Dish silence on Ron Paul, plus … the Eric Cartman rope-a-dope?

Ron Paul for dessert again on The Dish:

He will continue to be smeared by the more extreme neoconservatives precisely because they see his attempt to unwind an unsustainable neo-empire as an end to open-ended, unconditional support for an increasingly far right and fundamentalist Israel and an end to the PNAC global control ideology that is slowly corrupting this country and bankrupting its treasury.

So neoconservatives want a neo-empire because to not have it would be to not support Israel unconditionally?

That’s a bit of a change in the hierarchy of values, isn’t it? I mean, not for the comments space under a Yahoo News story, but for the average educated person … Israel is supposed to be like South Sudan or Taiwan, with better surgeons and humanities classes. Ah well, not the first tine he’s gotten stuck in this mix-up about ideology  — happens before you get to the level-300 American political theory courses.

As for “the PNAC global control ideology” comment, he knows the Project for a New American Century is not an ideological lighthouse for other organizations. It seems he’s naming the PNAC to indicate what stereotypical foreign policy ideology he’s talking about, and at the same time, to harness some wind at his back from the “anti-neoimperalism” push. Despite the crazies — ANSWER, Laroucheniks, RESPECT, etc. — this movement is very collegiate, and responsible for the new young demographic of Joe Klein’s blog. Classy, Andrew.

The way he built this sentence is strange. If the Israel part was out, it would still make sense but need some tweaking to avoid looking redundant, or like circular reasoning.

… Anyway, he’s just baiting readers here, with formulations that he knows are phrased to be more immoderate and skewed a bit away from precision. He picks groups and tries to get blowback from them. It’s very Cartmanesque. Classy, Andrew.

Perhaps he’s under the delusion that  he’s not being like Cartman, but trying to emulate Obama, with the rope-a-dope. (Does Sullivan think he conquered Wiesenthal? It looked more like a lose-lose situation to me. Obama wins because he is more sensible than his opponent, not more insensate.)

The lack of constructive criticism posted alongside Sullivan’s excitement over Ron Paul was actually the first big problem I had with The Dish, way back before it was even half-bad.

We know Ron Paul wouldn’t have voted to help Rwanda with the military. How is Sullivan going to argue against the fact that the Catholic theology gives its support to using the military to protect civilians from murder? Is The Dish going to say that it was being insincere when it based its opposition to “torture-lite” on Catholic doctrine?

Speaking of sincerity, we know that Ron Paul has never voted for a mere statement that condemns Iranian human rights abuses, despite saying that a “moral statement” was what the U.S. should offer foreign citizens in desperate situations instead of military involvement, or sanctions. And I thought Sullivan was now recommending statements about abuse of the protesters …

I recall Ron Paul voting against several Darfur and Burma statements, calling them preludes to military involvement. Paul can’t even encourage our government to make a so-called moral statement, despite his attempts to assuage sensitive voters — this man the Dish calls “sincere.”

The Dish is the same blog that posted nothing during the Republican primaries relating humanitarianism or past and present genocides with Ron Paul’s extreme isolationism.

Going through some words and phrases Andrew has applied in praise of his blog : “Sincerity”? “The airing of dissents”? “Open-mindedness, to encourage critical thinking”? … “Orwell”?

I predict that “self-deluded” will become a neocon smear technique … in other words, a person will be called a neocon if they call Andrew Sullivan “self-deluded.”


One Response

  1. […] (… But Netanyahu’s speeches don’t have the Cartman factor.) […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: