Saturday, September 5, 2009

OK, Jon, how about naming the 'demagogues' you'd ban from CPAC?

Jon Henke apparently e-mailed CPAC Director Lisa DePasquale to ask if Joseph Farah would be speaking next year -- these things are decided six months in advance? who knew? -- and got a response:
Farah asked if he could speak on the issue (birther movement), but that isn't something we're interested in.
Well, I guess that issue's resolved. But then Henke adds:
There are a couple other demagogues who appeal to our baser instincts that I would like to see CPAC decline to host, too . . .
OK, Jon, name names. As I tend to keep busy schmoozing my way around the lobby or the exhibition hall, exchanging business cards, I usually only cover the really big speeches. Maybe I missed something. If CPAC has been scheduling speeches by "demagogues who appeal to our baser instincts," please name these dangerous influences, so we can all join your campaign to oust them.

Meanwhile, as promised, let's deal with Conor Friedersdorf, who in the course of a single blog post, manages to take shots at:
  • Human Events
  • Fox News
  • Sarah Palin
  • Glenn Beck
  • Rush Limbaugh
This, in addition to his long-running war against Mark Levin. So it's Conor vs. Damn Near Everybody and, to the extent that the object is to influence the conservative movement, I don't think Andrew Sullivan's guest-blogger is likely to win that fight.

Whence this rage, this desire to antagonize virtually the entire conservative movement as we know it? To begin with, let's observe that Conor has a habit of hating the exact same conservatives whom liberals hate and of aligning himself with the exact same conservatives whom liberals tolerate.

Furthermore, Conor does not bother to disguise the fact that his ambition is to be an intellectual -- not a mere journalist, nor even strictly a political commentator, but a genuine Trilling-class thinker. Peruse his encomium to Katie Roiphe or his engagement with Ben Domenech as examples of Conor in intellectual audition mode.

And then there is Friedersdorf's defense of Douthatism, which contains this roundhouse putdown:
I'll merely add that it is very difficult to write for the publications where Mr. Douthat made his mark -- the print Atlantic, the print National Review, The New York Times -- and comparatively easy to write copy for Human Events, Newsmax, Townhall, or any number of other places where a talented twentysomething actually interested in maximizing their profit per hour worked would write all their copy, if they really didn't care about anything else.
Well, I gave up any thought of ever writing for National Review long before I attributed Rich Lowry's decline to tertiary syphilis, but it never occurred to me to trash conservative journalism in bulk, as Friedersdorf has done here.

Can this career strategy work? We don't know, for it has no parallel in history. Yet the man has clearly chosen to play the role of my doppelganger. It seems I never get into an online argument with anyone without finding Conor quickly siding with my antagonist. Something of an anti-Other McCain, as it were.

OK, so where did this begin? I'd been teasing Friedersdorf for months -- his extreme sincerity struck me as amusing -- but it was probably my rebuff of his Culture 11 "conservative" argument for same-sex marriage that did the trick. Why?

Well, that AmSpecBlog item was posted on Jan. 2 and, by the end of the month, Culture 11 ceased to exist. The reasons given for the demise of Culture 11 were strictly financial. In just five months of publication, David Kuo had burned through his start-up capital and -- given the economic meltdown -- no more funding was to be had.

Still, in retrospect, I've occasionally wondered if maybe someone didn't see my AmSpecBlog item and bring it to the attention of Culture 11's funders (reported to be Bill Bennett and Steve Forbes) who experienced an epiphany as a result: "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? This is the 'hip, smart cultural conservatism' we're paying for?"

Quite unlikely, but nevertheless possible, and when I later indulged in some extremely vicious schadenfreude over the demise of Culture 11, this probably didn't endear me to Friedersdorf, a victim of the spectacular implosion. And like a certain Austrian art student, whose rejection from the Vienna academy permanently embittered him, now Friedersdorf stalks not only me, but every conservative who reminds him of me, in a campaign of bloody-minded vengeance.

So you see that the blame for Conor's jihad against the conservative movement is mine alone. It's always a good rule of thumb: When in doubt, blame McCain.


  1. I would presume one of those he'd want banned from CPAC would be Ann Coulter.

    As for filling in for Andrew Sullivan, thatwould be like guest-hosting on PMSNBC for Rachel Maddow or The Olbertard. Sullivan's a Trig Truther for crying out loud.

    I don't have any problems with conservatives finding common ground with ordinary Democrats. It's when they slum around in the gutter with the Moonbat Left that sets off alarms. Particularly when they take aim at the same people on the right that the Moonbat Left does.

  2. RS,

    And this is why I wrote in my post (using Two Goth clubs in LA as metaphor) that before they purge, they should convince Conservatives and republicans (in political groups around the country and the Bloggers) first.

    No one I know in LA or SD knows (or even aftr they read him), trusts Conor. Anyone who makes Andrew Sullivan their "Conservative," mentor is worthy of scorn. (Sullivan's non-alleigence to American Conservatives are discussed many times on my Blog. Plus Sullivan is an Anti-semite and hates Israel, more common on the Left then the Right)

    Henke should be taking his views to the streets (I trust Henke) before he purges.

    And as I said earlier, when the Left purges their people of Bush and Palin hatred, of 9/11 and Trig trutherism, then we purge.

    Not before.

  3. "And like a certain Austrian art student, whose rejection from the Vienna academy permanently embittered him, now Friedersdorf stalks not only me, but every conservative who reminds him of me, in a campaign of bloody-mind vengeance."


    It goes without saying that Friedersdorf now will really have *issues* with your *narrative*.

    Mrs. Peperium

  4. I find the idea of Conor Friedersdorf pursuing a campaign of bloody vengeance every bit as risible as Elmer Fudd giving diction lessons.

  5. If any person could watch the last 8 years of insane liberal hysteria, and watch the first 8 months of this obamanation and conclude our major problem here are conservatives questioning the citizenship of this charlatan, then... well, I almost can't wrap my brain around it. Paid agitators designed to disrupt, dispute and spread dissension? Kind of like a union thug at a townhall meeting...only online.Or, maybe they live with the idea that if only the republicans "could find an acceptable candidate", then the mainstream media would just gush and coo, as they fall all over themselves to cover a republican in a positive light. I guess the only way to beg the media to love us is to purify our movement.Show them we are "compassionate". Get rid of the "crazies". Ask John McCain how well that strategy worked out for him.

  6. You could wear Friedersdork's scorn as a badge of honor - IF anyone knew or cared who the Foxtrot he was.

    Seriously, who could take seriously the understudy to Sully? My, what a bully spittle-flecked pulpit that is!

    Incidentally, "Conor" is derived from the older Irish name "Conchobar," which means, literally, "Lover of hounds."


  7. And as I said earlier, when the Left purges their people of Bush and Palin hatred, of 9/11 and Trig trutherism, then we purge.

    I'll add when they purge the hatred and sneering condescension for talk radio and its listeners. I'm going to factor O'Reilly (pun intended) out of there because he's more of a populist. But I am sick of the cheap shots from the GOP elitists at Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. Why? Because they are also cheapshotting those of us who listen to them by extension.

  8. It's become very clear to me that wanting to keep some of your own money and make your own choices with it is a "baser instinct" of "greedy bastards" to much of the Democratic/liberal side.

  9. Dear God

    The narcissism exhibited in this post is mind boggling.


    Get over yourself.

  10. Looks like sarcasm is lost on somebody...