Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Objectively pro-(whatever)
Posted by: Jon Henke on Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Mark Levin is accusing Andrew Sullivan of being insufficiently conservative by trotting out the 'objective pro-[whatever]' argument...
Andrew Sullivan considers himself an opponent of torture. But he's not. He's against the war in Iraq, which has ended a great deal of state-sponsored torture, not to mention state-sponsored rape, state-sponsored executions, and all the other inhumanity unleashed by maniacs like Saddam Hussein.
First, Sullivan did support the war and continues to advocate US victory in Iraq, so Levin is — let's be charitable — reinventing history. Levin rationalizes his position by arguing that Sullivan would have opposed the war had reality been different. But reality wasn't different, yet Levin continues to operate in his alternate Sulli-verse.

This 'objectively pro-[something bad]' rhetoric, though, is below any any self-respecting intellectual. It's bad logic, bad rhetoric and bad policy. But if Levin still wants to push that argument, here are some implications:
  • If you do not support a war against China, you are objectively pro-Communism.
  • If you do not support an invasion of Saudi Arabia, you are objectively pro-Islamist.
  • If you do support the war in Iraq, you are objectively pro-death for US troops.
Of course, those arguments are patently absurd. But they are no more absurd than Mark Levin's argument that Andrew Sullivan "support[s] torture".
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

Using that line of argument is objectively pro-Socialist, since Orwell was an (anarcho-whatever) socialist.
Written By: Mithras
Couple points:

1. Mark Levin is not a self-respecting intellectual, so your criticism doesn’t really apply.

2. Mark Levin undoubtedly agrees with your first two bullets and as to your third, I’m sure he believes that the deaths of more US troops are necessary to justify the losses sustained to date.

Written By: Steven Donegal
URL: http://
Orwell later apologized for having used that phrase, putting it down to "the lunatic atmosphere of war." So maybe people who use it are objectively pro lunacy?
Written By: Jim Henley
There are so many ways to show that Sullivan isn’t a good conservative, why use a bad one? A quick read through his posts from the 2004 election season should provide you with ample quotations to back up your argument.
Written By: Jeff the Baptist

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks