UPDATE: David Horowitz says he wrote that “renegade” headline
[NOTE: This is an update to this previous post of mine.
I didn’t intend to spend my blogging hours today writing about David Horowitz vs. Bill Kristol—and so, apologies for this narrow focus. I actually had other things in mind, and I expect to get around to them tomorrow. But this particular brouhaha got my goat, because it’s an example of the sort of rhetoric I see so often, deplore, and basically can do very little about.
Sigh.]
David Horowitz has now made it crystal (pun intended) clear that he is responsible for the word “renegade” in the title of his piece critical of Bill Kristol. And Horowitz is not the least bit apologetic about it:
To answer one oft-repeated question, I did write the headline with the “Renegade Jew” phrase and Breitbart chose to run it as-is. Some illiterate anti-Semites have picked up on the phrase without understanding it. Some neo-conservatives have called me names as well, displaying their own brand of inarticulate hate without bothering to respond to the actual argument of my piece.
So to clarify: I understand that a lot of conservatives are still skeptical about Donald Trump as the Republican nominee. I respect their skepticism when it is attached to reasonable arguments, since no candidate is perfect and no one can know the future…
But the primaries are over and Donald Trump is now the nominee. That means he is the only obstacle to the party of Obama and Hillary and Huma Abedin, of the Iran deal and the appeasement of Islamic Jew-hatred beginning with the Hamas terrorists of Gaza and the Fatah terrorists of the West Bank…
Splitting the Republican vote and electing Hillary is a betrayal of the Jews in an hour in which their backs are to the wall. Hence the designation renegade for those who are planning a third-party run, and for which I make no apologies.
Where to begin?
First of all—although I’m pretty certain David Horowitz does not read my blog and is not referring to me—quite a bit of the criticism of Horowitz’s article was not inarticulate and did not involve name-calling. Nor were those anti-Kristol readers who reacted to the article with anti-Semitism “illiterate,” for the most part. Horowitz seems to be failing to understand (or at least to acknowledge) the very real objections a person might have to his article, as well as the effect a headline like that would inevitably have on the significant segment of Trump supporters and Breitbart readers who are only too happy to post anti-Semitic comments, and that his headline would inevitably act as a releaser for the latter.
What’s more (as I pointed out in my first post on the subject), one of the problems with Horowitz’s critique of Kristol is that Kristol is trying to find a candidate that will act not as a mere spoiler, but who might actually have a chance of a win. Kristol has said as much:
We could get on almost every ballot, Texas passed yesterday, North Carolina is this month, almost every other state is June 27… You could get on the ballot with the right money and organization. Anderson got on all the ballots in 1980, Perot in 1992. Could you win? If you could have an attractive candidate who could get on the debate stage in October — which would mean you’d have to be at 10-15% at that time. And then you get on the debate; Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and let’s say Ben Sasse… Attractive 44 year-old senator from Nebraska… Could a lot of Americans say, whoa, we can do a lot better than Clinton or Trump, I think it is possible…
Obviously if it were easy independents would be running every four years, I think it is possible.
This year, with two remarkably disliked candidates from both major parties, it is particularly possible.
But the Horowitz article treats it as impossible. However, I can easily imagine that a lot of votes that would otherwise go to Hillary might go to this third-party candidate, a possibility Horowitz does not acknowledge. Dissatisfaction with Clinton is nearly as high as dissatisfaction with Trump, and I personally know a lot of people on right AND left who would dearly love to have a viable alternative to both.
What’s more, if we’re going to evaluate the two candidates on their Israeli stances only (one focus of Horowitz’s argument), it’s not really clear who is more pro-Israel. Take a look at articles on the subject; there’s a lot of disagreement there. And of course, both candidates are not known for keeping their word, so there’s that consideration as well. If you want to read some articles that allege Trump would not be good for Israel, there’s this from an Israeli paper that leans left, and this from Commentary (on the right). That last article cites two statements Trump made on the campaign trail that cast doubt on what his attitude towards Israel really is or will be:
Though Trump’s foreign policy statements are generally all over the map as he improvises positions that are, at one and the same time, extremely aggressive (his threats to kick ISIS’s ass) and neo-isolationist (pull back from war on Islamist terror while conducting trade wars), he has been consistent about his stance on the peace process. There he has repeatedly vowed that he would be “neutral” with regards to Israel and the Palestinians. He also expressed doubts about whether Israel was ready to take risks for peace.
Such a position makes Trump an outlier among Republicans. Virtually every other GOP presidential candidate and the overwhelming majority of Republicans in the House and the Senate have affirmed their support for Israel in a way that makes clear that they believe the U.S. strongly backs Israel against the repeated Palestinian refusal to make peace. If anything, Trump’s stance strongly resembles the policy position taken by the Obama administration over the last 7+years.
I’m not writing this post to solve the question of who would be better for Israel, Clinton or Trump. My point here is that it is disingenuous of Horowitz to claim that it is a settled question and that the answer is indisputably that Trump would be good and Hillary bad for Israel, and that any Jew who would support a third-party candidate instead of Trump is a “renegade” betrayer of Israel.
Note also that the headline of Horowitz’s piece doesn’t call Kristol a “renegade” Republican, its says “Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew,” and so let’s look at that last sentence of Horowitz’s follow-up piece (not the original) in light of that:
Splitting the Republican vote and electing Hillary is a betrayal of the Jews in an hour in which their backs are to the wall. Hence the designation renegade for those who are planning a third-party run, and for which I make no apologies.
As I’ve said above, Kristol thinks it very possible that a third-party candidate could win, so he does not see himself as on a path to “electing Hillary.” I’ve also just pointed out that it’s not a foregone conclusion that Trump’s election would be better for Israel anyway. But in addition, if you focus on the title of Horowitz’s original piece plus those two sentences from his follow-up piece that I just quoted, there’s a further problem. Horowitz is not merely attacking “those who are planning a third-party run” as betrayers of the Republican Party and of Israel—he is attacking Kristol specifically as a Jewish betrayer. What’s more, in the article’s title it is unclear whether the Jew Kristol has betrayed Israel or the Republican Party. In fact, since the words “Renegade Jew” are preceded by the words “Republican Spoiler,” a reader might easily and rationally conclude from the headline that what Horowitz means to say is that Kristol is a Jew who has betrayed Republicans and their nominee Trump, not a Jew who has betrayed Israel. That certainly seems to be the way a lot of the anti-Semitic readers at Breitbart took it, and there’s nothing “illiterate” about their doing so.
One more thing before I get off this particular horse. In Horowitz’s original article, he gives the following example of what he considers to be a poor reason Kristol has given for not supporting Trump:
In addition to alleging that Trump is lacking in principles and character, Kristol claims that the Republican candidate is a crackpot conspiracy theorist, a disqualifying trait. Kristol’s evidence is a remark Trump made on the eve of the Indiana primary suggesting that Ted Cruz’s father might have something to hide about his alleged acquaintance with Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald…
…Comments Kristol: “What’s horrible is a leading presidential candidate trading in crackpot conspiracy theories.”
So it might be if Trump were actually putting forward a conspiracy theory.
But what we have here, obviously, is not a theory but some Trumpian campaign mischief – not dissimilar in form to his earlier suggestion that because Ted Cruz was born in Canada he might not be able to actually run for president even if he were to win the nomination. These were both campaign tricks ”“ dirty tricks if you like ”“ to throw a rival off balance and gain an advantage.
Nice to know that Horowitz can read Trump’s mind, and that “obviously” Trump is not putting forth a conspiracy theory and is not a conspiracy theorist. But again, Horowitz is ignoring Trump’s history. The Cruz-father claim was hardly the only conspiracy theory Trump has promoted—and most tellingly, some of these theories were not just in the context of an election. Trump actually has been a conspiracy theorist for a long time, on several topics.
For example, in the beginning of the Trump candidacy I wrote about Trump’s “Bush lied” “Bush is evil” attacks that long predated his candidacy this year. Thus, they were not “Trumpian campaign mischief,” they appear to have been deeply held beliefs of a longstanding nature (not that mere “campaign mischief” would excuse a slander of that magnitude anyway). I documented the history of Trump’s conspiracy theorist accusations against Bush here if you want to see how many times Trump said this, beginning way back in 2008. Horowitz treats the topic of Trump and conspiracy theories as though it was limited to the recent accusations about Cruz’s father, which it most definitely was not.
And these things were not said by aides or operatives or PACs, they were straight from Trump’s own mouth. But there were other topics, too, on which Trump has been—if not inclined to conspiracy theories—then certainly eager to embrace wacky and dangerously unscientific ones, such as the autism/vaccine link, which he not only mentioned during this campaign year but which he seems to have believed in for many years.
I could go on, but it probably doesn’t matter. These verbal wars will go on, too, and a lot more people will read the accusations than will take the trouble to look into the facts.
Talking to my wife today and she noted that Romney hasn’t given up on a third party. Punditry says no chance; but, I do not think that Romney would be involved if it were not carefully thought out. He is not a shoot from the lip kind of guy, unlike the presumptive.
I am watching, and hoping; but, not betting the farm.
In the mean time, I am trying hard to come to terms with a vote for Trump. I keep thinking, what if Hillary carried California by one vote? Could I live with that?
I said before that Horo didn’t get his Leftist indoctrination fully purged when he “converted”. First evidence was probably his reaction to American Betrayal via Diane West, and Horo’s support of Sovietologists.
Ymarsakar, I hate to agree with you, but yes about Horowitz. I was once a big fan, bought many of his books, admired his candor and guts in writing Radical Son and read frontpage regularly. I don’t remember when exactly, maybe it was a gradual thing, but I came to realize that much of his opinions seemed to be rote, his books were collections and just a rehash of previous stuff, and he offered little new in the way of ideas. The final straw was his collaboration with Ann Coulter who I cannot stand. I left the Horowitz reservation and am not at all surprised by this latest embarrassment.
Oldflyer,
Everything known about trump, and everything not yet known in the public domain, tells me djt is just as, if not more, dangerous and corrupt than hrc. I will not vote for either narcissistic, lying buffoons. For me it is a matter of principle. For example, if my choice in the ballot box was Schumer or Boxer, I would vote 3rd party. IMO the choice between djt or hrc is a choice between pancreatic cancer or liver cancer. No thanks. From my pov it takes less than a millisecond to come to that conclusion.
Those who advocate that the SCOTUS appointment/s are the reason to vote djt, my response is GMAFB. Djt deciding the future of SCOTUS contrasted with hrc is deciding between appointing Jon Stewart or Bill Maher. Either way, the republic is fé·#&ed.
@Neo – all great points on this and previous article. Horowitz has very weak reasoning for his case, with more than enough evidence to point at that is contra.
@parker – “it takes less than a millisecond to come to that conclusion” – yep, Trump is more dangerous, but Clinton is not close to good either.
Not weighing in on the Horowitz issue, but since Trump is the subject, some of you might appreciate this piece (and I am not shilling for The Daily Kos, which I loathe and abominate, but it’s a well-done parody sent to me third-hand).
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/05/05/1523628/-Donald-Trump-The-Very-Model-of-a-Post-Modern-Major-General
I’ll give you a stanza or two and you can decide for yourself whether or not to give the KosKids a klick.
“With apologies to librettist W.S. Gilbert and composer Arthur Sullivan, please allow me to re-envision their well-known patter song “I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General” from their operetta The Pirates of Penzance, as might be sung by the presumptive – and presumptuous – 2016 Republican presidential candidate, Donald J. Trump:”
Post-Modern Major-General Trump
I am the very model of a crass, bombastic narcissist,
Well-loved by ladies even though decisively misogynist,
Politically I love to get progressives’ panties in a twist,
Opponents feel like they’ve received a probe from a proctologist.
I’m very well acquainted, too, with matters hypocritical,
I only say what suits my goals, financial or political,
Addressing crowds my favorite topic is the wonder that is me,
I hypnotize adoring throngs by spewing pure hyperbole.
(… and so forth.)
Neo: But the Horowitz article treats it as impossible. However, I can easily imagine that a lot of votes that would otherwise go to Hillary might go to this third-party candidate, a possibility Horowitz does not acknowledge
Thats cause he may know something you dont as to the numbers in history. well first of all, none ever won on a third party ticket. zero, zilch, nada, zed, etc… only 16 captured at least 1 electoral vote and/or more than 5% of the popular vote.
then when you look at the performance, its not hard to see why… The big winner with 27.4% of the vote (his share was 4,120,609)…and the most electoral votes with 88/531 Millard Fillmore beats Ross Perot if you go by percentage, if you go by votes Perot wins as he got 19 million…(1992)
before that you have to go to 1980, and before that, you have to go to George Wallace in 1968
And NONE of those would have the huge disadvantage of appearing to negate the people and use their power to put someone else up. you can vote for whoever you want, but like a black model T, you get what they tell you you get.
that’s a deal killer… end of story…
25.7 million people have voted in the 2016 Republican primaries seven million more votes than were cast in the entire 2012 GOP presidential primary – and there are likely still well over two million votes yet to be cast NBCNews
Trump has just over 600,000 votes more than Romney had in the whole election process, and trumps numbers are only up to Indiana, there is more to add coming up
The Federalist lays out the argument of a 3rd party win being possible. but with these authors, they bet you have not looked up the information yourself and so, what they say sounds really good..
http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/16/these-numbers-say-a-third-party-can-win-the-presidency/
they have to go back to Lincoln to make the argument. Then instead of going forwards they have to go back to the whig party. They then try to spin lots of races when the US was not the kind of place it is today in demographics and fractured social relations, and most being elections before sufferage (so there was no race to pay for tampons to get the female vote as with the recent cycle)
Wisconsin lawmaker proposes free tampons, pads in public restrooms [ny times ran similar as to nyc]
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/wisconsin-lawmaker-proposes-free-tampons-pads-in-public-restrooms/article_52cc0d48-fbb9-5bb7-ba19-d2268bb1092a.html
[can you imagine getting the mens votes by a chicken in every pot and free rubbers?]
the federalist goes on to make some strange math points which makes little sense:
anyway. whether or not the rules say they can put up another candidate and that candidate can win, wont matter unless they can somehow do it without appearing to cheat (despite the rules saying they are not technically cheating). they would not be so good at contorting the rules if they did not have to follow them when watched.
the problem is that there has been enough anti trump violence to force a serious skewing of poles.
The joke back in the day was nixon was elected but no one voted for him.
Pauline Kael critic:
I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pauline_Kael
Regardless of opinions
que sera sera
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdhAfMor9BM
Art’s right. Kristol may be looking for a guy who can win, but the likelihood is very high that he’ll find only a Hillary-electing spoiler.
We aren’t supposed to be giving points for intent when the result is so obviously awful.
The time to start a third party is not a few months before you’re going to lose an election–or in this case, win one with a guy you dislike–but a couple of cycles before you make the run for POTUS.
neo,
“quite a bit of the criticism of Horowitz’s article was not inarticulate and did not involve name-calling.”
“So to clarify: I understand that a lot of conservatives are still skeptical about Donald Trump as the Republican nominee. I respect their skepticism when it is attached to reasonable arguments, since no candidate is perfect and no one can know the future…”
“Nor were those anti-Kristol readers who reacted to the article with anti-Semitism “illiterate,” for the most part.”
“Some illiterate anti-Semites have picked up on the phrase without understanding it.”
“Horowitz seems to be failing to understand (or at least to acknowledge) the very real objections a person might have to his article”
“I understand that a lot of conservatives are still skeptical about Donald Trump as the Republican nominee. I respect their skepticism when it is attached to reasonable arguments… But the primaries are over and Donald Trump is now the nominee. That means he is the only obstacle to the party of Obama and Hillary and Huma Abedin, of the Iran deal and the appeasement of Islamic Jew-hatred beginning with the Hamas terrorists of Gaza and the Fatah terrorists of the West Bank…”
“as well as the effect a headline like that would inevitably have on the significant segment of Trump supporters and Breitbart readers who are only too happy to post anti-Semitic comments, and that his headline would inevitably act as a releaser for the latter.”
That presumes that Horowitz is familiar with the amount of antisemitism on Breitbart. And ignores the possibility that if aware, he may have simply overlooked the possibility of an antisemitic reaction. Given that his focus was in articulating why he sees Kristol as betraying Israel, that is certainly a possiblity.
“Kristol is trying to find a candidate that will act not as a mere spoiler, but who might actually have a chance of a win.”
Risk assessment. [Trump] “is the only obstacle to the party of Obama and Hillary and Huma Abedin, of the Iran deal and the appeasement of Islamic Jew-hatred beginning with the Hamas terrorists of Gaza and the Fatah terrorists of the West Bank…” all of that is but the tip of the iceberg of what is at risk.
As for a third party’s chances, what personage with the requisite crossover, bipartisan appeal, name recognition, deep knowledge of the issues and ability to speak extemporaneously… has those needed qualities? Can anyone name even one?
Kristol fails to understand the simplest of points. Given the forces at her back, the ideology they champion and that, they firmly believe that ANY means justify the end they seek… no one is worse than Hillary Clinton.
Just how many chances to avert catastrophe do people think that history will grant us?
Finally, clinging to the hope of a third party candidate is avoidance, denial that there are only two choices; a fatal cancer left to run its course OR an untried treatment that may well make things worse and in all likelihood will leave the patient, at best disabled but may result in survival. If you were diagnosed with a fatal cancer, which choice would you take?
These next six months are going to be so much fun. Thank you, GOP.
Geoffrey Britain:
Horowitz wrote:
I wrote (and you quoted) the following [emphasis added]:
You’re a smart guy, so I don’t know what you don’t understand about the words HIS ARTICLE. Your quote from Horowitz about how he understands there can be reasonable objections to Trump’s candidacy is irrelevant to what I’m saying, which was about objections to Horowitz’s article and not objections to Trump’s candidacy. Two very different things.
In Horowitz’s piece about objections to his article (the piece that is the subject matter of this thread) Horowitz does not acknowledge that there can be reasonable objections to his article. He does the following instead:
(1) characterizes the anti-Semites who picked up on his headline and/or article as “illiterate.” And yet there is no evidence whatsoever for this, and in fact it was reasonable of them to see the headline as anti-Semitic because of the way it was written, as I’ve already pointed out.
(2) characterizes “neo-conservatives” as name-calling, inarticulate haters who have not bothered with substantive objections to his piece.
I pointed out the problems with his saying the anti-Semites were illiterate. It’s just a way for him to avoid what his headline, and the way it was written, would inevitably call forth, and deflect blame from himself. They were illiterate; they didn’t understand; it’s not that he wrote something that could reasonably be interpreted that way—oh no.
I pointed out the problems with his saying the neo-conservatives were name-calling haters who never responded substantively to the arguments in his piece. That certainly doesn’t describe me, nor does it describes the articles I read that were critical of his piece. I pointed that out, too. And don’t you wonder why he doesn’t even bother to cite or quote any of this name-calling, inarticulately hateful and non-substantive stuff they wrote? I wouldn’t doubt that someone fit that description, but don’t you think he ought to be telling us who before throwing out blanket accusations like that?
Then I pointed out the flaws in Horowitz’s criticisms of what Kristol had written about Trump’s conspiracy theories. Horowitz simply ignored all the evidence that Trump does indeed buy into some conspiracy theories, in particular the “Bush lied” meme, and that it is NOT just a campaign ploy, but a big part of his belief system.
And if Horowitz—who is a smart guy, too—is publishing on Breitbart and is somehow unfamiliar with what that site has turned into, and the agenda of many on the alt-right, then he should turn in his pundit card. It isn’t rocket science, and anyone who follows these things ought to know.
As for third party candidates, I happen to think this is the first time in my lifetime that a third party candidate could have a real chance. There has never been an election like this, with two candidates the majority of America detests. All bets are off. Besides, although Horowitz thinks it’s hopeless, and you think it’s hopeless, Kristol doesn’t think it’s hopeless. If Horowitz said he was mistaken about it, that would be much less objectionable, but Horowitz acts as though Kristol knows or ought to know it’s impossible. I strongly disagree; this election is a big black swan.
Lastly, Horowitz acts as though it is completely obvious that Hillary would be much worse for Israel than Trump. This is not at all obvious, as I pointed out. And although there are certainly other reasons to object to Hillary, Horowitz relies on that one to justify his “renegade Jew” headline to describe Kristol. It is a pivotal point for him, and he offers no evidence for it; he just expects the reader to accept it.
Richard Aubrey; Artfldgr:
Please read my comment above this one (particularly the next-to-last paragraph).
In addition, I would add that I don’t think the chances of a third-party candidate winning are good. But as I said, this is a campaign season and a duo of candidates like no other, ever, in the history of the US. Never has such a huge percentage of the electorate disliked both candidates.
In addition, Kristol is merely looking for a possible candidate he thinks might be viable. He has not found one yet. It is being evaluated as a possibility; it is not a done deal, not by a longshot. And for this, Horowitz calls him a “renegade Jew” who has betrayed Israel?
The problem with Kristol’s argument is that there is no single person who fits the bill. I’ve seen Ben Sasse in person and it ain’t him. Mitt can’t win either. He might win only UT.
It is impossible for conservatives to win with a third party. A third party only assures a win for Hillary.
In 1942, Orwell wrote that “pacifists are objectively fascist.” Two years later, he rightly repudiated what he wrote. William Kristol is emphatically not a “Renegade Jew.” This is a crude, insult (a much cruder statement then Orwell’s). David Horowitiz is turned sadly from the days he wrote Radical Son. This seems more like something from his communist left days at Ramparts, except just turned on it’s head. Hopefully Horowitz will, in time, come to realize the error in his ways.
Cornhead:
Please see my comment directly above yours.
The magical new 3rd party campaign to derail trump and defeat djt and hrc is a dream, those people need to put down the opium pipe. However, there are established 3rd parties, some on the ballot of all 57 states. Those, including me, who vote for those 3rd parties will be casting protest votes. Sometimes that is the best one can do. That said, it beats spitting into the wind.
Plus, if ever asked by a grandchild if I voted for bho, hrc, or djt; I will truthfully be able to say no.
Someone could also argue there was never a black President based on 43 previous Presidents.
Still a third party win is unlikely, but just saying it has never happened is not necessarily absolute either. We haven’t even had 50 elections yet.
Is that really a big data point to work from?
Geoffrey:
Your “fatal cancer” theme is singing to the Celestial Choir. If the cancer is “fatal” it is almost always so. Prayer works too, but not often. And by the way, with only one exception, all men die. So pick another analogy for a while.
Oldflyer, 8:54 pm — “I keep thinking, what if Hillary carried California by one vote? Could I live with that?”
This is off on something of a tangent, but I’m having trouble resisting:
No one carries any state by one vote, and my point is this: when a vote is that close, there is a recount, and setting fraud and hanky panky considerations aside for the brief moment, a recounted aggregate vote normally varies from the initial aggregate vote by at least two digits difference and (in my experience) sometimes even more.
One might snickeringly wonder why have the initial vote at all, why not administer the recounted vote *first*?
Okay; the “brief moment” has expired, and now I wish to bring in fraud / hanky panky considerations. Here it comes (although I’m pretty sure a healthy percentage of neo readers may have an inkling what’s coming):
When a vote is close, or even sometimes when it’s not so terribly close, and there’s a recount — except for 2000 Florida, where the whole world (or enough of the world) was watching — recounts inevitably favor the Democrat. Remember, just as an example, the Al Franken election, when successive recounts saw the Republican advantage get narrower and narrower, until finally-and-voila! — the Democrat pulled ahead and there were no more recounts and Al Franken was safely in [and then cast a deciding vote on Obamacare, but one gripe at a time here].
But I digress. One vote really-‘n’-truly doesn’t make a difference, because in a close election there’ll be a recount, it will vary from the initial vote, and the Democrats just have this knack for winning recounts (wonder how/why?).
Parker, agreed about the 3rd party to derail Trump. It isn’t going to happen. I wonder if Johnson would be open to a little compromise. With his party on every ballot in every state he would be the only chance. His domestic agenda wouldn’t be too much of a problem. But could he be talked into a compromise on border security by emphasizing strict enforcement of existing law, proposing immigrant status without voting rights for the current crop of illegals for say 20 years, and a restructuring and redrawing of legal immigration? Would it be likely he would agree to rebuilding the military with the understanding that existing treaties MUST be honored, that defense doesn’t mean retreat, but that maybe we have over extended ourselves and don’t need to needlessly engage in losing campaigns? He would definitely have crossover appeal with millennials.
I wonder about him personally. He had a near death experience from a 50′ fall resulting in severe injuries. Often something like that wakes a person up to the transient nature of life and brings about a willingness to reexamine what is important. While he was apparently a very good 2 term governor, he’s always seemed to me kind of light weight, someone concerned with the immediate, too easy to laugh off existential threats. Maybe something has changed in him. It would be worth a serious effort to find out if he’s open to stepping up to the greatest challenge of his life, and of this countries existence. He’s been a risk taker extraordinaire. Would he be up to this? Maybe Kristol and a group of like minded people should find out
Too late to respond, so I will tomorrow.
Except to quickly qualify one faulty assertion OM made as to all men dying but one. Jesus died on the cross. It was Christ that appeared resurrected.
Calling Haaretz a left Israeli paper is ludicrous. Haaretz is right now a Israeli hater paper which almost doesn’t sell inside Israel and whose main target are giving Israel-haters some “look what was published in an Israel paper” argument.
If Haaretz says something would be good for Israel, you can be sure the opposite is the truth.
It would be interesting to know who is financing it (since Israelis clearly dont). A similar thing happens to some NGOs and there was a law recently to make NGO finances transparent. Of course, highly contested outside Israel.
There’s not much debate really there. The main threat for Israel right now are Muslims who want to exterminate them. And US government that supports Iran or Palestinians is bad news. And that’s clearly the Democrat Party.
Yann:
Ha’aretz is a left Israeli paper. That is exactly what it is. I identified it as such.
Commentary is a source I trust more, and I offered an article from them, one that is actually a better article.
I notice you didn’t mention that source or the points made therein.
Haaretz is an anti-Israeli paper published in Israel and financed by non-Israeli sources. Israel has a level a freedom that allows that.
You can call it “Israeli” because it’s published in Israel. I consider it enough to say it’s published in Israel, not to say it’s Israeli.
If tomorrow China will finance a newspaper published in US calling for the submission of US to the rising China (let’s suppose you had that level of freedom, as Israel does), would you call it an American newpaper?
Oldflyer: pretty sure if Hillary won California by one vote then Trump would be winning most of the swing states. So you wouldn’t need to worry. I’d worry more about being struck by lightning. Twice.
WRT anti-semitism, Trump, and Trumpsters, Trump always says he loves Jews because of Ivanka and her husband. However, I read yesterday that Ivanka’s father-in-law spent time in jail for fraud. That would seem to be more of a bond for Trump than religion. Interestingly, it was Christie who prosecuted him. And given that Chelsea’s father-in-law was also rather crook, it seems like NY values are involved in a whole bunch of these “elites.” Can’t we get a farmer from flyover country?
An alternative would be Bernie Sanders if he promised to make his wife Secretary of Education. Since she managed to get Burlington College to shut down because of the debt she took on there as president, think what she could do for the rest of our wonderful education system. Free tuition, but no colleges. Wonder what all the studies profs would do after that.
I’m just sick of all the people making excuses for people with absolutely no morals. Trump prides himself on his don’t drink, don’t smoke, don’t do drugs rules. How about, don’t cheat, don’t bully, don’t threaten people to make a deal, and don’t judge people on their bathroom faucets.
I don’t vote for evil, lesser or greater.
Jay Nording has a post called Renegade at the NRO Corner (No direct link to the post) about how this word was used about Horowitz himself. I haven’t read all the links there but thought I’d pass it on before it gets lost in the old posts.
Nordlinger, sorry.
Orwell said that, effectively, pacifists favor fascists. He was using “favor” in Brit terms meaning “enable”. It didn’t mean pacifists like fascists. It means that weakening the more virtuous society–which is what pacifists can do, they being executed in the fascist society–makes the virtuous society vulnerable to fascists.
It is not necessary that Kristol be favoring Hillary to be doing things which may enable Hillary’s election. If he can’t find an obvious barn-burner right quick, he should give up. Otherwise, intent notwithstanding, he’ll help elect Hillary.
a related thing (given that the point was the election and not just the title)
the sad part is those that complain about this press, will also believe it when it says what htey want, so they endeavor to lie to give them what htey want that serves the sulzbergers and others!!!!!!
but will they believe the same people in the interview complaining how wrongly they were portrayed? of course not!!!!!
Brewer Lane, who was mentioned at the beginning of the story, claimed Monday that she was misquoted and that the paper intentionally mischaracterized what she said to make Trump seem boorish.
In an interview with The Hill on Monday afternoon, Brewer Lane lashed out at the Times reporters, saying she spent hours on the phone with them and agreed to do a photo shoot for the piece because she wanted to let people know “how well Trump treats women.”
Brewer Lane says she was stunned and felt she’d been taken advantage of when she read that her words were used to make Trump appear to be a lecher.
“I think it was intentional,” she said. “They have an agenda to make Trump look unfavorable at this point in the race.”
Brewer Lane, who said she will vote for Trump in the general election, has made appearances on Fox News Channel, MSNBC and CNN to dispute the Times story.
[i have met trump several times in my photo journalism stint for one of the top four agencies, and his public image is not who he is… period… but that wont matter, because they WANT the lies to be true to validate their ego view and predictions.. they dont want the truth, regardless of where it lands, do they]
The Times is vigorously defending its work.
they still defend holding a pulitzer for lying about mass starvation… this is nothing compared to that!!
The Times described the story about Brewer Lane being asked to get into a bikini as “a debasing face-to-face encounter between Mr. Trump and a young woman he hardly knew.”
But Brewer Lane denies that she felt debased and claims that she went out of her way to communicate that to the reporters. Brewer Lane said she was mortified when she learned how the Times had framed the story and said she immediately felt compelled to correct the record.
“It was a desperate moment,” Brewer Lane said. “I was very upset.”
no matter how much the person who is the subject denies and says that they are being manipulated, does anyone believe them or do they believe the times take?
here:
But some independent media analysts are unsympathetic to what they see as backtracking by Brewer Lane. Erik Wemple, the media critic for The Washington Post, called blowback against the Times story “laughable.”
do not believe the actual subject, believe what the times tells you about the subject…. right?
and then you go out and believe you know trump?
“They’ve demonstrated in story after story that they hate Republicans and will do anything to destroy them,” said Richard Grenell…..“They’re not journalists, they’re advocates.”
no, when they say what you want to hear, even if its a lie, then they are journalists… when you want the truth and can detect it, you lose friends and refuse to side with it, and then what?
you gonna believe the subject or the sulzbergers?
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/280114-nyt-story-on-trumps-history-with-women-creates-backlash
So Cornhead, Are you considering/advocating voting for Trump or an existing 3rd party?
I think ALL of the 3rd parties are getting excited about the potential increase in votes that they will get.
Richard Aubrey Says:
May 16th, 2016 at 10:40 pm
Art’s right. Kristol may be looking for a guy who can win, but the likelihood is very high that he’ll find only a Hillary-electing spoiler.
We aren’t supposed to be giving points for intent when the result is so obviously awful.
The time to start a third party is not a few months before you’re going to lose an election—or in this case, win one with a guy you dislike—but a couple of cycles before you make the run for POTUS.
* * *
The thing that most intrigues me is: why did the RNC allow Trump to run as a REPUBLICAN in the first place? Don’t the national parties have any control over who claims to represent them? Ditto for the Democrats in re Sanders (a registered Independent, IIRC).
Obviously, both party’s leadership (is there really national, authoritative leadership?) were expecting to brush-off the challenger-clowns after a few speeches and maybe a primary or two, and both got sand-bagged.
But, to extend Richard’s astute observation, the time to eliminate a candidate you don’t want is before he starts winning votes.
To the people at The Federalist trying to make the third-party math work: any Republican politician who could beat the front-runner (Trump or otherwise) would have been in the contest at the beginning (and probably have been defeated as abysmally as the ones who did run).
For the record, Ha’aretz is owned by the New York Times, it actually says it below the name Ha’aretz on the paper. I discovered it last month when I went to Israel and my friend pointed it out to me. No translation needed, it was in English.
One more point to Horowitz poorly written article, he is an agnostic. I find it interesting he is making an argument about Judaism since he doesn’t adhere to its philosophy or laws.
I am Jewish and was deeply disappointed in the tactic Horowitz chose to attack Kristol. How about Mitt Romney, Adrew Klavan, Jay Nordinglinger, or for that matter, National Review writers who don’t support Trump. Many of them are not Jewish and yet they don’t support Trump, what’s Horowitz argument to them?
The fact is Trump is an embarrassment and while many will hold their noses and pull the lever for him there are those of us who find pulling the lever for him abhorrent. I’ve wanted a principled Conservative in previous elections and while I didn’t get one Romney and McCain were not abhorrent men.
