Posts Tagged ‘history’

I haven’t had much time for fun lately, I’ve missed game night more than I’ve made it. I haven’t played Civ IV in I don’t remember how long, I’ve got 5 different books I have to finish and review.

So tweaking Charles Johnson is about as far down my list of things to do as you can get, but Tim Blair either has his time organized better or has less to do because he took a trip down memory lane yesterday to remind Mr. Johnson of his own past:

Born-again leftoid Charles Johnson denounces the “tidal wave of right wing nuttiness directed at Barack Obama”. Fair enough, in several cases; that birther obsession, for one, is downright crazy. But it’s a little rich for flippy Charlie to rail against “Obama Derangement Syndrome” when for several recent years Johnson himself was a serious sufferer. Following are a few items by Charles on Obama, all posted before Obama had even won the Democrat nomination to run for President

Even better than the list is the point he makes in updates:

From the right? Son, check your own sources in all the links below. You cited the New York Times, the Associated Press, Andrew Sullivan, the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, among others, and used these as evidence of Obama’s unfitness for office. You weren’t running right-wing talking points. You were attempting to generate them.

That sure sounds familiar:

It’s very interesting but it would appear that from the time that Media matters backed Charles in his dispute with Beck Charles hasn’t had a tagged post going after media matters for anything. Nor the Daily Kos for that matter, and only one tagged moonbats. (it was a good one)

And no tagged post hitting Media Matters Godfather George Soros for over a year.

He once talked about the six degrees of George Soros, and now it’s only one.

It’s rather amazing that for all that time these guys haven’t don’t anything weird enough for Charles to post and illustrate, and even the one moonbat post concerns stuff done in years past.

Have they suddenly become all sane? Have they all suddenly decided to support the troops? Have they all suddenly decided to support Israel?

Change we can believe it! Well Charles believes it anyways.

BTW is it too late to say that Robert Stacy won their fight hands down?

Credit where credit it due though, he was on the right side of the South Park issue so perhaps there is still hope.

I’ve got a lunch meeting today…

Posted: April 26, 2010 by datechguy in opinion/news
Tags: , , ,

…so while I’m gone go read this post by Meryl Yourish that gives an important history lesson.

Hat tip to Captain Ed who referenced it on another topic.

Apparently not because he makes the following statement:

They weren’t around protesting during the Bush years BECAUSE THE TEA PARTY IS REPUBLICANS. They don’t care about the deficit. They care that a Democrat (and a black “Muslim,” to boot), is in the White House. They don’t care about fiscal restraint, they care that a Democrat is in the White House.

Now I’ve attended a few tea parties and talked to people there. The trust level for republicans is not very high. If you had interviewed these people you would know this. As for the suggestion that people who support the tea parties care only that a Democrat is in the White House well, let me make the introductions…

John Cole…meet Glenn Reynolds. You might have heard of the man, he was writing about something you might recalled known as porkbusters. The earliest entry in the 3 pages of archives when you search for “Porkbusters” is May 16 2006. There is actually a blog entry from Sept 18th of 2005 as well available.

John Cole…Michelle Malkin. You might know the lady. (I’ve met her very gracious and did a kind deed for my older brother) I took the liberty of searching her archive for “porkbusters” and lo and behold it goes back to Sept 19th 2005.

Now I don’t claim to have a photographic memory but I seem to recall that there was no democrat, black or otherwise in the White House at the time nor was there a republican majority in the house where spending originates.

If you want to pretend that it’s all about President Obama’s pigmentation you go on ahead. It will earn you hits from the left and love from the media. Just don’t expect people who know how to use a search engine to take you seriously.

Update: Bad link, Thanks to Patrick for spotting it.

Update 2: Patrick does more than correct my bad link:

The reason I raised a stink about this, is because John Cole is doing two things; first of all, he is doing something that I feel is just wrong — but is what the liberal left is known for and that is collectivism. Blaming an entire group for the actions of a few. Which, I feel, is wrong. Secondly, Cole is playing fast and loose with the facts and with pinning blame, which I think he knows; but because he hopped the fence, because Bush did not do things, like he thought they ought to be done, he bailed on the right — he feels that he has to recite the talking points of the left, in order to remain in their good graces. Although, I could be wrong on that one.

the NYT, concerning John Paul II that deserves some elaboration.

When I was reading the book Saved by my enemy I was struck by a particular story. The young lady couldn’t get over the idea that George Bush wasn’t jailing or executing people for disagreeing with him. Since all she knew was how “the rules” worked in Iraq the concept that they worked differently just didn’t register to her.

In one sense that was a huge disadvantage for John Paul II. He had lived through communism and the police state, he knew their tactic and their methods it was his reality for him for decades.

One of the normal tactics of Communism was to spread rumors and calumny of people they wanted to destroy. It was a very common tactic and helped justify not only state actions but was useful in discrediting those who opposed them.

Unfortunately when the scandals broke and were promoted by those who were never friendly to the church I strongly suspect John Paul thought he recognized a tactic that he had seen countless times before.

This was played on by those who wanted to keep things quiet, those afraid of scandal or with something to hide. I believe they used John Paul’s own familiarity with one evil to to deceive him about another.

Fortunately others (such as the then Cardinal Ratzinger) thought otherwise and acted.