Saturday, July 01, 2006

Abramson goes off on yours truly

A full legion of conservatives are after Roger Abramson because of his endorsement of Bob Corker, and with good reason. Rather than give himself an adequate defense, he continues to attack Stacey Campfield and to attack me, with at least one of his ramblings not making any sense whatsoever (which, by the way, he says the same of me).

Let’s move now to David Oatney, who writes what ACK calls a “very good post,” which can only indicate that ACK’s standards have momentarily slipped, because the post really doesn’t make much sense.

The only reason Abramson really thinks my post makes no sense is because I criticized him. If he is going to take absurd positions a la Corker and then call it conservative, he can expect similar criticism from all quarters-even from those who do not agree with me.

If I attempted to claim that every post on the internet that was critical of me or made light of me made no sense, I would be reading very few blogs and have few allies in the blogosphere. That's an incredible cop-out, and I would expect much better from someone of Mr. Abramson's calibre and background.

If this is Oatney’s brand of conservatism, then, yes, I’ll freely admit that I am not a David Oatney conservative, inasmuch as I can discern a palpable difference between an organization of black legislators that declines membership to white people and an organization of white people best known for hanging black people from tree limbs.

Stacey's point (which was far more logical than Roger's rant attacking me) was that the Black Caucus is racist. He is right-they are. It may be that members of that group do not personally intend to be racist, but that group is exclusive to blacks only and advocates policies that are not only anti-conservative but are designed to favor one racial group over another. That is racism. Representative Campfield sought to show us just how racist these so-called black "leaders" actually are. Did Roger Abramson talk to Representative Campfield about his motivation in this matter, or did he simply embrace the mainstream media version of events?

Abramson then goes off on a sarcastic tirade attacking Stacey, and me for supporting him:

I think the most laughable part of Oatney’s post (well, other than the part where he compares my not hitting a space bar hard enough in a blog comment once to two years worth of excruciating Campfieldese), though, is where he compares Campfield to Davy Crockett. Oatney says that Crockett, too, wouldn’t be winning any spelling bees, but that he served in political office “with great distinction.” Well Dave, I would take your point, except that it seems to assume that Campfield also serves “with great distinction.” Campfield serves with distinction all right, just not the kind of distinction any reasonable citizen cares for. When he starts serving us with this “great distinction” you speak of, give me a buzz.

I'd venture to say that Stacey Campfield serves with greater distinction than Mr. Abramson could. Why? Stacey cares about upholding his oath of office, and thereby defending the Constitution. Representative Campfield upholds the oath he took, and he fights corruption and abuse of power. In exposing his own hatred of Campfield, Abramson shows himself to be a so-called "moderate," meaning that he sides with the Haslam/Howard Baker/Mike Ragsdale crowd. The real reason the "establishment" hates Stacey Campfield and is doing everything in their power to destroy him is because he stands up for the property rights of ordinary people, and routinely "fights the power" of both parties. It is no small coincidence, I think, that most of Campfield's chief local detractors are supporting the liberal Bob Corker for the United States Senate. Who is Abramson supporting? You guessed it-birds of a feather flock together.

The Campfield-Crockett comparison is a valid one because Crockett was committed to defending constitutional principles in his legislative career, even if it meant losing an election.

Finally, Abramson (who is at this point in his discussion of yours truly grasping at any straws he can find), unable to take the discussion to any level that might be deemed as substantive in the civilized world, decides to use a new tactic and pull up an old post I made about the Left Behind series from about a week ago-only he is clearly hoping that visitors to his blog won't bother to click on the link he posted and read what I actually wrote. He didn't discuss the subject of the post, he rued over a side remark I made about the Harry Potter books:

In other news, it appears that Oatney shares the ludicrous conviction that the Harry Potter series is influenced by the occult. Wow. Never saw that one coming.

First of all, what any of that had to do with the subject at hand (Abramson's endorsement of Corker and/or trashing of Stacey Campfield) is beyond me. The fact that Abramson dug to find this seems to me to indicate that his goal is not to answer his critics but merely to defame them. Of course what I said in the post was that the Harry Potter books were more well-written than the Left Behind series despite the fact that many Christian religious leaders think them (the Potter Books) to be influenced by the occult. Now, would someone care to tell me what that has to do with anything I have said about Abramson's ideological inconsistencies? Answer: It has absolutely nothing to do with it-it is simply Abramson choosing to make himself look desperate. I actually would care to think that he is a better person than that, and I find it to be both sad and disheartening that he has chosen to stoop to that low a level. I also prefer to think that at some point in the near future he will return to his senses and debate with a bit more dignity.

Abramson now tells us that at some point next week he will give us all a glaring justification for his position. He apparently had just enough time at the dinner hour to take yet another jab at me at Volunteer Voters:

You're probably right, Dave. [I had said he was "awash in inconsistency"] I think it's all those Harry Potter books I've read. Now, if you'll excuse me I have some five year old boys to sacrifice in my basement. I don't know what's compelling me to do that. Must be the occult.

If the goal was to give me a good laugh, Abramson did succeed in doing that.

Roger, here's a suggestion for you. Rather than simply spending your energies saying how bad your critics are in a single post, wouldn't it have been far more time-efficient (and logical) if you had taken the opportunity to use that post to give the explanation that we are all waiting on, and even Kleinheider demands for the sake of consistency?


At Saturday, July 01, 2006 1:48:00 PM, Blogger Bill said...

Methinks you have made someone a mite miffed, Dave. -laughing- Reminds me of our day's in Fitzgerald's classes during our undergraduate days. Ah, those were good times, were they not?

At Saturday, July 01, 2006 8:41:00 PM, Blogger Dave Oatney said...

Indeed they were! I miss seeing the stupified looks on people's faces when I would use the liberals' own philosophies against them and turn the argument around.

Whatever happened to Dr. Fitzgerald, anyway?

The one difference is that I used to take pleasure in ripping liberals to shreds when I was young. Now that I am a bit older and wiser, I have replaced the pleasure with prayer. I have come to see that the best way to beat liberals is to continue to argue the point, but try to do it with as much dignity and Christian love as possible.

I don't take any pleasure in making Roger Abramson "miffed," the guy is an old conservative bulwark in these parts. However, I will take him to or anyone else to task if I think he is wrong, and I will defend myself.

At Monday, July 03, 2006 1:43:00 PM, Blogger Bill said...

Well Dave:

As far as I know, Fitz is still in the Pol Sci department at Wright State. At least the last time I looked, anyway.

It seems you and I have matured in much the same way. Like you, in my younger days, I used to enjoy taking a liberal to task and beyond. Now, I try to correct if a wrong is present or in self-defense as you said.

Have a GREAT Independence Day!

At Monday, July 03, 2006 11:14:00 PM, Blogger Steve Mule said...

If you have two eyes and birds have two eyes does that make you a bird? This is the "error fo the undistributed medium." A very simplified example. This is a common error of logic - people do it all the time. Re-read you post and count the number times you make it. Re-read Abramson's post and count the number of times he makes it.
Besides, like Davy Crockett Stacey might be handsome, dashing, brave and illiterate; but Stacey Campfield is NO Davy Crockett (Again the error of the undistributed medium).



At Tuesday, July 04, 2006 12:28:00 AM, Blogger Dave Oatney said...

Stacey may not be Davy Crockett (neither Crockett nor Campfield is/was illiterate-perhaps bad spellers, but not illiterate) but my point is that he and Crockett have in common a deep respect for Constitutional government. This is something I see in few candidates of either party, and do not see at all in Stacey's most well-known primary opponent.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page
Profile Visitor Map - Click to view visits
Create your own visitor map