The Obama Che Flag Flap

Instapundit recaps the by-now-old news.

There's now some blog-on-blog violence over this. James Joyner of Outside the Beltway calls Charles Johnson unfair, and worse, for drawing parallels between Obama's refusal to wear the American flag lapel pin and his volunteers'/staffers' choice of their own flag of allegiance.

Charles Johnson returns fire here.

Just weighing in on the blog-dynamic here, rather than the substance: I think a lot of bloggers, especially on the right, are interested in fairness. Or, to put that in a more accurate negative phrasing, interested in rejecting what seems to be easy pandering and hackery.

If something animates one emotionally, all bets are off, and the anger flows. But that's not hackery because it's a real feeling.

But if something doesn't really grab one, the next impulse is to write something unexpected and interesting which isn't hack. I think Joyner didn't feel the outrage here and so went to Plan B.

I didn't post this because I didn't really feel the outrage myself. Maybe I should have, but... it's so predictable and such a given I didn't really find it newsworthy. Shock: Leftist Terrorist-Apologists Fly Trendy Flag of Leftist Terrorism-Chic Cult Figure; News and Pictures at 11.

But even lacking the actual outrage, I'm in closer agreement with Johnson than Joyner:

If I’m “insinuating” anything, it’s this: when you actively pander to and encourage the radical leftist elements of your party, as the Democrats have been determinedly doing for the past eight years, you’re going to end up with embarrassing scenes like this.

And attacking the messenger who points it out is standard political damage control. This has nothing to do with “loyalty oaths” (although Obama will, of course, be forced to take a loyalty oath if he’s sworn in as President), and everything to do with the fact that Obama campaign workers apparently idealize a terrorist mass murderer.

Joyner apparently rejects guilty-by-pandering-to-odious-associations, which I think is high-minded, as in high-on-crack-minded. Lay down with dogs and you get fleas. I hold it against Ron Paul that he panders to and courts Truthers, LaRouchian Jew-haters, and new-look neo-Nazis, even if (I'm told) he's not one himself. I'm not going to change that standard to accommodate Barack Obama's message of Hope and Change and Being Born In Bodies Incorruptible After Death.

Personnel is policy, as they say. It's not 100% true but it's true enough that Obama can and should be rapped for this. A politician always winds up playing to his base through most of his career -- and this, these pro-terrorist radical leftist trust-fund revolutionistas, are Obama's base.

Hillary's supporters believe in little but power. And abortion. But mostly power f or power's sake.

Obama's supporters seem to believe in something more.

And since Obama steadfastly refuses to say what it is, exactly, that he believes in, apart from sitting by his Father's side after the End of Times, I think it's fair to divine his beliefs from those supporting him who are indiscreet enough to reveal their own.

posted by Ace at 03:38 PM

| Access Comments