As to Trump’s non-PC bonafides… that’s a joke Trump is very politically correct on his positions. The Transgender issue is just the latest example of it.
Trump is like Biff from Back to the Future and I find him a boar. Pulling the lever for him may be asking too much from me. However, I will listen for the next 6 months, let’s see if he can stop himself from being himself.
It took me a minute to figure out that Neo’s intended pun with “crystal” was Bill Kristol. I went to a much darker place, with Kristallnacht. Whether I was wrong has yet to be determined.
One thought in regards to Horowitz’s contention that Donald Trumps remarks about Ted Cruz’s father being “campaign mischief” rather than conspiracy theory (a contention neo takes issue with); What difference does it make if Trump is a genuine conspiracy nut or an opportunistic one? The end result is the same.
Maybe the underlying argument is about whether or not Trump would continue to promote conspiracy theories as president. Horowitz would probably argue that the campaign mischief will end when the campaign does. But why should that be so? People do what works and making outrageous claims about the JFK assassination works for Trump.
It reminds me of the argument many Trump supporters make that all his shady business deals are really a good thing because he will use that knowledge to help the common man once he’s president. Why would he? Trump has spent his whole life working for the benefit of Trump and he’s done pretty good. I don’t see any reason for him to change now.
Kristol wants a re-enactment of Weimar and the election of 1933. Horowitz does not.
Look, Hillary is thoroughly corrupt and may well be guilty of treason, and Bernie is a communist. Kristol wants to pull a 3rd party and its candidate out as savior in the twilight because he doesn’t like Trump? I saw him talk on this on C-span. He is a self-deluded, arrogant and foolish man.
A third party? Why stop there? Let’s have a 4th and a 5th and…
It is all a re-enactment of Germany in 1933.
Gov. Romney, with the Republican Party electoral infrastructure behind him, was unable to win the Presidency.
It is highly unlikely that he could win as a 3rd party candidate.
He would have no State party support. The two major parties would be working against him; or at least actively supporting their own candidates.
That being said, what chance was there that Mr. Trump would win the Republican Party nomination?
I am quite sceptical of a 3rd party run being successful, but do not fault Romney, Kristol, et. al. for trying, at this moment in the cycle. Thomas Sowell just posted “Grim Choices” at http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2016/05/17/grim-choices-n2163977 . To succeed, the candidate would have to attract as many likely Democrats as Republicans. I am quite disappointed in Horowitz. As usual, I think Neo has the correct argument, on this matter.
AesopFan –
There are rules put in place by the parties. But AFAIK, they basically amount to “must be a registered member of the party”. The problem is that there’s never really been a candidate like Trump. Typically, when a candidate “comes out of nowhere” to start winning primaries, they still been involved in politics. First-time politicians might get a quick boost, but they usually flame-out before the cycle is over. Then, if they have some staying power, they spend time building up their credibility with the population for the next go-round.
Trump has none of that. He has no political experience. He famously didn’t even have a ground game in most of the states (and whined when Cruz was able to take advantage of the fact that Cruz’s organization did). And yet he never flamed out. Logically, that should be impossible. But logic has clearly taken a back seat to emotion in this campaign cycle.
Baltimoron – Horowitz’s point is a little different. He’s saying that Trump didn’t believe conspiracy theories, and didn’t pass them along: he just commented about the story.
Technically, that’s true.
Technically, the brother in the back seat waving his finger in his sister’s face is telling the truth that he’s not touching her.
neo @ 11:55,
“You’re a smart guy, so I don’t know what you don’t understand about the words HIS ARTICLE.”
“Horowitz seems to be failing to understand (or at least to acknowledge) the very real objections a person might have to his article…”
It is a direct response to criticism of his article when he responds with, “So to clarify: I understand that a lot of conservatives are still skeptical about Donald Trump as the Republican nominee. I respect their skepticism when it is attached to reasonable arguments…”
He explains why he doesn’t respond to those ‘reasonable arguments’, nor consider them relevant (now that Trump is the nominee) when he states, “But the primaries are over and Donald Trump is now the nominee. That means he is the only obstacle to the party of Obama and Hillary and Huma Abedin, of the Iran deal and the appeasement of Islamic Jew-hatred beginning with the Hamas terrorists of Gaza and the Fatah terrorists of the West Bank…”
And that is proof positive that Horowitz implicitly acknowledges that, while there can be reasonable objections to his article’s title, they are of minor importance. And that reasonable objections to his support for Trump are now irrelevant, given that Trump is the nominee and in his considered judgement a third party is politically invalid, at this point.
Yes, he does address the antisemitics on Breitbart and hateful neo-conservatives (there are some on Breitbart) who fail to expound a coherent rationale that disputes his article. How is that NOT calling out the hate on Breitbart?
I suspect that Horowitz’s position is that any form of or expression of antisemitism is, at base “inarticulate” since it is not rational.
“It’s just a way for him to avoid what his headline, and the way it was written, would inevitably call forth, and deflect blame from himself. They were illiterate; they didn’t understand; it’s not that he wrote something that could reasonably be interpreted that way–oh no.”
Perhaps, that’s certainly possible and probably somewhat accurate. So too is it true that no matter how carefully we articulate our position, “It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood.” – Karl Popper. That is a reality that both we and many others are intimately acquainted with…
Horowitz clarified what he meant. Explained that he did acknowledge that people could reasonably disagree with him and why he felt that arguments critical of Trump are now a waste of time. He acknowledged that Breitbart had its share of antisemitics and labeled them inarticulate because irrationality (antisemitism) is, by definition ‘inarticulate’.
It’s fair to suggest that Horowitz could have more carefully chosen his words. His response I suspect would be that we are far past the point where careful ‘nuance’ has become counter-productive because it further entrenches political correctness.
And yes, that is as much avoidance on Horowitz’s part, as it is also true.
This explains a lot!!!!!!!
Author unknown
For those who continue to wonder how the most powerful, most productive, most envied and
most successful nation in history can be one short step from the 3rd class status of a Marxist dictatorship.
1. Teaching Math in 1950s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production
is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?
2. Teaching Math in 1960s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production
is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?
3. Teaching Math in 1970s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production
is $80. Did he make a profit?
4. Teaching Math in 1980s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production
is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.
5. Teaching Math in 1990s
A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and
Inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the
preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit
of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic
for class participation after answering the question: How did the
birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There
are no wrong answers, and if you feel like crying, it’s ok.)
6. Teaching Math in 2000s
If you have special needs or just feel you need assistance because of
race, color, religion, sex, age, childhood memories, criminal background,
then don’t answer and the correct answer will be provided for you.
There are no wrong answers.
