Thinkin’ Carville and Matlin of the blogoshere, here.

B Moe on October 17, 2006 at 1:52 AM

No way, KP isn’t a deranged lying nut like Carville.

Of course, if he won’t, I’d gladly line up alone without pads against any NFL offensive line for the same invitation (they’d have to shoot that interview in ICU, of course, but it’d be worth it :)

NewsBusters.org – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

As reported by NewsBusters last Friday, famed television talk show host Oprah Winfrey recently had the New York Times’ Frank Rich on her program to hawk his new Bush-bashing book. On Monday’s “O’Re…

All we’d need is for Michelle to crash the “View” studio and whap ol’ Rosie across the face a couple of times with a gauntlet while saying, “I say that you are an insolent bully, and I demand satisfaction!” Then throw the gauntlet on the floor.

Please, don’t let Big Rosie throw her weight around Michelle. We’d lose big if Big Rosie does that.

All we’d need is for Michelle to crash the “View” studio and whap ol’ Rosie across the face a couple of times with a gauntlet while saying, “I say that you are an insolent bully, and I demand satisfaction!” Then throw the gauntlet on the floor.

Meantime, I’ve gotta move along here, before a merry-go-round vision of Julie, Kiran, Rebecca, Michelle et al keeps me from getting any work done at all.

So instead of complaining about it, stop watching liberal programming. I bet that inside of a year you’d see some more conservative programs on TV.

That line — “say hello to the ladies at the view” was a killer!

Yea, yea… I know… I’m a hetrosexual white male conservative. I dress poorly, and I only see in sixteen colors.

O’Reilly: It’s not about me… It’s not about me…

Sure it’s not.

Did anyone else see this segment as incredibly pathetic for O’Reilly? Michelle and KP were great, but O’Reilly just came off as a whiny baby, upset that he’s not cool enough to be on Oprah. I guess he’s always a whiny baby (or that’s how he comes across to me), but this just seemed especially pathetic even for him.

Concerning the bounds of unity; the true placing of them, importeth exceedingly. There appear to be two extremes. For to certain zealants, all speech of pacification is odious. Is it peace, Jehu? What hast thou to do with peace? turn thee behind me. Peace is not the matter, but following, and party. Contrariwise, certain Laodiceans, and lukewarm persons, think they may accommodate points of religion, by middle way, and taking part of both, and witty reconcilements; as if they would make an arbitrament between God and man. Both these extremes are to be avoided; which will be done, if the league of Christians, penned by our Savior himself, were in two cross clauses thereof, soundly and plainly expounded: He that is not with us, is against us; and again, He that is not against us, is with us; that is, if the points fundamental and of substance in religion, were truly discerned and distinguished, from points not merely of faith, but of opinion, order, or good intention. This is a thing may seem to many a matter trivial, and done already. But if it were done less partially, it would be embraced more generally.

… From Sir Francis Bacon’s “Of Unity in Religion.” My bold. Those last two lines were written c. 1600 A.D. I laugh at the “and done already” bit everytime I read it. Bacon’s talking about the Church’s unity; but I think of this when I notice O’Reilly doing what you noticed O’Reilly doing.

I also think of Mr. Miyagi, in the Karate Kid, saying: Karate Yes, Karate No: Karate Maybe–squash like grape. But I’ll keep that one to myself.

For the last freakin’ time….Mel Gibson is NOT a conservative.

Neither is O’Reilly. Granted, his self-applied label of “traditionalist” is right-of-center, but not on everything. In fact, he loves trying hard to prove he’s on center.

That’s why he devotes equal time to bashing Ann Coulter or Mark Levin as he does folks like Maureen Dowd or Bill Maher. Listen to him on any topic other than the war or protection of children, and he’ll name the left and right as equivalent extremists every time. Sometimes that is indeed a valid view, but so very often it is disingenuous, done only so he can pretend to be middle-of-the-road, and proclaim himself a fair arbiter of the truth of an issue.

A very wise pastor I know says that the only things you find in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead skunks.

Pick a side and take a stand.

I’ve got Allah and KP at an event together within 12 months. Who wants that bet?

Thinkin’ Carville and Matlin of the blogoshere, here.

Take second paragraph for what it’s worth. :)

In my experience those who describe themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal are conservative first–i.e. they don’t tend to support boondoggles like social security because their fiscal conservatism is against it and also because their brand of social liberalism is simply “live and let live,” NOT “live and I’ll subsidize it.” So yeah, there’s a continuum of social liberalism and fiscal conservatism–they have a balancing point … social security and welfare aren’t it, I admit. :)

But I don’t think its reasonable to say that anything that falls under the “social justice umbrella” is purely a “social issue”. Is social security a social issue or a fiscal issue? Of course it is a bit of both, but that can be said of any issue… which is why I didn’t get anything out of AP’s characterization of KP’s politics.

In your view, is it possible to be a social liberal AND fiscal conservative, or vice versa, if you expand “social issues” to include anything concerning social justice? How can you be fiscally conservative and support eliminating social security (as an example) while simultaneously being socially liberal and supporting social security, if social security can be said to be a “social justice” issue?

So, in answer to your post, I wasn’t kidding. :-)

Preferably “and”.

Allahpundit on October 16, 2006 at 11:03 PM

I thought you weren’t French…then you confirmed with the Banderas comment…

What a difference a lady makes!

…built up an audience of people who trust her word and her perspective, and is now free to deliver that perspective wholesale to a swallowing public. Simple as that. I can’t believe he has some kind of expectation that she should be balanced.

Anwyn on October 17, 2006 at 12:46 AM

Precisely. I’m with KP “I don’t watch Oprah” – that was the best part – my respect for KP grew many-fold just for that statement.

She’s a socially conservative liberal.

By which you could only mean “socially conservative compared to *other* liberals,” right? Cuz if she’s socially conservative and hawkish, what’s left besides fiscal?

I really don’t understand the “social conservative” label to begin with. Beyond, say, abortion and school prayer, what would you throw in there? Where do you draw the line on which policy questions are “social”? Is welfare, for example, a social issue (personal responsibility, charity, etc)?

DaveS, sorry, but you must be joking. :) Abortion. School prayer. ANYTHING related to religion anywhere near the schools or the courthouse square or the courthouse wall. Gay marriage. Gay anything. Welfare–pretty much the whole umbrella of “social justice.”

Okay, back to topic, I can’t believe O’Reilly wasted ten minutes with that. Oprah started out psychologizing people, built up an audience of people who trust her word and her perspective, and is now free to deliver that perspective wholesale to a swallowing public. Simple as that. I can’t believe he has some kind of expectation that she should be balanced.

I really don’t understand the “social conservative” label to begin with. Beyond, say, abortion and school prayer, what would you throw in there? Where do you draw the line on which policy questions are “social”? Is welfare, for example, a social issue (personal responsibility, charity, etc)?

Of course, there is room on the non-social, “liberal” side for a progressive tax system, and that sort of thing, but there are even some social aspects of that.

In the end, it doesn’t matter. She seems to come down on the correct side of national security related issues, so she’s cool in my book. Plus, she isn’t a foaming-at-the-mouth nutcase.