← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · TexasAnarch

Zell's Bells...Boy Jonah has done it now

Thread ID: 14904 | Posts: 1 | Started: 2004-09-04

Wayback Archive

TexasAnarch [OP]

2004-09-04 07:38 | User Profile

Zell’s Bells .. Boy Jonah has done it now

How many sarcastic variations on someone’s name does it take for a neocon to demonstrate a hysterical mental condition?  -- talking serious psychological deficit here.

PART ONE [url]http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20040903.shtml[/url] townhall.com Printer-friendly version ZellzaPoppin' Jonah Goldberg (back to web version) | Send September 3, 2004 First off, as a journalist, let me take the time to do what no other pundit has been willing to do: to thank Georgia Sen. Zell Miller for being named Zell. It's been a long time since a politician occasioned such euphoria over euphony in political commentary. From the conservatives I've already heard "Give 'em Zell!" "Zell it like it is!" "Zelling it Old School!" From the other side of the aisle we've had "Zellotry" and "Zell-out." And who the Zell knows what else is coming down the pike - Zello-Dolly?

So thank you, Sen. Miller (or your parents), because on this teeny-tiny point you, sir, are a uniter not a divider. And had you been christened Cleophus, the partisan divide would be just that much wider today.

Of course, Zell did some serious widening himself. His speech here Wednesday night was straight out of the Atkins diet cookbook: all red meat. As political theater, most observers here found the speech marvelous. Where they differ is on the question of whether or not it was smart.

The instant reaction from liberal and anti-Bush journalists, as well as the DNC, was that Miller was as bad as or worse than Pat Buchanan. DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe noted that at least Buchanan smiled in 1992 when he gave his (now somewhat undeservedly) infamous speech at that year's convention. Matthew Yglesias of the American Prospect, dripping with nuance, denounced the speech as a "fascistic tirade." The New Republic openly compared Miller to Joe McCarthy. Jonathan Cohn explained that Miller was much worse than Buchanan because "Buchanan's speech, after all, was an assault on decency. Last night Miller declared war on democracy." Time magazine's Joe Klein declared on CNN, "I don't think I've seen anything as angry or as ugly as Miller's speech."

Andrew Sullivan, a senior editor at the New Republic and a highly regarded blogger, noted the contrast between the Dem's Boston keynoter, Barack Obama - "a post-racial, smiling, expansive young American" - and the Republicans. "Then you see Zell Miller," Sullivan continued, "his face rigid with anger, his eyes blazing with years of frustration as his Dixiecrat vision became slowly eclipsed among the Democrats. Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroes."

This last bit is amusing, since Zell Miller was once considered a Southern statesmen by liberals because as governor he was willing to take the politically courageous step of removing the Confederate Battle Flag from the Georgia state flag. Indeed, Sullivan's magazine dubbed Miller "as reasonable a Democrat as there is." And Miller's stemwinder of a speech at the Democratic Convention in 1992 - in which he grilled the first President Bush ("If the 'education President' gets another term, even our kids won't be able to spell potato") - didn't provoke any assaults on his humanity.

In other words, when Democrats are mean or harsh they are labeled as passionate populists or some such. When Republicans are, they get called things like "Cotton Mather behind the cross" (Maureen Dowd's words). What is "righteous anger" for Democrats becomes "hate" when offered by Republicans (or, in this case, by like-minded Democrats.)

Now, none of this is to say that Miller's speech wasn't stern stuff. But was it really, in Sullivan's words, "gob-smackingly vile"? (Translation for the un-British: very vile). This charge rests on the assertion that Miller was questioning the patriotism of Kerry and the Democratic leadership (not rank-and-file Democrats, as so many commentators seem to think), despite such qualifiers as: "It is not their patriotism - it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking."

Both strategically and substantively, I think the speech probably crossed the line in parts. Substantively, it clearly painted with too broad a brush, at times suggesting Kerry & Co. are more than merely wrong but are actually hostile to America. And, strategically, I think the style went a bit too far. If there had been a bit less Southern wrath and a bit more Southern charm it might have been even more effective.

However, in part because Kerry's left his record undefended, Miller's speech was effective (and not that much more negative than, say, Al Sharpton's in Boston). The focus group "real Americans" I saw on TV were impressed, and I bet lots of other Americans were too. The question is whether that impression will be revised in the next few weeks as the Democrats and the media try to spin this as a disaster.

Indeed, the Republicans took a big gamble when they decided to give 'em Zell at this convention. If a Republican had delivered a speech half as relentless, the media and the Democrats would have colluded to make it the only story of the week. The Republicans calculated that a respected Democrat would be inoculated because, again, Democrats are never, ever, mean - even when they suggest Republicans are baby-killers (as Jesse Jackson did at the 1992 convention). So by concentrating all of their ammo in one sustained blast of Zellfire, they gambled that the usual counterspin about Republican "hate" wouldn't wash.

