Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Into The Politico Arena

    Into The Politico Arena

    As you know, I’ve expressed my doubts about Politico.  But the reality is that Politico is one of the major internet news sources and will be for the foreseeable future.

    While my prior criticisms applied to Politico’s news operations, I also was frustrated that whenever I read the political debates which took place at Politico’s Arena, the political voice represented by this blog was not being heard.

    For better or worse, I contacted Politico and requested contributor status at the Arena, and such request was granted.

    So starting today, I will chime in on some  — but not all — of the issues being debated at the Arena.  These are not the equivalent of blog posts, but really just quick takes on an issue.

    My first contribution today was on the issue of whether Republicans should be suspicious of the “mixed seating” proposals for the State of the Union address.  Here is what I wrote:

    For two years, legitimate opposition to Democratic policies, particularly Obamacare, was met with false accusations of hate speech and violence. Senior Democratic politicians (Chuck Schumer referring to Scott Brown) used the pejorative “teabagger,” peaceful protesters were called un-American, and the entire tea party movement was labeled racist, all in the cause of passing the Democratic legislative agenda. Even at last year’s State of the Union, President Obama attacked the Supreme Court decision Citizens United by falsely characterizing the nature of the decision, causing Democratic politicians to leap to their feet around the justices and clap loudly just feet from the justices.

    Having accomplished many of their legislative goals the past two years through such partisanship and lack of legislative civility, it rings hollow for Democrats now to call for mixed seating at the State of the Union. While I’m sure some politicians make such a request in good faith, Republicans are right to be distrustful and to view the new call for civility primarily as a tactic to consolidate what has been accomplished.

    How did I do, and more importantly, was I right to enter the Arena?

    ——————————————–
    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
    Bookmark and Share

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    Good that you've entered the arena, but Politico needs about thirty more such voices to be more than a blip in the endless flock of bien-pensant leftists.

    You'll need to make the lead sentence an executive summary, too, so that the liberals reading down the list (as I did, but with reversed hopes) will not recoil before reaching your conclusion.

    Of course you should enter the fray and your comments are exactly correct. By the looks of things over at The Arena, it's populated by Democratic operatives, though. I wonder how many people really read much of it once they get the way the wind blows there.

    Rats, rats, rats. Does this mean I have to start reading Politico again? Rats!

    Definitely right to jump in the arena. It's good to get another viewpoint, sort of like CK in WaPo (the only reason to read that paper these days).

    I was asked to contribute to a completely sprog blog-thing that was presented as "all spectrums" of political thought, and checked it out before I agreed (which I did not), and I'm glad I did. It was a horror show of inarticulate, hate-filled leftist word soup. When I mentioned this failing of the blog-thing to the person who'd contacted me assuring me they were left, right, and center, he said that none of the conservatives he contacted would post there . . . because they were "afraid" of "being challenged." Uh huh. I just said that it didn't look like a good forum for me and wished him well. Being challenged? By what? Brain-dead sprogs tippy tapping out "RAAAACIST!!"? No, thank you.

    Politico is not on that level. You did the right thing. 🙂

    Is that "Arena" as in bull, or gladiator, or some other blood sport? Most of the contributors speak in codes, the same codes, which appear widely and previously agreed and to have the purpose of sequestering what they are really doing behind verbal walls that pretend of erudition. Some are downright catty, or perhaps better, fishy: poachers in any case. The purpose of most seems to be verbal violence, as in spinning around with a discus or swishing around a slingshot in preparation for release at a target, some pre-demonized individual and group. This isn't the profile of "substantive discussion" (one of their codes). Sounds more like a fish making itself attractive to draw food within striking distance. Age of Aquarius, perhaps, that's what they meant back then (*Hair*).


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend