Dueling Blogs-- Alan Colmes Responds to NewsBusters

Git out yer shootin' irons and settle in for a blog duel, folks, because the inestimable Alan Colmes has answered to NewsBusters on his less than secret blog, LiberalLand.com. Mr. Colmes sent me a little email notice that he has answered to my ribbing of him on the 13th and I have the honor to reply in kind with a fisking of his latest.

Firstly, I will certainly admit that Mr. Colmes' guns might bark a little louder than your humble NewsBuster's (that's me, of course). After all, he has a TV show and a radio show, as well as a well-visited blog. On the other hand, I merely watch TV and have been but a radio show guest speaker... however, I DO blog on one of the most visited conservative sites on the Internet (that would be Newsbusters.org, naturally).

Mr. Colmes' reply consists of an opening sentence followed by bulleted talking points. So, what follows is his bulleted points after which my replies to each will appear.

Colmes began with this:

Hey, Warner at Newsbusters, how about accurately representing what I said? Neither I, nor Obama for that matter, ever said, “Middle America is full of racist, overly religious gun-nuts.” Here are some other things you ought to know before you misrepresent me.

Well, Mr. Colmes, I wouldn't say "misrepresent" so much as clarify. But, let us continue.

• I have no problem with Obama getting the nomination, but I am on record as a Hillary supporter.

Let it so be known, then.

• Defending someone because you feel he is wrongly criticized does not make you an “apologist.”

Since you are so fond of splitting hairs, Mr. Colmes, I'd like to correct you. Since you are making the disingenuous "some say" argument to explain away Obama's overheated rhetoric, I'll add a bit to your talking point number two just so:

"Defending someone because you feel he is wrongly criticized does not necessarily make you an "apologist," though some are apologists."

There that seems more in fitting with your style, sir. No, don't thank me. I'm glad to help.

• I was never “hiding” Liberaland. I started it on a lark and people found out about it. If I wanted to hide it I would have kept it a private blog.

Well, then. I was misinformed as to the initial status of your blogging efforts. I only want to say in my defense that "some said" that your blog was a secret in the beginning. But, I see no reason to make this an argument. Consider your word here the last you'll hear from me on the subject.

• There are some people who “cling” to guns and religion. Not all. Not most. Some.

I see. Well, some Democrats despise everything about their country and would love to see it turned into a lesser version of Europe. They'd love to jail every conservative, destroy the sanctity of marriage, censor all speech that they stand against, turn every child into a homosexual, throw away that pesky Constitution and gut our military -- that military that they "loath." Not all. Not most. Some.

Now, the question that comes to my mind is this: were I running for president, would it improve the public weal for me to be making such outlandish statements that are certainly true, but meaningless in the greater scheme of things? More to the point, was it useful for Barack Obama to dwell on the hateful, discontent of that minute "some" you are claiming he was talking about? If that "some" is not most, then what merit does Obama's point have? After all, he could have said that "some Americans are rapists" and have been 100% correct. But where is the good such a point would have done this country and its political wellbeing? Wasn't Obama merely wallowing in class warfare rhetoric and pandering to a clientele that would appreciate a slam against the unwashed masses that they despise?

Can you not admit, Mr. Colmes, that Obama's rhetoric was ill considered and certainly NOT befitting the campaign of a man who claims that he wants a "new tone," "change," and a day of "cooperation" in America?

• Saying something that happens be true, a truth that is inconvenient and, perhaps, not pretty, does not mean you disdain the people you’re describing.

As a point that is certainly true. The problem here is can we apply this statement to Obama's comments? While that may require interpretation, it is certainly easy to speculate that he did, indeed, feel disdain for those rubes in the Midwest that he was using to gain the support of the extreme lefties before which he was appearing, begging for campaign money and votes.

When you add this incident to the other incidents where he showed disdain for "white" America as well as the many statements his wife and "spiritual advisor," Jeremiah Wright, Jr., have made, we can see a pattern where Obama seems as if he at the very least dislikes, if not disdains, the many millions of Americans in the Midwest from whom he is looking to for support.

And, as I said, if he doesn't disdain them, why would he use them so casually before the lefty crowd in California? At the risk of repeating myself, if he doesn't dislike those Middle Americans, he was certainly willing to casually use their supposed plight to pander to the far left.

None of this sounds very presidential or very "new toneish" to me.

• Name-calling, ie: “panderer and “liar” proves Michelle Obama right. America can be “downright mean.” And the people posting don’t exactly seem to be sipping the milk of human kindness.

Well, if Mr. Obama is so wounded by "panderer" and "liar," I'd suggest this is the most mild form of political excoriation ever uttered in this Country. I'd ask you to check into some of the comments that the more "civilized," more "tolerant," and more "intelligent" folks on your side of the aisle have called President Bush over the last 9 years (yes, 9 including his run for 2000). Further, I'd suggest that if you think that the comments on Newsbusters are somehow over-the-top or outrageous, than you should check out the Daily Kos once in a while. Your own house could use a sweeping, sir.

• Obama is not my messiah. I’m Jewish, but not a messianic Jew.

Yes, yes. I most certainly will grant you that. You must give me a little wiggle room for bombast and rhetoric, though, couldn't you? And please don't try to tell us that such hyperbole favoring your positions never exited your lips?

• If you think I should keep my blog a secret, don’t help me publicize it, but thanks for the link, anyway.

No, I must find myself reversing my initial good-natured jab. I do think your blog should get wider play. After all, the more people who read your work, the more there’ll be that can see you for what you are. That can't be anything but good in anyone's book, right?

• My full statement is as you quoted: “And just where is he wrong? Pointing out why people may be bitter or frustrated, that there is xenophobia, that people sometimes cling to religion or feel paranoid about the government and embrace guns doesn’t mean you hate or disdain a portion of the population.” The rest is your conjecture, and it’s wrong.

Well, I appreciate your contention that I am wrong. On the other hand, you ill serve Obama to prove that his rhetoric is only aimed at that tiny little some statistic you are so sure he is focusing on. Your elucidation that his points are meaningless to the discussion of where the majority of America stands does not do Obama well. I mean, let's face it. I could say some about anything and be technically correct. But, if that some is so small that it isn't most then what value does it have in the greater debate about the state of our country?

Let’s face reality. While the USA has some problems we still have what amounts statistically to full employment with an unemployment rate at under 6%, we have a standard of living where our poor live in as good a condition as the middle class in most countries (even several European countries), and we still have a strong economy, one that has been roaring with but small dips in success since the 1980s.

So, in the end, that some you and Obama are talking about really don’t have a whole lot to complain about in the greater scheme of things.

Now, were I in the Obama camp I'd be quick to ask you not to be so "helpful" in the future. However, I'd like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to exchange ideas. It was fun.

So, I wish you well, Mr. Colmes. I will check out your TV show soon to see if you are being as civil to your TV guests as you seem to be advocating for here.

What’s good for the goose and all that.

Yours, Warner Todd Huston

(Photo Credit: FoxNews.com)

(h/t Alan Colmes by email)