Only time will Zell if they were right.

Jonah Goldberg is editor of National Review Online, a Townhall.com member group.

COMMENT.

The bells Zell Miller really rang are not in the text, but in the tokens of his communication.  In today’s zippy style of discourse, they could be lumped together as Guy, God and Gun issues.

Guy issues, as in male, father, husband, come under the “family” token.  He says:  “I ask which leader is it today who has the vision, the willpower and yes, the backbone to protect my family?  The answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight.  For my family is more important than my party.”

This last refers to his role as a turncoat Democrat, endorsing Bush – as family man.  “There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man’s name is George Bush.”  “Turncoat” means self-hatred, as in Benedict Arnold.  Aiding and abetting the enemy (along with “Honest” John McCain).

Protection of family has been taken by George Bush to mean prevent weakening its definition to allow gay unions the title “marriage.”   Now, even though every other speaker on the so-called “moderate” roster has backed off on anti-gay issues (see Joe Conason’s excellent article in the New York Observer:

[url]http://www.observer.com/index_go.html[/url] ), it remains one of the key “non-moderate”, hard-line conservatives’ understanding of what “values” and “conservatrism” stand for in the G.O.P. as a broad cultural group. Vote for Bush is the only way this strong anti-homosexual strain of feeling can find national political expression. And then only by code and innuendo.

An ugly contradiction has grabbed the G.O.P. elephant by the shorthairs, so to speak.  Item: the Log Cabin boys.  They’re here.

[url]http://www.observer.com/index_go.html[/url] Your Cabin or Mine? Looking for Mr. Right-Wing by Choire Sicha "I think the sexiest thing is a man who owns his own home," said John Ruble of Pasadena, Calif. Mr. Ruble resembles a young Johnny Carson—slim, comic, smokes like it’s the early 70’s. He has been a member of the Log Cabin Republicans for 18 years; he has been with Terry Hamilton, the current Los Angeles chapter Log Cabin President, for 32 years. In all that time, has he ever violated that trust? "I won’t say I’ve never strayed. I voted for Bill Clinton, because I was so pissed at George Bush the First. This time I really don’t have that option." He’s so right. As the charcoal-black-suited gay Republicans, who take their group’s name from the slave-emancipating Republican who grew up in a log cabin in Illinois, efficiently worked their press-frenzy "Big Tent" event at the Bryant Park Grill on Sunday afternoon, it became easy to forget that one was in the presence of gay evil.

With their uniformly short hair, their near-uniform body weight of 175 pounds and their tightly knotted ties, one was sometimes overcome with the urge to be ****ed right into a suburban kitchen. Perfect credit! Great jobs! Superb lawns! It’s morning in George Bush’s America, and Mr. Gay Republican is ready to tap the ass of Mr. Right.

Though this sample size is quite small—numbering one, in fact—I can confirm that sex with a gay Republican is perfectly manly, satisfying, brutish and just short of short. After the initial panic fades (as in: My mother is going to kill me!), a strange gay biological clock starts striking a dangerous knell: Steal some Chinese babies! Press his suits! Make him coffee in the morning and hurry off with the other brusbands for playdates with the neighborhood medley of international adoptees!

There’s something about an incursion of conservatism here in Liberal City that’s so, well, hot. You can smell the repressed, randy man-funk on them. As one Log Cabiner said, the story is that "we’re all so uptight that when we let loose, it’s the best sex you’ve ever had." Gay New York’s secret crush on the Log Cabin isn’t just pity. After all, my Republican didn’t like New York—not just because we’re all crazy commies, but partly because our wrong-politik makes it nearly impossible for him to date here. One Log Cabin apparatchik and R.N.C. attendee explained it, in somewhat inebriated conversation, like this:

Q: So the consensus here is that it’s extremely hard to date as a gay Republican.

A: Well, it’s difficult for us because a lot of people out there in the gay community ask how you can be gay and Republican—and they’re prejudiced against us based on our beliefs in lower taxes and defeating terrorism. And that becomes a problem.

Q: Yeah. Me, I usually go for a man who’s in favor of terrorism.

A: Like John Kerry.

Q: Uh … right. So, if I start dating a gay Republican, how are we going to get along?

A: Are you a bottom?

