The Reclusive Leftist weighs in

Posted: January 18, 2011 in blogs, internet/free speech
Tags: , , , , , , ,

One of days I must have the Reclusive Leftist on my show on the subject of Sarah Palin and the left. We disagree on almost everything else but she has been willing from day one to call out her fellow leftists on Palin Derangement syndrome.

I finally had a chance to take a peek at her blog to see what she had to say about the last week and she wrote a series of post that confirmed her dislike of the right but were as honest as the day was long.

She started on the 9th:

As soon as I heard the news Saturday and read an online article (forget where) with the gleanings from the guy’s various communiques, that was my impression. Mind control, grammar, the possible constitutional ramifications and/or mind control of said grammar, strange obsessions with the currency and its frightening message to trust in God, nonsensical ramblings: it could be a page out of Vaslav Nijinksy’s diary. It’s not just the content, but the style. Classic paranoid schizophrenia.

So imagine my surprise when I checked in on the news later last night and saw that Sarah Palin had been blamed for the shooting.

In the post she insults the tea party but that doesn’t stop her from seeing nonsense for what it is.

Later that same day she reminds us of some of the non violent memes of the lefts opposition to Sarah Palin and says:

That’s right. He was busy calling for Hillary Clinton’s death and then, when Clinton was over, foaming at the mouth about

Palin hunt image via the reclusive leftist

Sarah Palin. Lots of people were foaming at the mouth about Sarah Palin. There was the “art” exhibit in New York inviting people to play at shooting her with a rifle. She was hung in effigy in Los Angeles. Sandra Bernhardt said she should be raped, and not a few other people gleefully called for her death.

Was there any outrage about this at the time? Only from people like me, who were running around with our hair on fire, screaming to our allegedly “progressive” brethren and sistren “UR DOIN IT WRONG!!!!!” Everybody else seemed to think it was just fine. After all, Sarah Palin really did deserve to be raped and murdered and shot and lynched because she’s a foul c*** who needs to die, so what was wrong with saying so? Lighten up, bitch. What are you, a secret Republican?

And again she is the reclusive leftist so she makes it clear what she thinks of Sarah Palin’s political positions:

Sarah Palin is a Republican. That’s all. She’s just a silly rightwing Republican. The country’s crawling with them. Look, they’re all around you! They’re your county supervisors, state senators, congresspeople, governors, and former presidents. Remember Bush? Remember Reagan? Sarah Palin didn’t invent any of this stuff. She didn’t invent any of the ideas or any of the rhetoric. She certainly didn’t invent extremist violence, nor does she seem to be in any way connected with that kind of thing. She’s just an ordinary idiot Republican who believes ordinary idiot Republican things, like the millions of other ordinary idiot Republicans in this country.

What is it about her that’s so special? What could it possibly be that makes this utterly ordinary idiot Republican somehow a billion times worse than all the rest?

…and she gives her explanation but go to the link and read it, she deserves the hits.

Finally on the 16th she hits it out of the park on RFK Jr’s essay:

He just wanted to talk about the dangers of right-wing hate. Okay, fine. That’s cool. Let’s talk about it. But still: how do you leave out the sentence about Oswald? As a writer, how do you do that? I couldn’t. It feels obligatory. You write this highly-charged essay, you make a big deal about how ugly the right-wing stuff was in Dallas, you evoke the horror of the president’s death; even if you want your takeaway message to be about the dangers of superheated rhetoric, how do you leave out the undeniable historical reality that Oswald was cut from an entirely different bolt of cloth? Even if you tuck it in as a parenthetical throwaway (”of course, ironically…”), you still have to acknowledge it. Don’t you?

I had just about persuaded myself to forget about it—chalk it up to a single editorial decision not to muddy the main point—when I learned today that Eric Boehlert wrote an extremely similar essay in 2009: A President was killed the last time right-wing hatred ran wild like this. It’s exactly the same argument RFK Jr. makes, and with exactly the same stunning omission. No Oswald! Oswald has simply disappeared. He’s gone. And everything that motivated the man is gone. No Cuba, no Fidel, no Soviet Union, no Marxism, no Communism, no nothing. There’s not even a nod to Oswald’s real motive, which was the inchoate longing to be somebody, to be a great man, to be important.

Read this whole essay, yeah it’s hard on the right, but it’s honest and fair and from the left.

I will never agree with the Reclusive Leftist on religion, abortion, George Bush and a million other issues, but boy do I respect her.

Update: Thanks for the lanche Glenn but thanks even more for linking to Violet, honest leftists should be celebrated. BTW Insty readers make sure you read all three of her posts on the subject.

Update 2: A lot of readers think that I’m giving Violet too much credit. Remember a lot of us on the right were once on the left, it took a while for us to get it, its not a switch. If you want to let people find their way to truth the best way is to encourage them along the way.

Comments
  1. Peg says:

    Great post, Pete. Above all else, you have such an honest and generous heart.

  2. Chuck Pelto says:

    TO: All
    RE: The ONLY Way….

    ….the Leftists can stop Sarah Palin is by murder. And then WHERE will they be?

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [The Truth will out….]

    P.S. First they ignore you. Then they mock you. Then they hate you. Then you win….

  3. Chuck Pelto says:

    P.P.S. We are OBVIOUSLY at step #3.

    Looking forward to 2012….

  4. JohnMc says:

    My only observation is she leaves her own invectives in the posts — ‘Idiot Republicans’ indeed. The only guess is she does not want to pick up a gun either physically or metaphorically and soil her soul for doing so. Whereas her more rabid fellow travelers are. So in a turnabout fashion she is really less honest about her stances on the Left – Right divide than a Olbytron or a Mr. Spits.

    I would rather face an opponent screaming in my face than one slinking around with knife in hand.

  5. Chuck Pelto says:

    TO: Reclusive Leftist
    RE: Those ‘Republicans’

    They’re all around you alright. Even in this bastion of Democrat-Leftist non-think. ESPECIALLY in positions of running the city government. Most of the honchos that keep this city going, especially in the fields of logistics, are Republicans.

    And I have to wonder what would happen to city services if they get rid of them all.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Amateurs study tactics. Professional solders study logistics. — Tom Clancy]

  6. Rob Crawford says:

    RFK Jr and Boehlert omitted Oswald because Boehlert and whoever wrote RFK Jr’s essay are both on what replaced Journolist.

  7. Vanguard of the Commentariat says:

    So leftism isn’t primarily concerned with taking care of the poor, minorities, the disposessed, the “losers of life’s lottery”? Wow, who knew?

  8. backhoe says:

    “…but go to the link and read it, she deserves the hits.”

    I would if I could get there ( I have read her blog before, and she’s not bad- for a leftist… ) but apparently it’s being overwhelmed by traffic.

    While I don’t care for being lumped in with idiots, she has a point- one of my favorite old-time Democrats, Pat Moynihan, said it best:

    “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion,
    what he is not entitled to
    is his own set of facts…”

  9. Marta says:

    Nope. Don’t know why you are shilling for “Violet” (though I can make a good guess!) but she’s not getting any traffic from me. Leftists are leftists; the fact that one stumbles upon the truth occasionally does not make them a hero.

  10. Chuck Pelto says:

    TO: datechguy
    RE: RL vs. the Rest of the ‘Progressives’

    JohnMC has a point. But I suspect I’m seeing it from a different angle.

    Where JohnMC sees RL as being unwilling to pick-up the ‘gun’ and ‘shoot’ the vile Republicans/Conservatives/Christians/Whathaveyous-who-oppose-progressivism, I see the same thing. However, I suspect that the so-called ‘progressives’ [what a misnomer] see it as well. And, because she is unwilling to be EXACTLY like them, they will likely turn on HER: mad-dogs that they are.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Whereas ‘good’ can tolerate the existence of ‘evil’, ‘evil’ cannot tolerate the existence of ‘good’, because good will always be an example of how bad ‘evil’ is. Therefore, ‘evil’ MUST destroy ‘good’ in order to avoid being embarrassed.]

  11. Chuck Pelto says:

    P.S. Even in the excerpts provided by datechguy, there are hints that this ‘mad-dog’ behavior of the ‘progressives’ turning on one of their own for not being EXACTLY like them is coming out.

    The question becomes, what will RL do? Will she realize the ‘evil’ nature of the people she associates with and her moral courage will stand up to them? Or will she morph into EXACTLY what they are like in order to keep her ‘friends’, another ‘clone’.

    [Progressive is a one-word oxymoron. — CBPelto]

  12. weisshaupt says:

    Kinda sad. I don’t think she deserves the respect you are showing. How can you claim to be interested in the truth beyond the narrative (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrtDmknIjhI) and then not look beyond your own experience?

    The only reason this “reasonable” leftist is noticing the ommision of Lee Harvey Oswald from the narrative is because she was there, she remembers, and she is honest enough to not edit her own memory with revisionist history. She knows the narrative to be false – in this one instance. Interested in doing research and finding other such falsehoods that lie outside her experience? Not so much.

    Kudos that she cares about this truth, just this once. However, are your expectations so low for lefitsts that a small example of momentary sanity is impressive to you? Under most circumstances these are people incapable of explaining why they believe what they believe without resorting to logical fallacies (especially ad-hominem), and they won’t even try to (accurately) articulate what their opponents believe and why they disagree with that. (Strawman fallacies are especially prevalent)

    Liberals would far rather be happy than right, and this reclusive leftist is not different. Leftism is about feeling you are part of a master race of morally superior people, destined to make the right decisions for others. Is a dictator any better if occasionally they are honest about how evil those who support their causes are?

  13. elaine says:

    I’ve read Violet off and on since the 2008 campaign. And when she blogs about Palin and even Hillary Clinton, I tend to agree with her. Of course, sometimes I also think Violet sees sexism where none exists, and she tends to blather on about “the patriarchy” when that really isn’t the problem…

    And, yes, her leftie snark about the right can be annoying, to say the least, because it’s just as knee-jerk as any other leftie’s attitudes about us.

    But… we do need to give credit where it’s due. This is a big crack for her to admit to seeing. And, yes, it’s related to Sarah Palin, which is why she’s seeing it. I mean, if you took Palin out of the mix and the left was merely blaming Beck, Rush, and the Tea Party, I’m not sure Violet would’ve noticed the truth. Maybe she would’ve…

    As you mentioned, Mr Guy (heh…), many of us on this side were once lefties. What flipped me was the behavior of Now in the Anita Hill allegations against Clarence Thomas, versus the side they took when Bill Clinton was accused of using his position to solicit sex from state employees back in Arkansas. Night and day difference in response from NOW. And that’s when I started seeing the cracks in the left. Noticed it was rotten and venal.

    Maybe Violet will also have some kind of coming to the light moment, particularly since her side won’t countenance anyone who disagrees even in the slightest with the official leftie narrative. And Violet has a tendency to disagree with them, a LOT.

    So maybe we should make a point of leaving comments (when appropriate) which gently point out the problems we have with leftie policy, when she addresses how “mean” or “selfish” republicans are. If we could just turn her to libertarianism, I’d be glad. :-)

  14. […] that drowned the target blog with error “503 Service Temporarily Unavailable.” Da Techguy’s Blog started […]

  15. JLawson says:

    I think the one thing the left hates most about Palin is… that she doesn’t fear them. They scream at her, she shrugs. They defame her, and she ignores them. They invent garbage about her, and she doesn’t rush to defend herself.

    They’re powerless against her, because she doesn’t have any buttons they can push, no levers they can pull. All their usual methods of manipulating a politician or public figure are useless. She’s secure in herself – she doesn’t need their validation or approval.

    They don’t matter to her. And they hate that.

  16. Roxeanne de Luca says:

    A lot of leftists think that we are not just wrong, but evil. Their entire world-view is caught up in us being oppressors, mean, racist, bigots. They don’t even attempt to acknowledge that we could have arrived at our opinions by a thought process and not hatred.

    That said, sorry, Violet baby, but I’m no one’s idiot, and I am very, very conservative. Thomas Sowell is brilliant. Ann Coulter is a brain (UMich Law Review and federal appeals clerkship!). Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Sam Alito – all possessed of a rare, rare intelligence. Nikki Haley. Rick Snyder (graduated with a BS, JD, and MBA by the age of 23). Eugene Volokh, libertarian extraordinaire, started college at age 12.

    Further, Sarah is damn smart herself. That’s why her fellow governors from oil-producing states decided that she was the best one to lead them (April, 2008). That’s why Alaskans gave her a 93% approval rating at one point. She got things done. She learned quickly and become one of the nation’s foremost experts on energy law, which is why the Wall Street Journal was publishing her op-eds long before McCain brought her onto the national stage.

