If You Can't Defend McDonnell, Attack the Messenger

What we have here, is the failure of circumspection so common among neo-conservatives. The "here" are the personal attacks resulting from yesterday's post about former Governor McDonnell's accumulating and compounding hypocrisy. Somehow facts and evidence are irrelevant in the neo-conservative world unless they support your position.It must be painful to have fallen for the original McDonnell shtick hook, line and sinker. Accepting this new fiction of a defense with all its twists, turns, and subplots as relief for the cognitive dissonance caused by recent revelations provides relief. Then someone points out the concurrent serial hypocrisy of McDonnell embracing a priest who casually violated his vow of celibacy with another man; behaviors McDonnell has blatantly condemned as antithetical to his core conservatism. This resonates and echoes hypocrisy. There is no argument that can refute the blatant self-serving behavior of their fallen hero, so resort to personal attacks. Suddenly the raw truth of the McDonnell formula for defense being revealed is turned on its head and becomes an attack by the left on homosexuals. That is some desperation. This is just another brick in the wall McDonnell is building to defend himself. And we are cautioned that if we want to sway public opinion we need to make nice. Part of one rant is not only unintelligible but also contains utter nonsense: "But it does show you an insight into the liberal extremist mind. Democrat (sic) bloggers, especially Lowly (sic), must not really like gay people. They need their votes, and the fact that they don't like religion makes gay people social "brothers in arms" with hatemongers like Lowly (sic), but in reality they only use gay people to shore up their own power." Where to start?

Dan Sullivan :: If You Can't Defend McDonnell, Attack the Messenger

Liberal extremist mind...if he is pointing that at Lowell, he doesn't know Lowell at all. Lowell and I disagree from time to time, but never because he is so far left. Lowell, unlike the neos, is a reluctant pragmatist... Lowell must not like gay people? Really? Let's see some evidence other than Brian Kirwin's desperate circular critique... "(Democratic bloggers) need their votes?" Looking for where those get cast for bloggers... "(Gays) don't like religion?" Oh...I get it! In Brian's world, gays are all soulless heathens and have that in common with all their social "brothers in arms." Now I have to wonder about the Republican gay community with whom Brian associates. In my experience, there are more religions that reject gays than gays that reject religion.I have spent the better part of the last six months trying to better understand the dynamics of power and the use of sex to enforce it as part of a project that addresses the issues in the military. Part of what I have observed during this journey is that the third rail of neo-conservatism is sexual identity. It is imperative that these fellows walk tall and wield a big "stick" or, sans that, open carry. When either of those two tools is used with a woman, the neos are confident they are real men. Women who accept that subservience are allowed to believe they are peers and to pretend such. That gives you a measure of neo-conservative women. Frankly it appears that the neos simply lose their minds in any discussion that involves non-traditional gender and sex roles. All of what I've read from the right in response to Lowell's post has been defensive and angry. But his critics can't bring themselves to address the McDonnell reality directly. Cowardice and fear. Fear about who they are, who they are among, and who they've fallen for. These aren't true conservatives; these are reactionaries. I long for actual conservative intellectuals who will call out their own malfeasants.