There is that. When surrounded by our hordes of Eighth Avenue tanorexic turbo-bottoms, the Republican set come up like men on top. The Log Cabin crusaders are exotic fetish here in Manhattan—so gentile they make your teeth itch, their off-black suits insouciantly off-label, and beneath the fine cloth there’s a rabid priapism. They’ll clearly never appear in any Viagra ads. In his yellow shirt, red patterned tie and slim-hipped suit, adorable Log Cabin communications director Patrick Sammon has the air of a 50’s G-man; he’s the only one who looks high-strung, racing among the reporters, eyes wild. The gay superstars, like national political director Chris Barron and fellow con-hunk executive director Patrick Guerriero, have the cold efficient air of, well, D.C. insiders. The media cluster-****ed around Chris right away, and he took it like a champ.

After all, the hottest thing a man can do in politics is stay on message. But on Sunday night, they’d changed into their second outfits of the day and were nearly passing as Chelsea residents at Pop Burger, where our out-of-town guests were treated to $19-a-head….."

COMMENT Stay on message? (Am I getting’ it, Mr. Jones? … I think so.) What bonds the two sides in this love-dance is carnal lust and money. The Log Cabineers know their RNC brothers-under-the-skin will be ready to woo their vote.

(continued quote)) “Wherein lies the essential hotness of the gay Republican, Ms. Kim? "What defines them is, they want to be individuals," she answered. (Ms. Kim even bought her boyfriend a new John Varvatos suit for the event so that he wouldn’t stand out.) "They can go have cocktails at Sutton Place or wherever—all these frat-boy places—and be completely perfectly fine about it, because they’re not all out and about. They want to have fun shopping, but they want to be able to keep their money. They want lower taxes, they want certain freedoms, they’re very fiscally conservative because they work 10 times harder than most people."

That’s at the crux of it. Daddy works hard, and, unlike our local emo boys and artsy do-gooders, he doesn’t whine about it. Sure he’ll expect dinner to be warm at whatever hour he gets home from his Big Important Manly Meetings, but that’s a small price to pay for that kind of personal security in these terrorist times, no? You’d marry one of them for the same reason you’d vote for George Bush—because the government-generated fear of terrorism or the self-help-movement-generated fear of being alone had gone to your head, and, desperate, you’d arrive at a highly illogical yet somehow sensible conclusion.

After all, self-hatred is surely expressed best in the bedroom, and the more glamorously appointed bedroom the better, right? Maybe every homosexual actually does adore a Beltway-chic boot in the face. At least with these politicos you know that corrupt leer is only for you, nancy-boy. Still, though a Log Cabin pinup calendar would sell well, it’s not entirely a movement of Howard Roarkian super-hunks. "They’re not all lovely," said Mr. Ruble. "There are a few I could point out …. They can’t understand why they can’t get a boyfriend. Well, it has nothing to do with their politics."

PART TWO The second “G” issue is “God”. As in American, not “G-d”, as in Israel. Total split between “moderates” and old line conservatives over Israel policy is as strong or strong, equally latently violent, as over homosexuality. Again The Observer is definitive on this:

[url]http://www.observer.com/pages/frontpage3.asp[/url] In Historic Shift, Jewish Support Plotzes On Bush by Rachel Donadio and Lizzy Ratner

U.S. Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania could hardly contain his delight as he addressed a packed ballroom at the Plaza Hotel on Monday evening. "Just know I love you!" the senator, a Catholic, shouted to the largely Jewish crowd at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s Salute to the Republican Congress.

Afterkvelling about how thrilled he was to have been introduced before Senator Arlen Specter—his Jewish colleague from the Keystone State—Mr. Santorum commanded the crowd to go back home and sing the gospel of George W. Bush. After all, it could help in swing states like his. "I will not be satisfied with 20 percent of the Jewish vote, I will not be satisfied with 30 percent, I will not be satisfied with 40 percent!" he said as the crowd cheered. "George Bush deserves a majority!" At this, the crowd began to chant, "Four more years! Four more years!"

Mr. Santorum was part of a round robin of Republican lawmakers who are love-bombing Jewish audiences this week with testimonials about the courage of freedom-loving Jewish people. It’s a far cry from the "some of my best friends are Jews" tone struck by some Republicans of yesteryear, and even from the tepid meet-and-greets with Jewish groups at the 2000 G.O.P. convention in Philadelphia. This year, Republicans are going all out to welcome their Jewish brethren into the G.O.P. fold in a city with a large Jewish population. It’s not just about votes. American Jews find themselves at the center of a new culture war, the one between secular and religious America, between the blue states and the red ones and the hawks and the doves. And the Republicans want them on their side. GUNSMOKE -- putting two and two together

[B]COMMENT[/B] The miracle of 34th St. (Manhattan, at the Garden) conclave was the suppression of these two most, most highly volatile issues under the veil of unity behind the mantra of Family Values War President Anti-girlieman economic – adding up to the sado-masochistic trend; the paranoid (constantly victimzed) mind, with its latent homosexuality. (cf. Freud, the Shreber case)

