought on an issue and propel it into a realm devoid of facts, logic, and reasoning."

…says the guy who routinely uses logical fallacies and ignores facts he doesn't like more than anyone I have ever met.

This is a classic example of psychological projection.

So Mark, do you think we should adopt the exact same immigration policies as Mexico?

blk said...

The flash point for this generic rant against the Cult appears to be the Arizona anti-immigrant law. The problem with your sweeping generalization this time is that all Republicans and conservatives are not united behind this law.

For example, Marco Rubio, the darling of the Tea Party in Florida, has announced his opposition. Well, that's a no-brainer considering who he is and where he's running for Senate. But there are other Republicans opposed to it as well: Michael Gerson (Washington Post commentator), Mike Huckabee, Meg Whitman (CA candidate for governor), among others.

That said, some conservatives do love to use this kind of tactic, which is generally called "The Big Lie." Newt Gingrich distilled it to its essence in the '94 election cycle. It's just part and parcel of the "discredit and oppose absolutely everything the enemy is for" campaign, which makes it extremely difficult to get anything done when every word out of your mouth only serves to demonize the other guy.

For some reason the Republicans had no problem with drastically increasing the power of the presidency under Bush (holding people forever without trial, wiretaps without warrants, torturing prisoners), yet call Obama's far milder actions to guarantee health care to all totalitarian.

Conservatives rail about how incompetent and corrupt government is, but do everything they can to increase the power of the police and prosecutors, allowing them to use illegally gained evidence in court, seize cash and vehicles used in conjunction with alleged drug crimes without trial, etc.

Conservatives claim to be pro-life, yet demand the death penalty for more and more offenses, believe average citizens should be able to use lethal force against trespassers or if "they're afraid," work to deny appeals in capital cases, put more and more guns on the street, and endorse the idea of preemptive wars.

Does it really make sense to give government the power of life and death over citizens if you think government is incompetent or corrupt? You'd think conservatives and libertarians would be the first ones to demand the end of the death penalty. What worse possible abuse of government power could there be than the possibility of framing and killing innocent people?

Anonymous said...

Oh great, another way to avoid debating facts. You just have to say "The Rove" and somehow you finish the argument with a win.

C'mon Mark, please do better.

The reason that you don't see any 'right leaning' posters changing their mind, is because you rarely refute challenges to your facts, logic, or reasoning.

dw

donald said...

Let's see:

Fact #1: The right wing of this country screams constantly about Constitutional rights being violated (health care, spending etc.) and also think that gay marriage should be illegal.

Fact #2: The right wing of this country says that Barack Obama is a fascist. They are in full support of government wiretaps (both legal and illegal) and scream, like Hitler, that America has nothing to apologize for at all.

Fact #3: Rush Limbaugh called Barack Obama a racist yesterday but has also called him Barack the Magic Negro. And half of the right wing in this country think that people should be checked if they have brown skin.

Seems pretty correct to me, dw.

Anonymous said...

Only because you attempt to paint everyone with the same brush, Donald. I would guess I'm a pretty 'right-wing' guy, but:

1. I couldn't care less about gay marriage. But I certainly oppose the extra-constitutional growth of government, under Obama or under Bush. (no, I was not a huge Bush-fan)

2. I don't remember calling Obama a fascist, not do I remember supporting illegal wiretapping. I do, however take exception to the idea the the US of A has to apologize for its existence.

3. Rush Limbaugh? Is he the RNC chair, or that one senator from Montana? Oh, yeah, I remember.. HE'S AN ENTERTAINER ON THE RADIO.
And, as an aside, I believe it was actually the LA Times that referred to Barack as a magic negro.

3.5. Really? Half of the country thinks brown skinned people should be checked? "Checked" how? "Checked" unconstitutionally? Provide your references please.

So what is it you thought was correct again? Don't just speak your bit, then walk away like you did regarding Obama's birth certificate when your 'facts' were demonstrably false. Because if you do, you are a fascist homophobe who is worse than Stalin.

dw

Ed "What the" Heckman said...

donald,

1. You assert that same sex marriage is a right without making the case that it is. You could start by answering my question on the subject in the comments for Mark's post on the topic.

2. Strawman. Go visit TSM and see how we ACTUALLY describe him. Furthermore, why is it necessary to apologize for LEGAL wiretaps?

3. Another strawman; two of them, actually:

A) When Rush describes President Obama as "Barack the Magic Negro", what attitudes is he referring to?

B) Have you actually read the law? Is it different than current FEDERAL law? Show proof that conservatives want "people … checked if they have brown skin". I certainly don't make that argument, and I haven't seen anyone else use it either. (Other than you idiots using it as a strawman, that is.)

Why don't YOU answer my earlier question:

Should we adopt the exact same immigration policies as Mexico?

6Kings said...

Donald, you are as challenged with presenting facts as Mark. You won't change minds or even get people to acknowledge your point if you post "facts" that aren't....just like Mark.

juris imprudent said...

They scream about the Constitution yet actively deny rights to a large percentage of our population.

Whereas you scream about something that is NOT a Constitutional issue and then scream that anyone who actually READS the Constitution doesn't know what they are talking about.

Air-ball.

Jack Jodell said...

Mark,
I think you're onto something here. Superb and succinct analysis. Blog on!

Ed "What the" Heckman said...

Jack,

Riigghhtt……

Except ALL of you are apparently completely unable to defend your position by answering a few probing questions. How can he be "onto something" when it apparently cannot bear up under scrutiny?

donald said...

Either that or the realization that engaging in a discussion with you is fruitless. But we like wide eyed ones here in Mizzou so here goes.

1. Marriage in itself is not a right but there are rights that go along with it. If a gay couple wants to have those rights, the must be married. Therefore, they are not afforded the same rights as opposite sex married couples. Remove the rights from the civil side of marriage and allow anyone entering into a civil union to have those same rights and the "definition" of marriage won't need to be changed. Mark has said as much on here several times.

Here in MO all forms of same sex unions are banned so it's not just marriage, it's any of the civil rights like visitation or being a guardian of a child if their partner dies. The US Constitution is pretty clear on this and thus my comment above is valid.

2. I signs that show Barack Obama as Hitler. I read right wing blogs, including TSM when I can stomach it, and see Jonah Goldber's name come up all the time. That's what they are saying so it's not a straw man. Any strict Constructionalist would be against government intrusion in just about any way. Even some of the legal wiretapping has been objected to by folks like Ron Paul. My statement above illustrates this hypocrisy.

3. Saying the word "Negro" is now considered to be racist just like saying the word "retarded." Rush says this stuff on purpose because he knows his audience, many of whom are bigoted. Before you start with the histrionics, read Mark's column from today. And then stop insulting my intelligence. Mark is way too nice to you most of the time, Ed. I won't be. The rightie base is filled with white people who act out of fear.

Federal law states that people can't be discriminated against based on the color of their skin. That is what is going to happen in AZ. It's a giant headache for the police and even Jeb Bush says it's ridiculous.

Your question about Mexico's immigration policy is actually the straw man. Yes, it's tougher than ours and I heard all about it last night on Hannity. It doesn't solve the problem. If you are serious about addressing this issue, the businesses that hire cheap labor because they are Scrooges should be punished. Not the Mexican American who has to now carry papers on their persons at all times in Arizona.

So scream away Ed and I will point and laugh at your hypocrisy. Your side hollers like a pig about government intrusion and camps but it's just fine if they are going after the brownies.

Anonymous said...

Okay, let's try this for yet a third time:

Is there any part of current US immigration law that you would actually enforce? What parts and why? If federal authorities failed to enforce such laws, would you forbid, allow or require state and local law enforcement to enforce them? Why?

Anonymous said...

I kinda feel left out that you 'spoke' to Ed and not me. And, I reiterate, I don't mind coming to the end of the discussion and still not agreeing, but we can still have that discussion. Perhaps one of us will be convinced.

Re gay marriage: Again, I don't care. My two ex-wives prevent me from giving marriage advice, via court order.....

2. Picking one poster out of a crowd of thousands, or reading some right wing blog doesn't support your assertion that all conservatives are that way. I could claim that all liberals are both well informed and pithy, just watch The Colbert Report. But not all of you are.
2a. So you oppose LEGAL wiretapping. But it is legal. Can't the Democratic majority and/or President put a stop to that? A simple (and extra-legal, but that's another argument) executive order can stop wiretapping today. So this is not an R vs D debate.

3. Rush Limbaugh? Is he the RNC chair, or that one senator from Montana? Oh, yeah, I remember.. HE'S AN ENTERTAINER ON THE RADIO.
And, as an aside, I believe it was actually the LA Times that referred to Barack as a magic negro.

3.5. Really? Half of the country thinks brown skinned people should be checked? "Checked" how? "Checked" unconstitutionally? Provide your references please.

Again, It was the LA Times. You are misinformed. Rush parodied the LA Times.

I agree strongly with your clarification that illegal immigrant employers should be punished. In fact, I'd say that everyone involved, that is doing something illegal, should be punished. Like, being in this country illegally, maybe?

Parallel rhetorical statement: I went to the bank yesterday to cash a check. Can you believe they insisted on my 'papers please' first? They said they "just need an ID" but I knew they were discriminating against my Irish/German looks. Luckily I had my papers on me.

Did anyone else bring their 'papers' with them when they left the house today?

Making someone carry an ID with them (or be verified via radio (which I have done)) is hardly an incredible burden with racist, anti-Catholic overtones. In the meantime, headlines suggest illegal immigrants are already leaving AZ. Effective legislation, indeed.

So, although you hurt my feelings by addressing Ed, I choose to involve myself. I'm not screaming, and hopefully not exhibiting too much hypocrisy. I no longer holler like a pig about government intrusion (not that I don't want to), but I also don't think this law is "racist".

dw

juris imprudent said...

Mark,
I think you're onto something here. Superb and succinct analysis. Blog on!


OK, so what is really weird about this comment - it reads like the spam-bot from some web anonymity service.

Weird.

Oh, and M, please don't ever give us that view of your noggin again, please! M'kay?