    Now, I’m not sure what part of that makes her an “idiot” – perhaps the part wherein liberals think that intelligence is not measured by specialised knowledge, success, nor academic achievement, but knowing that, of course, unborn babies are only “babies” when they are wanted; if unwanted, they transmogrify into “menstrual tissue”. Or maybe she’s an “idiot” because she knows enough of thermodynamics and economics to not fall for the ethanol debacle. (Seems to me, though, that those things make her smart, not stupid.)

    So pardon me if I’m not sure where you – or anyone else who isn’t Bill Gates or Ruth Bader Ginsburg – gets off saying “idiot Republicans”. It’s especially amusing given that a liberal professor once tested the intelligence and knowledge of college students, and found that small government conservatives/libertarians absolutely spanked the competition.

  17. jorge c. says:

    mr. chuck pelto at 9:14
    for the record
    “Amateurs study…” was a Napoleon’maxims, not Tom Clancy…

  18. Tom Kinney says:

    Camille Paglia has likewise supported Palin from the start and sees her as the true feminist that she is, an outdoorswoman who totally blew Andrea Mitchell out of the water during her slanted interview with Palin who was efficiently readying her fishing boat in kneeboots moving in and out of deep water throwing necessities into her boat as Mitchell, an east coast elitist if ever there was one, stood in proper dress on dry land asking stupid questions.

    Note also that Palin says Americans should be able to smoke marijuana in their own homes while Joe BiteMe, our used car salesman of a VP, says it’s a dangerous gateway drug.

    Meanwhile, the Tea Party rails against “the establishment,” while liberals have become the establishment.

    Face it liberals, the new anti-establishment is on your right.

  19. Chuck Pelto says:

    TO: jorge c.
    RE: [OT] Citations

    I got it from Clancy.

    But hey!!!

    If Napoleon said it first, even better.

    Thanks,

    Chuck(le)
    P.S. I’m reminded of how that old saying about…

    Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result.

    Today, I saw it cited as from Albert Einstein. I recall hearing it from Bill Clinton in ’92. However, I also notice that it was said by Benjamin Franklin before either of those two.

  20. Chuck Pelto says:

    TO: Roxeanne de Luca
    RE: It’s Called….

    A lot of leftists think that we are not just wrong, but evil. Their entire world-view is caught up in us being oppressors, mean, racist, bigots. They don’t even attempt to acknowledge that we could have arrived at our opinions by a thought process and not hatred. — Roxeanne de Luca

    ….’projection’.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Projection, v., Seeing in others what you are yourself.]

  21. Peg C. says:

    I can’t get into her site, either, and I don’t really care. I was a whackjob lefty myself for 26 long, excruciating years. I understand them all too well and have lost the ability to entertain their madness, and it is, indeed, madness.

    Last week we all witnessed the full-throated Primal Scream of the Left as they perceive their own death throes. It can’t happen too soon.

  22. Chuck Pelto says:

    TO: All
    RE: As Roxeanne de Luca Says….

    They [Leftists] don’t even attempt to acknowledge that we could have arrived at our opinions by a thought process….

    The point here is if you delve deep enough into how we arrived at our opinions, you’ll more than likely find factual material. Whereas whenever I’ve attempted to get a Leftist to defend their position/opinion, they—more often than not—resort to name-calling.

    There’s something of an ‘indicator’ in that. An indicator that they have nothing to support their opinion. In other words, it’s merely prejudice that they go on.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Prejudice, n., A vagrant opinion without any visible means of support.]

  23. Richard Aubrey says:

    During and after the presidential campaign, Violet did a piece on the misogny of the anti-Palin folks. I figured it was politics, but for feminists, if all they have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
    She had some extensive comments. One commenter on a feminist blog said it was nothing but PUMA grouching.

  24. […] all liberals are deranged. A leftist defends Sarah Palin. Part One is here. Da TechGuy has […]

  25. Since Loughner’s main influence came from his obsession about Zeitgeist, the fact is that Loughner has never been a right-winger, has never been conservative.

    Zeitgeist isn’t being talked about in the mainstream media, so Liberals wouldn’t know about it, or what they have read from the Left is telling them Zeitgeist is far-right. But it isn’t. It is a Leftist video, with a Leftist vision of their own machinations of socialism/marxism.

    Having said all that, I appreciate Violet Socks’ (love that name) attitude about the shootings, and her earnest answers back to her commenters.