Oct 09 2005

Banned From Redstate

Published by at 8:09 pm under All General Discussions,Miers Nomination

Welcome CJR readers! I hope you take the time to explore the site a bit. In addition to my spat with Redstate, you may also want to check out my latest post on Miers here, plus I have accumulated quite a few earlier posts here. I sincerely hope you find the visit worth our while.

I would like to offer my condolences to the folks at Redstate for being guinea pigs in my efforts to prove a point. Redstate is one of many conservative blogs out there pushing for the defeat of Miers. My views on this self absorption are well known: if you want me to join a revolt against Bush you better have rock solid evidence of guaranteed, pending doom.

Not theories. Not ‘what if’ scenarios. Not fanatical suspicions of the possibility of some potential probability that Miers is Justice Stevens in hiding who could emerge under hypothetical conditions. Tangible evidence.

Key folks at Redstate have been pushing for a civil war in the republican party, and the broader conservative movement, over the Miers nomination. So on many threads, but this one in particular, I decided to test their mettle. I wanted to know if, beyond their flimsy claims, they had what it took to make this fight real.

They don’t. I was banned because I called the anti-Miers crowd ‘extremists’ and ‘fanatics’. Compared to the innuendo thrown at Miers this is not very tough rhetoric. Especially since there is a real case to be made that people willing to throw Bush overboard for the remainder of his term, over this issue, are being ideological fanatics.

No one has been able proved Miers is John Paul Stevens incarnate. They just have their fears and stubborn ideology pushing them.

I was testing the envelope (and their buttons – especially Leon H) to see if they could handle the intensity of infighting they were calling for. All I can say folks is: do not run to oust Miers if you expect folks like those at Redstate to back you. They had no good responses, and in the end hid behind silencing the voices they could not deal with.

After being pilloried myself, the heat became too much for them and I was banned. Honestly, I feel for them. They missed my continued hints that I was simply bringing on the internal battle they had been calling for. I was stunned to hear Leon H’s concern was based on ‘signals’ Bush was sending to young law students like himself – not on ANYTHING else having to do with Miers experience. But that is what they had. And when pressed they tried to turn off the bad news coming at them.

Miers knows the war on terror, the patriot act and the private sector. Expertise solely lacking in the US SC. Miers is not Hillary. We have no need for this civil war right now. Abortion is still a tough issue to make progress on with or without her.

I made a bet with some that I could find a critical problem with the idea of banning abortions, except in the case of the health (not mental health) of the mother. A position I have supported as something to strive for over the next 5-10 years. Through this debate I found this is to be flawed, and I expect most pro-life people would back my position without any hesitation. And since it is flawed, those backing it without question are flawed in their positions.

This came from broadening out the debate to folks who are a small minority in the population and deal with issues most people, thankfully, never face. Something some of us see as a positive in Miers. My bet still stands. Since this well acclaimed position is apparently critically flawed, how is it some can conclude they know all they need to on this subject? Is it possible to still be wrong at this stage even on this?

Yes it is. So the arrogance of the anti-Miers crowd has drawn me to only one conclusion: they seriously want to have this internal war. So be it. I would very much prefer not to. But as Redstate proved, honest debate is not important when zealots have their one and only issue at stake. They want to purge those of us who disagree with them, even if it is Bush himself and they have no proof of any disagreement. That is where we are.

BTW, anyone from Redstate is welcomed here and welcomed to voice their opinions. We do not ban because we disagree with a view.

UPDATE:

BTW, notice how they keep responding to my posts even though I cannot reply in turn?? Very strange behavior indeed. Oh well, that is the sad part of an intra-party war.

Also, check out this post from the guy who banned me for ‘personal attacks’, Thomas Mike Krempasky:

Oh, I get it. You’re an idiot.

[ I never called anyone an idiot. I called them extremists and zealots for wanting this civil war - but I never did this]

Insult your opponents and we’ll treat you like the moron you are.

Nah. Stupidity irritates me for its own sake.

Or because your ability to read is proof that God grants miracles every day.

Well, you’re first. We’re not actually intent on harming the Dear Leader. We know that would hurt you much worse than anything we could do to you.

