We're not obligated to nail Jell-o to the wall in defense of our beliefs

Derek Hunter has a Townhall.com column this morning that speaks directly to something that has preoccupied me this last week.

First, I'll get as much mileage as I can from his money paragraphs, and then expand on those thoughts:

Ted Nugent, someone I grew up with on the radio in Detroit, called the president a “subhuman mongrel” at an event for Republican gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott of Texas. The offended class in the media sprang into action, drooling like heroin junkies when they hear that flame hit the bottom of the spoon.

It was deemed one of the worst things ever said, by people who make their living declaring things said by others awful – one of the few growth industries in Obama’s economy.

CNN dedicated hour upon hour of coverage to the words of a man whose actions for charity they’ve ignored for decades. Current Texas Gov. Rick Perry went on with Wolf Blitzer and was badgered for 2 1/2 minutes to denounce these words, then denounce them in stronger terms, and again, as if Perry has said them himself. Republicans were nearly trampled by “journalists” demanding they react to and answer for something said in an entirely different time zone.

Meanwhile, taking a break from calling Republicans all manner of potty-mouth names, Bill Maher has made the rounds of cable television as if he knows anything about this beyond what he read on Daily Kos. Imagine the feigned outrage if Maher talked about progressives – any progressives – the way he has talked about Sarah Palin and her children.

This misogynistic bigot gives $1 million to President Obama’s reelection PAC, yet he is greeted as an insightful and unbiased commentator by Blitzer and others. And no progressives – not him nor any of the others – ever is demanded to denounce his attacks. When it comes to progressive racism, misogyny, hatred and violent rhetoric, the referees swallow their whistles, as they say in basketball.

Greg Abbott and Rick Perry are no more responsible for the words of Ted Nugent than progressives are for the words of Bill Maher. But although Abbott and Perry were forced to answer for Nugent, President Obama cashes Maher’s check and his cabinet secretaries, advisors and elected Democrats from Nancy Pelosi on down beat a path to the stage of the man who calls conservative women “c@nt” without question or repercussion.

That’s what happens when you are the one who gets to choose what is offensive. As Mel Brooks said, “It’s good to be the king.”
Republicans need to recognize this and do more than complain about it. They need to refuse to play by these rigged rules. They should start by calling out the gatekeepers of outrage when forced to answer for others. Newt Gingrich scared the hell out of moderators in the 2012 primaries by simply calling a garbage question what it was. If you don’t play the progressives’ game, their rules don’t matter. No matter how often they change them.
A simple, “Did you invite me here to talk about something I had nothing to do with? It wasn’t me, I wasn’t there. I’ll answer for something I had nothing to do with when you answer for Dan Rather. Until then, how about we talk about jobs?” would go a long way toward shutting up these arbiters of offense.
The new rules are there are no rules. The other side is making them up as they go along. Conservatives can’t control the questions they’re asked, but they can control the answers they give. Quick thinking and preparation can turn the tables on the outraged media class, turn the tables on their inquisitors and expose them for the frauds they are.
Of course, it also would be nice if people would stop saying stupid things.

Yesterday, I came across an item in my Facebook newsfeed in which I was mentioned by name, in the context of my assertion that racism is a negligible factor in modern American society. THe poster's launching point was the noose recently hung around the neck of the James Meredith stature.  After satisfying herself that she had rendered my assertion worthy of dismissal, she went right into the talking points about Pubs hating the Most Equal Comrade because of his race.

I haven't responded yet, but I'm going to post the link to Hunter's column.  

I have recently become ensnared in a couple of quite lengthy and contentious FB threads on various matters, and it's gotten me to thinking about the nature of pissing matches.  Let's take the environment, for example.  You can state that the planet isn't in any trouble, that the whole climate-change pseudo-issue serves the dual purposes of distracting people from the true and measurable decline of our civilization, and justifying ever-greater government control of our lives. The next comment you see will be some link full of charts and graphs and atmospheric-science lingo.  You'll bone up on what your sources say and post them.  The thread will devolve into a back-and-forth volley of ever-more arcane, eyes-glazing-over substantiations of each sides' claims, with your FHer opponent finding some source that will connect every kind of weather phenomenon, from droughts to blizzards, to human activity.  Finally there will come a stage at which the FHer side goes to the "look-who-funds-your-think-tanks-and-activists" level.

 

One of the workshops at the Americans for Prosperity Defending the American Dream Summit last summer was called "Getting Past the Gotchas."  It was moderated by Dana Loesch and Lars Larson.  I'm looking at my notes right now.  A big takeaway point was that you have to know all the arguments on both sides and then stay true to what you know to be true.

Which brings Mr. Nugent back into the conversation.  We can't afford to let unfortunate remarks slip out of our mouths.  We can't have a sharpness level that is anything less than maximum.  Freedom-Haters are getting ever-more crafty.

It really comes down to living what you say you believe.