Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Not exhausted yet...
And much to my chagrin, in fact.
It's worth adding that if I'm not careful, I might end up a Savage listener quite in spite of myself.
Jody and I were having a discussion on Karl Rove's amorality versus his (possible) immorality. Of course, the discussion was the fruit of a debate on Rove's tactics, which you may read about in its various incarnations here and here. (And here and here, too! Whew!)
In reference to Jody's salient post, I made the point that I recognize clearly that Rove is a political operative whose job is to get his man elected. As our discussion continued, Jody added (and I agree) that it's Rove's job to keep his man clean. In that regard, he is not really better than any Democrat operative.
The main point of contention, if it could even be called one, is whether or not Rove is simply acting amorally, or whether his supposed detachment from the process and belief that he is acting "correctly" be some measure mitigates the fact that he is still acting immorally.
It may very well be besides the point. Enter Savage. Just now, he made the point that he can forgive hacks on both sides, because none of them are doing anything that anyone on either side shouldn't expect. The target of Savage's ire tonight is Jimmy Carter, who has been vocal in noting that irregularities are going to occur in Florida. (And perhaps that is a kind assessment.)
This "unilateral pre-emptive strike," as the Angry Conservative puts it, is to be despised not for its inherent content, but because in making it, Carter is playing the same sorts of partisan dirty-tricks (here, casting dispersions upon a result that isn't even a result yet, in order to tar the presumptive winner - Bush - after he wins, before he wins) that any other operative would play, while trying to set himself up as someone who is above that same sort of activity.
So Savage says to be a hack. You're not fooling anyone, especially if you go out of your way to fool anyone.
The indignance about Rove then, is misplaced. It's like being surprised about recidivism, or the content of the Jerry Springer Show. Or something like that.
Just take it for what it is - masterful lies, a perspective that needs to be voiced, total crap, or what have you - and use those energies in a way that's constructive and useful.
Like trying to figure out what the Italians were smoking when they came up with this...
Addendum
In my haste, I forgot to give a good example - one that is more innocuous than suggesting that someone is a pedophile, but needling to the other side nonetheless. Visit www.michaelsavage.org or www.michaelsavage.net.
Go ahead. Try it.
|
It's worth adding that if I'm not careful, I might end up a Savage listener quite in spite of myself.
Jody and I were having a discussion on Karl Rove's amorality versus his (possible) immorality. Of course, the discussion was the fruit of a debate on Rove's tactics, which you may read about in its various incarnations here and here. (And here and here, too! Whew!)
In reference to Jody's salient post, I made the point that I recognize clearly that Rove is a political operative whose job is to get his man elected. As our discussion continued, Jody added (and I agree) that it's Rove's job to keep his man clean. In that regard, he is not really better than any Democrat operative.
The main point of contention, if it could even be called one, is whether or not Rove is simply acting amorally, or whether his supposed detachment from the process and belief that he is acting "correctly" be some measure mitigates the fact that he is still acting immorally.
It may very well be besides the point. Enter Savage. Just now, he made the point that he can forgive hacks on both sides, because none of them are doing anything that anyone on either side shouldn't expect. The target of Savage's ire tonight is Jimmy Carter, who has been vocal in noting that irregularities are going to occur in Florida. (And perhaps that is a kind assessment.)
This "unilateral pre-emptive strike," as the Angry Conservative puts it, is to be despised not for its inherent content, but because in making it, Carter is playing the same sorts of partisan dirty-tricks (here, casting dispersions upon a result that isn't even a result yet, in order to tar the presumptive winner - Bush - after he wins, before he wins) that any other operative would play, while trying to set himself up as someone who is above that same sort of activity.
So Savage says to be a hack. You're not fooling anyone, especially if you go out of your way to fool anyone.
The indignance about Rove then, is misplaced. It's like being surprised about recidivism, or the content of the Jerry Springer Show. Or something like that.
Just take it for what it is - masterful lies, a perspective that needs to be voiced, total crap, or what have you - and use those energies in a way that's constructive and useful.
Like trying to figure out what the Italians were smoking when they came up with this...
Addendum
In my haste, I forgot to give a good example - one that is more innocuous than suggesting that someone is a pedophile, but needling to the other side nonetheless. Visit www.michaelsavage.org or www.michaelsavage.net.
Go ahead. Try it.
|
