Powerline’s reluctant, passive criticism of Bush for consorting with Al Sharpton

Two days ago I wrote to Scott Johnson of Powerline:

Mr. Johnson:

May I respectfully ask how you could condemn Al Sharpton as the plague in American life that he has been, how you could catalogue his offenses, and complain that “Though he is accorded an absurdly respected role in the Democratic Party by politicians such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, he is easily one of the most vile men active in American public life,” and yet you fail to mention the fact that this most vile man has been accorded an even more respected role in America by President Bush, who invited him to the White House just two months ago? (See my article from this past February, Sharpton’s legitimization consummated.)

How do you expect to maintain any credibility, when you attack Democrats for legitimizing Sharpton, while you remain silent about the fact that President Bush has not only legitimized him, but honored him by having him as a guest at the White House?

Lawrence Auster

Johnson replied:

Mr. Auster: Your message is puerile and offensive. I didn’t know that Bush had invited Sharpton to the WH. I find the fact that he did disgusting. As I do the implication of your message that I would refrain from saying so out of fealty to Bush.
Scott Johnson

I wrote back to him:

I think you’re too easily offended. My question is a legitimate one. If your answer is that you never heard of the visit, then that’s your answer. I’m glad to hear that you find the president’s behavior disgusting, and I look forward to seeing you discuss the issue at your site.

As you can see from these Google search results, the Sharpton visit to the White House, including the president’s friendly exchange with Sharpton, was widely reported, both by mainstream publications such as the New York Sun, CNN, and USA Today, and by bloggers, including Michelle Malkin.

As for your point that it’s somehow out of line for anyone to suggest that mainstream conservative commentators tend to go into soft focus when Bush, and now McCain, move left, surely you jest.

An example at Powerline was when Bush last year shockingly attacked the good faith of conservatives who opposed him on his immigration bill, a group that included Powerline, and instead of expressing outrage or at least indignation that Bush would say this about his most loyal supporters, Powerline briefly expressed some sad disappointment and then went silent.

Another example is Rush Limbaugh, who always says, “I can’t understand it,” whenever Bush does some liberal thing—meaning he doesn’t want to talk about the liberalism of Bush, so instead he says Bush’s behavior is incomprehensible.

Now Limbaugh has begun giving McCain the same soft-focus treatment. For years Limbaugh has been a bitter critic of McCain’s, yet last week he said he’s “mystified” about McCain’s attack on the North Carolina Republicans for their anti-Obama ad. What’s the explanation for Limbaugh’s switch? Once McCain became the GOP standard bearer, by that very fact he became “good” in Limbaugh’s eyes, and “good” means to be conservative. And therefore Limbaugh is now suddenly “mystified” by the very liberalism in McCain that he, Limbaugh, has been criticizing all along.

Yesterday Johnson added an update to his original entry on Sharpton that reads as follows:

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has more along the same lines regarding this racial arsonist. Michelle adds President Bush to the roster of those who have shamed themselves by association with Sharpton. Bush invited Sharpton to the White House this past February for the celebration of Black History month, as noted by Russell Berman in this New York Sun article.

On the positive side, for a loyal Bush supporter like Scott Johnson to say that Bush has shamed himself is strong stuff. So Johnson has done the right thing. On the negative side, he has only just barely done the right thing. In fact, his treatment of the issue is pathetically inadequate. First, Johnson lets Michelle Malkin handle the issue by saying that she has added Bush to the roster of those who have shamed themselves. Johnson himself says nothing about it. He presents the characterization of Bush as “shameful” as being Malkin’s characterization, not his.

Second, the point is not that Bush is merely one of a large group of people who have “shamed themselves,” but that Bush by bringing Sharpton to the White House and treating him as an honorable figure has made it much harder for anyone in this country to condemn Sharpton or treat him as persona non grata. Indeed, Bush’s invitation to Sharpton is far more damaging to national morale than the Democrats’s legitimation of him, because, one, Bush is not merely one name on a long list, he is the President of the United States; and two, Bush is a Republican president, and up to this point Republicans had kept clear of Sharpton. I’ve also learned that Pat Robertson has been appearing in TV ads with Sharpton in which the two of them urge people to get out and vote. It’s a reasonable guess that Robertson’s teaming up with Sharpton occurred after and as a result of Bush’s chummy get together with Rev. Al at the White House. Bush sent the message that Sharpton is no longer persona non grata for conservatives, and Robertson got the message.

Next, consider again the language Johnson used to attack Democrats for their relationship with Sharpton: “Though he is accorded an absurdly respected role in the Democratic Party by politicians such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, he is easily one of the most vile men active in American public life,” But when it came to Bush’s relationship with Sharpton, which is far more damaging to America and to conservatism than what the Democrats have done, Johnson does not say, “President Bush has accorded this vile man a respected role in America.” He does not characterize Bush’s behavior at all, except to attribute to another writer the view that Bush has now been added to a general list.

Finally, Johnson in his update does not say what he said to me, that he finds Bush’s behavior to be “disgusting.” Johnson also said that it was “disgusting” for me to imply that Johnson, out of fealty to Bush, would not say that Bush’s behavior was disgusting. Not only has Johnson failed to say that Bush’s behavior was disgusting, Johnson in his own words has said NOTHING critical about Bush. Johnson has thus proved my implication about him—which Johnson himself characterized as “disgusting”—to be correct.

- end of initial entry -

Steven Warshawsky writes:

Your inquiry to Scott Johnson was really rather tame, and the sort of thing that political commentators of all stripes should expect to receive from readers. Johnson’s response to it, by labeling it “puerile and offensive,” casts serious doubt on his character and intelligence. Frankly, I don’t bother to read Powerline. This exchange makes me even less interested in what Johnson and his colleagues over there have to say.

Paul Nachman writes:

Although “puerile” is a familiar word, I had to look up its meaning: childish. That he used the word here, inappropriately, means it applies to him. He was just hurling insults chosen off a list.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 28, 2008 01:02 PM | Send