7. Teaching Math in 2020
Un hachero vende una carrtada de madera para 100 pesos. El costo de la
producciones es 80 pesos. Cuanto dinero ha hecho?
If this looks plausible you have been paying attention to the steady deterioration of our culture and educational system. As always the question is: What do we do about this? We can’t change to first several entries but we can change the last two. It’s up to us. Get involved and stay involved; the future you save will be your grandchildren’s.
addendum,
I did not address the conspiracy aspect because I see that as a valid, if irrelevant criticism of Trump. It is irrelevant because the choice is Hillary or Trump. History demonstrates that, long term, the Lenins of the world far surpass the ills of the Caesars.
“As for third party candidates, I happen to think this is the first time in my lifetime that a third party candidate could have a real chance.”
That is an understandable if unwise sentiment. The risk-reward ratio is what makes it unwise. Gambling it all on a throw of the dice is as much a loser’s bet, as playing the lotto.
“Lastly, Horowitz acts as though it is completely obvious that Hillary would be much worse for Israel than Trump.”
Perhaps but it is obvious that Horowitz considers a Pres. Hillary to be certain disaster for Israel and, while Trump may indeed turn out not to be a supporter of Israel, there is little indication that he will be actively hostile toward Israel. And Hillary will be actively hostile toward Israel because her base will demand it of her. Then there is also what the Muslim Brotherhood connections of Huma Abedin portend for Israel should Hillary win the Presidency.
Artfldgr,
That is brilliant. I cannot recall you presenting a more astute comment, that gets both to the heart of the issue and its societal implications so well.
I’m saving that comment and will use it in the future.
Geoffrey Britain, given your disdain for my comments (often enough), i have no idea if your being sarcastic, honest, making a negative or postive point, etc..
🙁
a sincere thanks…
if its sarcasm, you can now laugh.. 🙂
[if you havent noticed i have tried to stay away and not bother you or others, i figure the world will be a better place when i am gone – its just not happening fast enough… ]
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/05/17/did-john-kerry-just-exploit-memorial-day-to-back-out-of-frances-anti-israel-peace-conference/
Geoffrey Britain:
Nope, no dice. Those kinder and more understanding words referred to people not supporting Trump, not those critical of his article. He explicitly dissed those who criticized his article and did not include them in those who understandably were supporting Trump. You are stretching it to think that his kinder words about Trump-supporters in general apply to those people.
He did not call the Breitbart anti-Semites “inarticulate.” He called those who criticized his article “inarticulate.” I have not seen any that answer to that description, nor did he name them or offer a single quote to illustrate his accusation. And actually, what called them was “inarticulate haters.” They are not; I have seen none, anyway. It was the Breitbart anti-Semites Horowitz called “illiterate.” They are not, not the ones I read.
I have never seen any neo-conservative commenters on Breitbart. If there are, they are certainly few and far between. I see no indication whatsoever that Horowitz is referring to commenters at Breitbart when he discusses “neo-conservatives,” he is almost certainly referring to Kristol (who is not a NEW conservative but who is allied with the neocons philosophically, or at least he was for a long time and is well-known for it) and those others who are pursuing a third-party candidate solution and have criticized Horowitz. (By the way, Horowitz is technically a neo-conservative in that he is a political changer.)
You see “the conspiracy aspect” as a valid criticism of Trump. But Horowitz explicitly denied that it is a valid criticism, and to do so he ignored the facts. Either sloppy research or purposely misleading, take your pick.
Horowitz is a writer who’s been writing most of his life. You say he could have chosen his words more carefully. I don’t think he was careless at all. He wrote what he meant, he knows what he’s doing. What he wrote was wrong. And no, he did not “acknowledge that people could reasonably disagree with him” about the main point of his article: whether Trump is better or worse for Israel, and whether they should support a third-party candidate. He dismissed as “unreasonable” Kristol’s reasonable arguments about Trump’s conspiracy theories, for example. He can disagree with them, or say they’re not important, but they are absolutely reasonable. In fact, what he wrote was this:
So here Horowitz is acknowledging that Kristol’s argument about Trump and conspiracy theories would be valid and reasonable if in fact Trump was doing so, but he pooh-poohs Trump’s belief in such things, ignoring the evidence about (for example) the “Bush lied” theory that Trump has been trumpeting for at least eight years and which has nothing to do with Trump’s running for president. Do you really think that Horowitz is unaware that Trump said “Bush lied” and called him “evil”? As I said, if he’s unaware of this—and of how long ago Trump did this, long before he was running for president—then Horowitz should turn in his pundit card.
Nick – That’s a fair reading. Though as you say, it doesn’t make Horowitz’s argument any better.
My reading of Horowitz is that his argument on Trump the conspiracy theorist is: “Come on! It’s just part of the campaign. And is suggesting your rival’s father shot Kennedy really any worse than a Cruz supporter with no official connection to the campaign posting publicly available pictures of Trump’s wife online?”. The original is longer, but not much more articulate.
To the extent that he makes a clear argument, he seems to be saying that we can ignore Trump’s remarks because this is a presidential campaign and everyone says things during campaigns.
baltimoron:
Horowitz ignores the qualitative differences between the things “everybody” says in politics and the things Trump has said. He also ignores the fact that Trump has said things (“Bush lied”) that show a belief in conspiracy theories and has said them outside of this campaign season, many years before he ever became a candidate.
Horowitz excuses things broadly and defends things specifically. It’s either “everybody does stuff like that” or “in this specific case the statement that’s been made isn’t true”. I’d like to see people address specifics more often, because it prevents sloppiness, he seems to carefully choose the specifics he defends against.
To explain that better: there’s a certain amount of wiggle room we grant people whose points we understand. I’m usually not going to nitpick when someone makes a statement I can decipher. We’re always more familiar with our arguments than the opposing side’s (or sides’), so we’re better able to dot the i’s and cross the t’s. The problem gets to be when we critique each opponent’s undotted i’s as if it proves something, while ignoring our side’s mistakes. This isn’t about misunderstanding the other guy or misrepresenting him; it’s about applying unequal standards to him.
I’ve read Horowitz write an article in which none of the statements are false, and which a fan could read and believe that he’d successfully argued his point, but which doesn’t do anything close to it. And, to be fair, I’ve seen Victor Davis Hanson do the same thing. Broad sweeps, carefully-chosen examples, carefully-executed rebuttals. It seems like a full argument. I get the point he’s making. Am I unfairly granting him wiggle room? I’m sure I am.
Art,
It was a sincere compliment. I give credit and censure, where I believe it to be due.
Teddy Roosevelt was one of the most well-known and popular people of his day, and he couldn’t win on a third-party ticket. (Suggest you look up the Bull Moose Party, the parallels are fascinating!)
Now can we talk about something serious?