Under the shallow surface pseudo-unity, the obsessive male anal rape power-trip, erotocizing both the suffering (pain-as-pleasureable) and the causing of it (sadistic pre-ejaculative orgiastic pounding after the point of control has been passed – this happened with Zell Miller, who was used – willingly – for the purpose.  The other of America’s two sides – really, the only one that is truly America – opposes the system wrapped around both.  This system equates enemies of Israel with enemies of the U.S., so that the enemies their policies bring, for instance among Palestinians and Arab regimes in general, are defending here, by the Bush cohorts.  U.S. defense policy is not under U.S. control.  Bush barks orders he is given by Sharon.  No American can tolerate, much less obey, that.

The neiocon side of George W. Bush’s so called base” are Homosexuals and Jews. These dialectically play off against each other. That can be seen, finally, in Jonah Goldberg’s robust, manly (weird) comments on John Walker Lyndh, back in Jan. ’02. Note his readiness to taint “gay dads” as crypto un-American BECAUSE OF THEIR GAYNESS-- presumably to preserve his butt-boy-privileges (just joshin’) with WF.. By lashing John Walker, he shows he isn’t an (open) homo.

[url]http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg012502.shtml[/url] Family Trouble The media’s big gay secret.

January 25, 2002 4:50 p.m.

"Long-time readers of this column may recall that I'm a big believer in the "looking for trouble" school of justice (See, Restoring the Hidden Law, for example). If you climb over a zoo fence in order to see if it bothers a polar bear when you kick him in the gizatz, I won't feel particularly sorry for you when he uses you as a loofah.

"He did go looking for trouble," I'll say.

If you go into a biker bar and walk from one burly guy to another saying "Hey, you have something on shirt" — only to then smack him in the nose and say "Hah! Made ya look!" I'd hardly be scandalized if you got a 7-mile wedgie down the interstate while tied to the back of a Harley. Again, I'd say "Well, he did go looking for trouble." (continued…)This is not a story for American Express travelers' checks ("I don't how this could have happened…"). John Walker Lindh went to incredibly great lengths to get in trouble. He was offered numerous opportunities to avoid trouble, and he refused them the way my dog refuses a grape. Now that he's in trouble I find it hard to fathom how we should be too concerned about his plight.

The Real Bias

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be interested in his plight. Indeed, Lindh's is a fascinating tale and it should end with the appropriate ssshhhhhh-clunk of justice as his cell door slams shut. But it's because his plight is so interesting that it's so odd that no one in the press will mention that his dad is gay.

I know that sounds like a major gearshift, but I'm not kidding. In the last 100 or so days, there have been more media stories about the "American Taliban" than there have been about Britney Spears's breasts (and that's a lot of stories — and a lot of breast), and almost none of them have mentioned that Poppa Lindh's oft-noted "amicable divorce" had to do with the fact that he's switched teams and moved in with a man.

Hundreds of stories (including several on NRO) have discussed the theories that the Autobiography of Malcolm X or the hippy-dippy culture of whatever-floats-your-boat Marin County turned young John into "Johnny Taliban." But the national news media has all but completely ignored the possibility that then-16-year-old John Walker Lindh might have flipped out when he learned that his dad was gay. Now, I've known a few people whose dad or mom came out of the closet late in life and they all found it pretty disturbing. Nonetheless, the gay angle may not be the psychological "smoking gun" in the Lindh story (after all, not all children of gay parents join radical Islamic cults). But no reasonable person in a normal conversation would discount it as a baldly ridiculous suggestion either — especially if you saw some of the circumstantial evidence offered by the tabloids. [B]COMMENT[/B]

This is well worth wading through to unravel, IMO, though that job is here just begun. There is a simple, single common denominator, when everything is shaken down: a metaphysical difference between one set of “Guy – God” protagonists – not unified, but split and divided into the “parties” – and another set that conjoins the two groups (the Democrats). In addition, radical leftists, such as I, hate Bush for his waffling anti-American, anti-Christian accommodation of both.

Both Bush and Zell Miller take it up the ass from these self-hating neocons. Let ‘em duel me, I won’t fire. Nothing they can do can disprove what they are, now. And that is the problem with (Jewish – not Christian) “pre-emption” (suckerpunch) docdtrine as a war policy. It’s a one-time, irreversible shot. There’s no going back. The consequences of taking that step cannot be reversed, as if trust could be restored by words after being intentionally broken in act, while taking advantage of another’s restraint. Let them be backdoor brothers in Cell A1 at Abu Ghraib. That is where their way of thinking and being inexorably tends.