An unthinking Dittohead "juiced up with emotion, fear, guilt and racism"

Like flip-flopping establishment politicians clinging to their funding sources, certain seaweeds attach themselves to underwater ledges from where they may wave this way or that according to changing currents. But what happens when a violent storm uproots them, tossing their fluttering fronds to the vicissitudes of wind and tide? See below for more. (Seattle Aquarium on the waterfront photo)

"Hey, Doug. Thanks for the link!" we just wrote in the comments of Doug Mataconis's latest Outside the Beltway post, "Alan Simpson Fights Back Against Deficit Commission Critics." As one of those critics, we were delighted to see our own post "Alan Simpson suffers a 'Barbara Bush Moment'" linked there as an example of an unthinking Dittohead "juiced up with emotion, fear, guilt and racism," paired with fire-breathing FireDogLake as our counterpart on the left. First Doug's argument, then our response. Approvingly quoting Simpson's dissing of Rush as a far-right version of MSNBC's fringy leftist Olbermann and Maddow, here's Doug:

Much like the Commission itself, Simpson has been attacked by both the left and the right [Look, ma, no hands!] for some of the outspoken comments he’s made lately, but he’s absolutely right here. As I noted in my first piece about the Bowles-Simpson proposal, the nature of our political culture makes it unlikely that anyone will tackle the Deficit Commission’s proposals seriously, and Simpson recognizes the problem as well …

Unfortunately we now live in a world where many people seem to believe quite the opposite, and where the same event can be interpreted quite differently depending on where on the ideological spectrum you happen to fall. When that’s the case, it’s hard to see where the common ground for agreement can even be found.

What is our post-Thanksgiving turkey broth, aboil atop the stove even as we blog, doing in this post? A perfect metaphor for the Tea Party effect. Plunk the old, depleted carcass (the entrenched GOP) into a large pot, cover with water and toss in a few flavor enhancers like carrot, onion, rosemary sprigs, bay leaf and freshly ground pepper (tea party energizers). Bring to a boil, lower heat to medium and cook a few hours till liquid is reduced by about 2/3. Strain through a sieve. Pick through the solids for meaty goodness and add back in to the clarified broth.

Indeed. We're not looking for an unprincipled common ground. Been there, done that. Our decidedly inexpert understanding is that Simpson & Company would "preserve both the Entitlement Economy and Big Government." If that is incorrect, we're ready to listen to reasoned argument, but specifics of the report are not our concern here. We're looking to clear out the effete establishment undergrowth to make way for robust new seedlings to take root. Our reply:

Speaking as a blowhard and demagogue of the right, I must say I continue to agree with myself that Simpson, once a favorite of mine, is suffering a "Barbara Bush Moment."

An image came to mind of current-tossed fronds of seaweed dislodged from the ledge that had always moored them by the swells — earthquake, tsunami? — of a great storm at sea, floating to the surface and washing up on the shore to die a slow, agonizing death in the clarifying sunlight of transparency. It's a Tea Party thing.

Then came this snarky response to our own comments from An Interested Party:

So … looks like “suffering” a “Barbara Bush Moment” means simply telling the truth … a pity more people can’t “suffer” from such moments…that probably wouldn’t be a Tea Party thing, though …

Well, no:

My criticism has mainly to do with Simpson's gratuitous dissing of Rush as just the opposite side of the extremist coin. How does that uninformed opinion equal "simply telling the truth"?

The final word goes to twitterfriend Rob Alloy IV:

It is obvious Simpson doesn't listen to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh either from his remarks, which are Washington Double speak.

We heard the same thing used as a reason for all the entitlements that are breaking us today, but we are the cowardly generation.

Indeed. As we argued in our previous post, the establishment pols — of BOTH parties — aren't listening. They don't even know our language.

Update: Instalanche!

SISSY WILLIS: “We’re not looking for an unprincipled common ground."

Crossposted at Riehl World View and Liberty Pundits.

Comments

[goomp]

It is mighty sad that most of the pols from both parties are so out of touch with the principles that our founding fathers knew were the basis of true freedom.

[gs]

Alan Simpson co-authored legislation that "solved" the illegal immigration problem back in the Reagan administration.

No wonder Obama wants him as the Republican face of the deficit commission.

[ajacksonian]

Amazing that the Nation got from 1776 to 1936 without one, single 'entitlement' program, and yet Americans built a continent spanning Nation and created the greatest industrial system the world has ever seen. Plus kept their currency relatively stable up to 1912.

Now with all the 'entitlements', a financial set of systems that shows the entire suite of problems with the old National Bank plus many others, a minimum wage that makes it better to have jobs overseas than in the US, plus subsidizing health care via the tax code that: our money loses 95% of its value, we lose our industrial strength, and we are now in a debt problem unlike any other seen in this Nation since its Framing.

What happens when the money is worthless and the power goes out on the 'third rail'? We soon shall find out.

[M. Simon]

Planet? What Planet? I have a bad feeling about this.

[Apple]

If looking for an unprincipled common ground is not a good thing, I would suggest looking for a principle.

Here's one: "Raising taxes is not reducing government spending."

This statement is the title of Prof. George Reisman's essay against Harvard Prof. N. Gregory Mankiw's NY Times article that the Deficit Commission should think about closing all those tax loopholes.

Reisman writes:

The essential theme of the article is that the government is spending when it decides to forgo tax revenue that it otherwise could have collected. Indeed, tax revenues forgone in the enactment of tax deductions, such as for interest payments on home mortgages or charitable contributions, and tax credits, such as for first-time homebuyers or adoptions, are now commonly described as “Tax Expenditures.” The thought is that the government is spending money in deciding not to take it in taxes and to allow the taxpayers to keep it.

The underlying assumption of those who hold this view is that the government already owns the funds in question whether it has collected them in taxes or not. The government is the alleged owner of funds that belong to the taxpayer and which it abstains from taking. It allegedly spends these funds in allowing the taxpayers to keep them.

The fundamental question is, who is the owner of the funds paid in taxes?

For more see his web site: capitalism dot net.

[jcp370]

Ah the mythological reasonable Republicans and conservatives of the past. Who can forget how they were loved by one & all? The fawning press, the international accolades, the adoring masses - the heavens literally smiled down on all those intelligent, rational and well-spoken Republicans & conservatives of yesteryear. Why oh why are we burdened with these coarse, shrill know-nothing cretins of present day?

And it really shouldn't be surprising that Alan Simpson (OUR HERO!) would conflate Olbermann & Rush. I know nothing of Mr. Simpson personally, mind you, other than he was one of those eminently sensible Republicans that existed back in the day but I can tell by looking at him that his actual knowledge of popular culture in all probability ended at least 20 years ago.

[Jim Ryan]

There is no common ground. The country isn't polarized enough.

[flataffect]

Like it or not, we're going to be governed by the voice of the people and when they vote against reason and common sense, our republic, along with our society, will crumble. I think our current mess will only get worse, because there are too many of us who expect the rest to support them.

I don't expect the tea party movement to hang together very long if it becomes Balkanized and quarrelsome. That may sound like an appeal to "unprincipled common ground," but as long as elections count, we will have to take whatever common ground we can get.

[Snelson134]

Where did you get the idea that elections counted? As long as we have regulations by unelected bureaucrats enforced by unelected judges, we can vote for whom we please... for all the difference it makes.

[JadedByPolitics]

His ignorance in calling out the elderly as the selfish generation is quite humorous because Mr Simpson will never want for nor need to fall under the auspices of the Federal Government in his declining years however this Federal Government saw fit many decades ago to start taking money directly out of people's pockets and generation after generation of politician saw fit to PROMISE the good life to those same voting seniors and now they want to embarrass them and mock them? Well those seniors have damn well paid the price of admission to that program and the Federal Government will damn well take care of them. If Mr Simpson wants to talk about the selfish, he need look no further then the idiots controlling DC and the 25 and under generation who have been taught that everything is "free" under this Democrat Administration and Congress (remember Pelosi promising you could paint or write poems and still have "free" healthcare?).

He need look no further for the solution than each and every Government agency, including but not limited to Dept of Edu, DOE, IRS (flat tax will take care of that appendage) etc.

[Duke]

The import of 'we are not looking for unprincipled common ground' is a battle to the political finish between those who put the government at the center of American society and those who put the individual there. That's not right verses left but political class versus citizenry. We citizens must press the fight over the scope of government towards a decisive finish of enforceable limits to government spending, else the entitlement state will bankrupt us all.

[Old Fan - Brooklyn]

mmm...

I just grow with differing concepts from the mighty SISSU these days.

Of course I agree, Mr. Simpson is wrong.

But the reality is, I agree with listening to his opinion, just as I would agree with reviewing the opinion of all Mr. Simpson suggested should not be listened to.

It is the substance of the offering, not the form of venue.

But in my opinion, Mrs. Bush has every right to express her opinion - and as typically blunt she has always been, she may have expressed it a little too coldly for many. But she has every right to offer it, just as Simpson, and it is worthy to take the offering into some account.

Just as I do when I encountered the ugly response from Mrs. Palin, who turned to ugly Populism and class warfare, using a terrible term like "blue blood".

And this is where I would honestly challenge my own old blog friend, the mighty SISSU, and wonder if she actually paid attention to the substance of the offering of Mrs. Palin.

You see, I object to many things Mr. Limbaugh has said over the years, even though I was a diddohead from 93. For example, his use of "blue blood" terms was also simply ugly class warfare within the Republican game - entirely NOT conservative or American. Also, Mr. Beck has peddled an easy fashion of equating the two Parties, which simply defies reality, reason, even history. It is hardly accurate, honest, ethical, and often is used to play a safe INDY game.

No, you see, I feel strongly it doesn't matter if you are in the "HIP" Conservative realm - on a certain side, it is the actual substance of the offering. And too many these days, are following fashion - not leading with substance, facts, reality. This is why Delaware was a fiasco, not a victory. This is why after 2004, you had fools on the Conservative side calling GW Bush a 'traitor', actively calling for his Impeachment. The fashion consumed all, not paying attention to the substance.

We see it daily, and it grows tiresome, even undermines the good cause.

Basis is essential. Some in Conservative Circles even seem to ignore some glaring bits of reality about others, because they deem them apart of a certain Conservative community. But the ignoring of the basis, only leads to a loss of credibility for all.

For example, when ARNOLD the failed Gov. of Cali challenged Sarah Palin's environmental offering, Sarah responded by reminding all she grew the Alaskan bureaucracy by building "Climate Panels" as Governor. So many Conservative fashion followers were thrilled with Mrs. Palin being so robust in her defense of herself, ignoring the actual substance of this offering was indeed left of the mark - a true Democratic Partisan policy effort.

So basis is the essential element which no conservative would ignore. No matter how "hip" the source. Nor would any conservative not be willing to review another opinion, fact, etc., out of fear it could challenge their viewpoint. WFB had it right, and one can only hope we return to the basis.

[RobAlloyIV]

I will respond to Old Fan with a simple factual point. Beck is always saying "Don't Trust what anyone else is saying even me and find out for yourself what the truth is" versus Simpson who is "You should stop listening to people like Beck and listen to people like me instead."

Funny its the guy who says you shouldn't listen to other viewpoints beside my own that we should consider more seriously.