Patterico's Pontifications

3/8/2009

Goldstein to Respond at Hot Air (And Breitbart.tv!)

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:29 pm



Dan Collins has the details. I’ll reproduce my comment here:

I look forward to it as well. Seriously.

And I have a feeling the Hot Air commenters will like Jeff’s message a lot better than they like mine. (I’m not meaning to damn with faint praise, although it’s not a high bar to set.)

Anyway, more speech is good. I’ll be at work when it happens, likely, but I look forward to seeing it when I get home.

Conservatives believe in the marketplace of ideas. I’m going to go link this on my blog now.

I’ve had serious run-ins with Jeff, but he’s a hell of a smart guy and a hell of a writer, and he’ll make a great argument. It should be interesting, so make sure to tune in.

UPDATE: I’ll make a bold prediction. It will emerge that the candy-asses who dared say anything bad about Rush Limbaugh are candy-assed candy-asses.

Oh, it won’t be said in so many words, as much as implied. OUTLAW!

UPDATE x2: I read Goldstein’s piece and my UPDATE above was unfair and uncalled for. Apologies to him.

9 Responses to “Goldstein to Respond at Hot Air (And Breitbart.tv!)”

  1. It should be good, but the important thing is to focus this energy on those who are doing some very bad things to the economy. A recession is being turned into a depression right in front of us. This has to stop.

    Joe (17aeff)

  2. Take a drink anytime JG uses the words “semiotics” or “hermeneutics,” or for any sentence longer than 175 words.

    gp (72be5d)

  3. http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=14485. Well, I was close. Fourth sentence, 169 words. Yup, that JG is a hell of a writer!

    gp (72be5d)

  4. Pure gibberish too, when all one has to do is point to this:

    I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it.

    Somebody said it and ever since that moment he and his defenders have been running away from his plain meaning.

    He got his headline and some bloggers, attempting to resurrect the soon to be gone website, spend all the bandwidth of Hot Air trying to make the Republican Party smaller! Bully for you, Goldstein, and friends. Keep it up, because this while thing couldn’t make happier.

    PS Pat, I think you have done a great job during this debate of being rational and helping both of you and Jeff. It’s obvious that the reason Jeff chose to attack thee was that his followers have been migrating here for some time and he wants them back. I think you demonstrated there are two different flavors of ice cream here and people who like ice cream can have both, i.e. the internet is big enough for both of you. I imagine the increase in traffic was nice too.

    Personally, I still hope Goldy wins, but that’s because I want universal health insurance, green energy, etc.

    timb (a83d56)

  5. Rush has already won this argument. He showed that the President of the United States is willing to dedicate people (even his chief of staff) to forward a disingenuous out-of-context portrayal of Rush’s words. Now that Rush has invited Obama to discuss it (and his policies), the President hides under his bed while Frum, Brooks and I guess even Patterico do the bidding of Begala, Emmanual and Carville.

    Kinda sad.

    harkin (f9df5a)

  6. To quote Ace, from the post you linked:

    Lay off with the fucking nonstop baiting and insults, recognize, as any sane person will, that when you personalize an argument you’ve just ended the intellectual segment of the debate and begun the emotional name-calling part of it, follow your own counsel, and stop playing the sweetheart batting your eyes innocently as you ask, “Why can’t we just discuss these things in a calm, measured way?”

    Good advice for all Patterico, including you. Was your update really necessary, or was it just more gratuitous sniping at those whom disagree with your interpretation (and at Jeff, of course).

    Reasonable people can reasonable conclude it is the later.

    bains (f104b8)

  7. This is incredible. This reminds me of the lengthy comment thread that followed Patterico’s declaration following the election that Obama was a “good man.” which was based on nothing more substantial than the hope he would prove to be one.

    Not to go over plowed ground, but at the time I thought that was a silly thing to say, given the fact that I knew I would be opposing his policies back in November. Which is why I didn’t vote for them. So why would I want to make unforced errors and even appear to assign the moral high ground to a man who would pursue harmful policies? Whether he did so out of malevolent intent or inexcusable ignorance.

    Now, the same crowd eager to declare the underlying goodness of the man who long telegraphed his intent to pursue manifestly harmful policies now wishes to assign the worst possible motives to anyone who opposes those policies.

    This explains a lot. There weren’t two different visions articulated for the country during the last election. McCain got nowhere by calling Obama a socialist because he couldn’t explain why or how his plans really differed. Especially after he voted for TARP.

    Now the same crowd who’s only media strategy is apparently trying to prove how nice and bipartisan we are is getting danced around again by the partisans in the White House. Who really do want to win.

    I suppose the average voter can be forgiven for voting for Obama. People who claim to be somewhat Republican have been busy tripping over themselves proclaiming Obama good, his intentions for the country only the best, and lending their consent to the idea that anyone who opposes him ugly, divisive, and irrational.

    So apparently a massive expansion of the nanny state is what was good for the country all along, and Republicans only opposed it out of mean-spirited selfishness. At least, that’s the message these spokesmen are sending.

    All the while accusing Rush of being the ineffective communicator.

    Steve (1f4baf)

  8. Who are you talking about in your rant Steve?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  9. To quote Ace, from the post you linked:

    Lay off with the f_cking nonstop baiting and insults, recognize, as any sane person will, that when you personalize an argument you’ve just ended the intellectual segment of the debate and begun the emotional name-calling part of it, follow your own counsel, and stop playing the sweetheart batting your eyes innocently as you ask, “Why can’t we just discuss these things in a calm, measured way?”

    Good advice for all Patterico, including you. Was your update really necessary, or was it just more gratuitous sniping at those whom disagree with your interpretation (and at Jeff, of course).

    Reasonable people can reasonable conclude it is the later.

    bains (f104b8)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2259 secs.