By the way, this is the last time I give you the benefit of the doubt on the “fanatic” thing. Understood?

Ah, what a perfect example of hypocrisy. Folks, if this is where you are getting advise on legal and judicial matters, I strongly suggest you reconsider. This person was trying to explain why I was about to be banned for personal attacks. Got it? LOL!

16 responses so far

16 Responses to “Banned From Redstate”

  1. hehe…The Right Wing blogsphere doesnt like to be fact checked themselves. Found that out when I asked Jeff Goldstein to explain his posts. Got banned and called a fu*#kwit.

    Pierre

  2. nomad_990 says:

    This is getting as bad as the KosBrats and their ilk. They run websites and/or blogs so therefore they are the ‘soul’ of the party.

    Thrilled about Miers I am? No…. But I’ll accept that the Pres knows what he’s doing and knows the lay of the land in DC&Congress better then we do. The White House has heard us so lets stop acting like Dems and their usual circular firing squad and get on with things!!

  3. AJStrata says:

    The fact they cannot handle some tough debate illustrates they are not the ‘Right’ that wins elections. I really used to admire those folks at one time.

    The anti-Miers crowd has split the party. Don’t expect any new policies. And expect to lose seats in 2006. And it will always be the case they knew what they were doing and it was Bush’s fault for the split. Just like they tried to claim it was all Bush 41′s fault so many had no clue the economy was on a rebound.

    Can you believe these people??

  4. Sirc_Valence says:

    Pretty funny, AJ. I was on that thread earlier today. It was actually the first post that I made on REDSTATE. I joined today just to comment on this issue.

    Something similar happened to me getting caught up in a flame war with the wrong people at Free Republic and I got the boot. A couple of individuals were really piling on and going overboard, and I gave as good as I got.

    People can be pretty sensitive about their rules and regulations sometimes,. Especially when fragile egos are involved.

  5. Sirc_Valence says:

    I found out what went wrong when I was trying to retrieve that info. I would get the Reset link in my in-box while I was totally ignoring my junkmail which is where the pw would go!

  6. My goodness, AJ–that exchange is extraordinary. Sorry I missed it live, and reading it I was so diasappointed when you got banned. Thought someone was going to call for seconds.

    What I find interesting about RedState, and why I stick around there, is that while the people who run the site are so militantly anti-Miers, the “recommended” (by readers) entries are more pro-Miers than not. It must drive them beserk to have people like Beth keep posting and getting bumped to the top of the herd because it points out why their whole crusade is meaningless. 80% of the country couldn’t tell you who Harriet Miers is. And within their own faithful, at least half if not more already support Miers. And they do so more vocally than their own followers support them. So exactly what is this army that they’re marshalling?

    Like the left, they will become increasingly shrill and strident in the face of their own inevitable failure. But they should take heart–there are worse things than having Bill Kristol revealed as having feet of clay, and Peggy Noonan didn’t like the Second Inaugural, so even she could use a little perspective. Yes, damage has been done, but it’s not irreparable. Remember, a month ago everyone thought Bush was done over Katrina.

  7. [...] UPDATE 2 11:03 p.m.: Thanks to Lorie Byrd for the link; in addition to the links at Michelle Malkin’s, you can donate through a link to WorldVision at the recently banned from Red State AJStrata’s place…and if anyone comes across a good donation banner I can put on the page let me know. [...]

  8. AJStrata says:

    AE, The problem I have with these folks is their double standard. They get all bent out of shape when their cause is not supported, but they go off the deep end and propose destroying everyone elses cause on the flimsiest of hypothetical possibilities. They don’t like the labels ‘fanatic’, ‘extremist’ and ‘zealot’ – but they sure have been acting that way. I have two emails from them saying if I do not equate their political obsessions with these words I could come back!

    What a hoot!

    What in the world did they expect a civil war was going to look like??

    We all keep going back to the last time folks took one of these suicidal political stands – 1992 and Bush 41. Yeah, it finally subsided after 8 years of Clinton. These temper tantrum can be costly.