How about those Mets?!
I listened to sports show this morning about the Mets/Nats series. The guest was calling in from a cell phone. You could barely make him out. To make it worse, I couldn’t tell when he was saying “Mets” or “Nats”.
neo,
Sigh. You make a good argument but I cannot escape the perception that you are being a bit too harsh on Horowitz, while acknowledging that I may well be being too forgiving. In any case, I do not have the mental energy at this point, to dig any deeper on this issue.
Geoffrey Britain:
On Horowitz—I’ve read many of his books, studied his life, and written about him many times. My basic attitude towards him has been approval, but I have always been aware of flaws too. When I read his books—despite the fact that I think him a courageous person, and I give him credit for facing up to some very harsh truths in his life—I also noticed something. I can’t really describe it very well, except to say that once a fanatic, always a fanatic; once an activist, always an activist—no matter what side you’re on.
Now, that’s an unfair generalization and exaggeration on my part. As I said, I can’t describe this quality very well that I noticed. But with Horowitz, it seemed that he is an extremist no matter which side he’s on, and he’s not above polemics in the Cause.
Right now he sees the Cause as defeating Hillary at all costs. I’m for defeating her, too. But what I see in this essay of his is (as some commenters have pointed out) the remnants of his leftist activist propagandist self.
Now, you can say we can’t win playing by the rules. That’s the dilemma. But if we break the rules so much we become the other side, what is the profit? And believe me, every tyranny and every propagandist on earth (just about, anyway) has justified his/her propaganda by saying it’s in a worthy cause, it’s necessary to beat the bad guys, etc. etc..
As I said, a dilemma.
I point out the flaws where I see them. I see them very glaringly in this particular piece of Horowitz’s.
This is very disturbing — Koch Brothers Give a Megaphone to the Anti-Israel Fringe:
junior Says:
May 17th, 2016 at 1:49 pm
AesopFan —
There are rules put in place by the parties. But AFAIK, they basically amount to “must be a registered member of the party”. The problem is that there’s never really been a candidate like Trump. …
* * *
What never?
No, never!
What never?
Well, hardly ever….
😉
Artfldgr Says:
May 17th, 2016 at 2:54 pm
This explains a lot!!!!!!!
Author unknown
For those who continue to wonder how the most powerful, most productive, most envied and
most successful nation in history can be one short step from the 3rd class status of a Marxist dictatorship.
1. Teaching Math in 1950s
…
* * *
Very astute.
Could be applied to every subject, but it’s especially poignant in math.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
May 17th, 2016 at 4:44 pm
Art,
It was a sincere compliment. I give credit and censure, where I believe it to be due.
thank you for taking the time to say so…
it IS appreciated.
usually i no longer read responses at all, so i dont get sucked in and write long things…
but i came back just to see if you were nice enough to clue me in… thanks
Neo I also noticed something. I can’t really describe it very well, except to say that once a fanatic, always a fanatic; once an activist, always an activist–no matter what side you’re on.
no, this is not it…
what it IS is actually famous among the circles of such communism and other things.
its counter-revolutionary fervor
that is, just like a smoker who gets cancer and survives, its often they become very much the prosletyzing other
same with the communists…
if you think that the fervor for communism is high among people pushing it, once they actually see it or change, they are actually even more forceful against it.
same with horowitz and many others who are high up in it, many which i have recommended but heard nothing about…
this is WELL KNOWN… but if you dont get the requisite study or information, well it might as well not exist to you
even a cursory glance at wiki is enough to explain what your trying to make up to understand.
Article 28 of the Chinese constitution, The state maintains public order and suppresses treasonable and other counter-revolutionary activities; It penalizes actions that endanger public security and disrupt the socialist economy and other criminal activities, and punishes and reforms criminals
changing sides makes zealots who were tricked, wised up and are desperate to tell others…
this is the same of cancer patients, religious conversions, communist changing sides, etc.
you can read books on it, and such..
but if you ignore the classsic works of the communists and the fight against them, then i guess your SOOL (sh*t out of luck)
Artfldgr:
That is not what I’m talking about with Horowitz, although I understand that you’re talking about a very real phenomenon that is also probably operating with him.
With Horowitz, it’s something more personal and particular to him, something I’ve referred to obliquely before. It’s been a while since I’ve read his books, but it had to do with his own lack of insight about a lot of personal (not political) things in his life, as well.
It’s part of the reason he succumbed to the siren call of Communism in the first place.
I wrote about it briefly here:
All of this predated his political conversion and was not a result of it.
I was also shocked and disturbed by the David Horowitz article AND most especially the title in Breitbart. This post and the ensuing comments have provided some insight — as well as Horowitz’s own rebuttal and explanation. I am disappointed that he picked the title because I had thought, like you Neo, that he had not. That would have made me feel a bit better about it all. But knowing he picked the title leads me to believe that Horowitz is NOT aware or very aware of the extent of the open anti-Semitism on Breitbart and of how this article unleashed the dogs so to speak. I read recently that Horowitz has been more hermetic as he is in his seventies and facing mortality and is attempting to write as much as he can in order to complete his life’s work. This would be the books in his “Black Book of the Left” series which look to be deep and numerous. I have not yet read any, but I plan to. He has been writing these and does not even always read FPM so, maybe he doesn’t read much of Breitbart either and relies on his memories of Andrew Breitbart to acquaint him with the magazine online – a mistake. It is also very possible that he is not really aware of the alt-right and what they are all about although I do recall that he’s had some run-ins with people on that side of things (Jared Taylor of American Renaissance had a falling out with him). But maybe he doesn’t see that they are apparently, catching on in some way and are in the mix at Breitbart. I can’t think of any other reason that he would be this careless.
I also concur that his methods do sometimes resemble the ones of his new left days and that he has a streak of fanaticism or well, extremism. I do admire him and will continue to do so, but that doesn’t mean I can’t disagree with him. He does see Hillary as a real evil here and I think he is right but — Donald Trump? I think he desperately wants Trump to be better than he is — his take on the Kennedy assassination Cruz conspiracy theory charge is evidence of that.
I am also not convinced that Trump is better than Hillary on Israel. I honestly am not sure. With Trump no matter what, one is not sure since there is no track record there since he’s never been in office and he seems to change his mind all the time. Hillary will also say what is expedient but she’s more of a known quantity.
This is really a horrible choice!
I do think Horowitz bungled this article and his choice of words was not the best in that context. But I think a lot about the alt-right these days and find them very disturbing…. maybe Horowitz does not. It could be that he feels they are not that important or that they are just noise and not anything substantive. I don’t know but that’s possible.
In any event, I wish I could be assured that Trump was the better candidate and I go back and forth in my mind between voting for him and then, yes — Hillary. It is a horrible choice.