|
That's the same quote I read on a RW blog a few days ago. I think it's verbatim in both places (and several others). After it's been around for a while it gets truncated, but that's not a specifically Dunn-related phenomenon.
Dunn defended herself as best she could and entirely on-point. She said she intended her words as irony. Her intonational contour may not reflect that. Other than that, there's not really much of a defense. Granted, what she said also wasn't much of a defense.
She did not set up a strawman and then ineffectually thwack at it. She identified the problem correctly: "favorite philosophers", with the key problem being "favorite."
Lots of people quote those that they do not admire. The quotes you adduce don't show that. Your entire attempt at an argument seems to be: If Dunn quoted Mao, and the claim is that Dunn admires Mao; therefore, then if Beck and others quote Mao, Hitler, or other despicable despots they also must admire those despots.
That is not the RW claim. Their claim focuses on "favorite philosophers"--as Dunn recognized. Now, imagine that Rove, Beck, etc., etc., said that Hitler was one of the "favorite philosphers." People on DU would have a field day. Even if the intonation was clear to the impartial listener, even if it wasn't unreasonable to think that when they later claimed they meant it ironically they are telling the truth.
As I said, strawman. And one that you don't really even land a good blow on.
"Favorite" is ambiguous. Favorite in what way? For what use? In what context? "Favorite philospher" is even more ambiguous: A philosopher is a person who philosophizes, so a favorite philosopher might be a favored person who philosophizes or he might be a person who philosophizes in a favored way. One should first ask what was intended before jumping off the deep end. Hardly anybody on the right or the left would consider such a brave and wise step, however. It's much better to jump to a conclusion and hammer it senseless--and it helps if it's a doltish one without much sense to begin with.
My problem with the Dunn quote is that it was said naively or foolishly. In a partisan environment, when you're in a position of power or authority you watch your tongue. You don't load a cannon and then deliver it to your foes. My local school board candidates would know better. Yet Dunn wasn't running for office, so perhaps she should be cut some slack. Then again, she's not just a political consultant any more, but interim WH communications director. Oh, good: A communications director with a tin ear. Ooh, pass the popcorn.
But in her case she should also get used to it. She's one of those shooting at Fox News so she can have no complaint when they shoot back (not without smelling of hypocrisy). 10/11 she fires a salvo at Fox, and she could be sure that by 9:05 am the next day somebody was tasked with going through everything they had on her to find ammunition.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(102 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