  9. nomad_990 says:

    Odd thing…. The conservative movement did tried to enact a bunch of things that it so dearly wanted and…..they go their heads handed to them. I’m talking about the 1995 debacle in congress.

    Yes they handled things badly. Yes Clinton was a master at the politics, with MSM help. The problem is that the population at large isn’t as conservative as ‘the faithful’. They don’t want government bothering them too much. However….you take away their rice bowl and they will scream bloody murder! We are _never_ going to get to the libertarian ideal so we just have to learn to take what we get and live with it.

  10. boris says:

    Doing blog battle with the left is a form of debate that unfortunately gets used when we disagree between ourselves. Some are too thinskinned and stick to green zones policed for politeness. Small wonder that scrappy cons can find themselves unwelcome in such areas during disagreements.

    A lot of cons who want a hardliner on affirmative action and immigration see Miers and Gonzales as soft on those issues. Clearly the administration is softer on those issues as well. For me private property rights, 2nd amendment, and the WOT take precedence.

  11. madasheck says:

    The suicidal political stand is the nomination of Miers by Bush in the first place. We’re just calling bullsh– on him here. She’s clearly another Souter in the wings. She’s on the record as a big supporter of affirmative action. No, not the sensible kind that considers AA based on class and adversity, regardless of race– no, Miers is in favor of the idiotic form of AA that sets quotas based on race and gender.

    So, yes, there is a suicidal political stand here. That’s the nomination by POTUS of someone who is obviously unacceptable as a SCOTUS justice.

  12. madasheck says:

    Boris,

    Property rights, 2nd Amendment and the like are important to all of us social cons as well, but these aren’t the essential issues on which the SCOTUS is so instrumental. Affirmative action, however, is indeed, and it’s something that affects all of us very fundamentally. The conditions are now ideal to get someone like JR Brown or Luttig confirmed, who would be sensible on all these issues. So why not nominate one of them rather than Miers, who we know will betray us some of the most fundamental things?

  13. madasheck says:

    “What I find interesting about RedState, and why I stick around there, is that while the people who run the site are so militantly anti-Miers, the “recommended” (by readers) entries are more pro-Miers than not.”

    I also go to RedState a lot Academic Elephant, and that’s totally inaccurate. By last count, the “Recommended Posts” were about 10-1 against Miers. Granted, they’re not the yelling and screaming, very incourteous posts, which I agree with a problem, but they come up with sensible, sound reasons for opposing her.

    The fact that she’s pro-affirmative action is a biggie, but another is the very understandable complaint that people have worked decades in the conservative movements to get a tried- and tested conservative on the court, and now, Bush backs down without a fight. They have a good reason to be ticked off.

  14. boris says:

    Bush backs down without a fight

    Winning a fight would involve invoking the constitutional option.

    Here’s the thing … I enjoy a scrap … I fight to win … I have been banned from sites that police for politeness, although I am never impolite. Rile up the locals with a well defended minority position and being the cause of a ruckus is all it takes.

    So don’t take this the wrong way …

    The guy in the arena gets to pick his own battles. Fighters understand that better than sideliners. When I look at the arguments against, I sense a lot of sideliner attitudes.

  15. Rick Moran says:

    “The suicidal political stand is the nomination of Miers by Bush in the first place. We’re just calling bullsh– on him here. She’s clearly another Souter in the wings. She’s on the record as a big supporter of affirmative action.”

    First of all…I want this guy to pick my stocks. Saying “She’s clearly another Souter…” marks him as a psychic. Maybe he can tell us where Elvis is….

    That said, and speaking as someone not enamored of the nomination, her position on AA mirrors that of the President who supported the U. of Michigan standards – much narrower than anything passed by the Court in the last 20 years. How that makes her “clearly” a Souter is an idiotic statement made by someone whose mouth is “clearly” bigger than their brain.

  16. [...] The apparently banned-from-Red State blogger AJ Strata and Hugh Hewitt are also commenting on these buzzing “anonymous staffers.” This piece is over-written and deeply in need of editing, not to mention punctuation. But I am betting it was written in anger and haste, and it merits a read because it is a warning with red flashing lights. [...]