The Search For Beef

The New Patriot is a local liberal group blog. They have a couple of writers worth reading.

Chris Dykstra takes on Powerline.

He writes (scroll down - their permalinks are hosed) about John Hinderaker's piece yesterday comparing the Bin Laden statement to the cant of Michael Moore and/or the Democrat party. We talked about it on the air today - and the funny thing is, Bin Laden's statement does follow a lot of Democrat talking points about the war, about 9/11.

Dykstra says:

After reading John Hinderaker's, (AKA "Hinderocket" of Power Line) bizarre "analysis" of Bin Laden's speech, I felt like sending him a sympathy card. One can only hope those thoughts weren't as painful to birth as they are to read. I probably shouldn't worry, though. For one so obviously innoculated by right-thought, I'm sure authoring this brainless twaddle was an exercise in ecstasy.

Bizarre brainless twaddle. Oy. That's quite an opening broadside. With an opener like that, naturally Mr. Dykstra will be favoring us with exactly what's wrong with Rocket Man's thesis.

Let's read on:

Mr. Hinderaker submits for our inspection the proposition that Osama Bin Laden has absorbed a few Democratic Talking Points and is now trumpeting them to the world. He says that Michael Moore is the "intellectual leader" of the Democratic Party, ergo, Michael Moore and the Democratic Party wrote Bin Laden's speech.

Well, let's stop here; Rocket doesnt say that, if you read carefully. Or, let's be honest, if you read at all. During our conversation on the air today, the thesis was more like Bin Laden - shrewd an observer of America that he is - is echoing a lot of Democrat talking points and several script points from Fahrenheit 911. (Note to Mr. Dykstra: Indiscriminate use of the word ergo can lead you down rhetorical alleys you don't want to go down. So does crack cocaine. Ergo, if you keep using ergo to make bogus logical connections, you will soon be seen fencing CD players for your next fix)

But enough quibbling. I'm sure the beef is on the way:

He appears to be serious (If I Mr. Hindraker is writing for the Onion, then I apologize and bow before him.)

Still no beef:

First, about Mr. Moore. He is the the intellectual leader of the Democratic Party the way that Sean Hannity, or Larry Kudlow, or Dennis Miller, or Howard Fineman, or ... is the intellectual leader of the Republican Party. In other words, he is not.

Chicken/egg question; Does the Democrat party perfectly reflect Moore, or does Moore perfectly reflect the Democrat party? The answer: Yes.

And neither Hannity nor Kudlow nor Miller nor Fineman nor ... were seated on the dais at the RNC. The GOP website and the GOP power elite haven't been pimping Hannity's show or Miller's program or Kudlow's output.

But never mind; I'm sure the actual factual refutation of Hinderaker is coming soon...

Moore makes controversial films that in some ways parallel Democratic postions. However, he didn't write the platform and doesn't always reflect the ideas of our candidate. He made a powerful visual essay in Fahrenheit 9.11 that was successful in the marketplace of ideas. Hannity and the others have successful media personas, which they generally use to spread the Republican Word. While they all enjoy status as celebrities, none are party leaders.

And Bin Laden's statement echoed none of their talking points, except for the Democrats and Moore.

Secondly, Hindraker seems to think that Bin Laden needed Moore to point out that Bush sat reading a children's book for seven minutes while the country was attacked. Just a gentle reminder - Bin Laden didn't need Moore to tell him he had extra time. Bin Laden enjoyed the favor real time. Remember?

Brief aside: this may be the Democrat talking point that makes me the most livid. It's a canard. I've put together the timeline of everything that happened the morning of 9/11; every action on every plane, every phone call, everyplace the President went, every time Andrew Card broke in, every plane that scrambled...everything. The "seven minutes" made no difference. Zero.

But again, back on topic; Mr. Dykstra is going to show us where Rocket Man is wrong:

As for the rest of it, it doesn't actualy matter what Bin Laden says. He is a master politician and the only thing of which we can be sure is that, just like Bush and Kerry, he is playing to his base.

Right. And what base is he talking to, by parroting the talking points from Fahrenheit 911?

His message is aimed at Arabs, not Americans.

Right. Which is why "the master politician" released his message just before those renowned Arab elections, parroting rhetoric from the noted Arab filmmaker Miq Al Moor.

If he happens to sound themes critical of Bush, it just means he can read the news [825 page compilation of mainstream news stories detailing President Bush's record. 1.4 MB PDF] Hindraker wonders if there will be any "...Democrats honest enough to be embarrassed that Osama bin Laden has enthusiastically adopted their campaign themes?" The answer is no, unless they are as ill-informed as Republicans appear to be.

OK, Republicans ar dum, Democrats are smart. Got it.

But the synchronicity that Hinderaker wrote about is wrong because...?

The question I ask in return is this: Are there any Republicans honest enough to be embarassed that three years after 9.11, Osama Bin Laden is dancing a jig on prime time TV while our troops face attacks from insurgents created and armed through the incompetence of this President?

Yep. It's embarassing. Clinton should have nabbed Bin Laden when he had the chance. No argument. Otherwise, though, the President's been right and his critics pretty much wrong.

But no matter - the real question is, how is Hinderaker wrong? Where is the observation that Bin Laden's statement and the moonbat left's list of talking points are near-perfectly in tune, wrong?

Anyone?

Posted by Mitch at October 31, 2004 03:50 AM | TrackBack