Is a transcript of the Annita Dunn speech available?

Given that this argument appears to be between Glenn Beck and Barack Obama — two men I do not entirely trust — I would like some more context.

I appreciate Glenn Beck allowing Dunn to speak for about three minutes, but Anita Dunn‘s statement is so stupid and mindless that it is hard to take seriously. Anita’s statement sounds like someone praising Hitler for his tough but firm efforts to popularize beef consumption — the analogies baselessness is only trumped by its outrageousness. Mao Zedong — besides being the killer of millions of people, and someone who has harmed more people on both sides of my family than anyone else I can think of — was an advocate of Leninist centralism.

Anita Dunn has defended herself, and said she was only plagiarizing Lee Atwater. In which case, she should resign for being a plagiarist, like Bush aides did.

Alternatively, this is just another symptom of a frightening, and stupid, revisionism when it comes to Communist China. Chas Freeman withdrew his name from consideration when his bought-and-paid-for commentary on the Tiananmen Massacre (the government was too soft on the protesters) was brought to life. Anita Dunn should have the class of Chas Freeman.

In either case, Anita Dunn should resign,

11 thoughts on “Is a transcript of the Annita Dunn speech available?”

  1. Commentators have pointed out how she was chosen to lead the fight against the ideological Fox News because she was an easy sacrificial lamb being only an “interim” communications team member.

  2. First, I want to say again that I would like a transcript or a longer video. Anita’s comments may well have been the tail-end of a stab at absurdist historical humor. But from the three-minute clip that Beck presented, Anita’s comments are a rare combination of thoughtlessness, stupidity, and plagiarism.

    Recently, the Nobel Price for Literature went to a woman who documented the horrors of Communist Romania [1,2]. Does Mrs. Dunn realize that Romanian-style communists were the good guys under Maoism? Thatmen who wanted to establish Soviet-style communism were murdered [3] because they weren’t ‘disorderly’ enough? There are worse tihings in this world that being kept alive in a boring, lower-middle-class level of existence. Living under Maoism is one of those things.

    Does Mrs Dunn know that Mao, at the time of the quote, was so crazy that the Soviet Union signed a treaty of alliance with the KMT? That everyone in the world — the British, the Soviets, the Americans, the French — were expecting a Congress Party [4] unity government to emerge? That such a government — for that matter, a Romanian-style dictatorship, would have saved tens of millions of lives?

    Dunn’s remarks are stupid. They are thoughtless. And — according to her — they are plagiarized.

    Anita Dunn should step down.

    [1] http://faroutliers.blogspot.com/2009/10/herta-muller-on-securitate-spies-and.html
    [2] http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/9799.html
    [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Shaoqi
    [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Congress

  3. It seems more acceptable for people on the Left to read and admire historical left-wing “bad guys?” I’m unaware of any conservatives who look to the work of Mussolini, Hitler, or Franco for inspiration?

    I’m starting to wonder if this is a mistake? I’m certainly not suggesting that people on the Right start walking around with t-shirts of Strasser or Horst Wessel, but maybe there is something to learn from reading the writings of the European Right in the 1930’s?

    I must be clear that the the core ideology of Italian Nationalism or Nordic Supremacy isn’t what interests me, instead, its the ideas on politics and tactics that can be learned from people who were battling the Left at a very dangerous and uncertain time. Its important to remember that these Right-wingers were rather successful at beating the Left in their political domains (until they started WWII).

    I’m not even sure where someone would start if they wanted to learn this stuff?

  4. I wish we had the transcript. I do agree she should be gone.

    Seerov,
    Keep in mind the ties Pat Buchannan and Ron Paul have with Hitler-adoring groups. One is still a successful Congressman and the other is an established, respected TV commentator and best-selling author.

    Honestly though, I am not a fan of PC functions, policing what people believe or say.

    Its when your views animate your policy and cross the line of the law (as the justice of the peace in Louisiana did recently) or of common decency (as her speech clearly does in praising a mass murderer) that I feel they need to leave their public posts.

  5. “I’m starting to wonder if this is a mistake? I’m certainly not suggesting that people on the Right start walking around with t-shirts of Strasser or Horst Wessel, but maybe there is something to learn from reading the writings of the European Right in the 1930’s?”

    I was about to mention something similar. Just become someone participates in a movement that results in mass murder doesn’t mean we can’t learn from their tactics, or even implement them for the good of humanity.

    For instance, I may think Karl Rove is a jackass, but yet I admire his art of war all the same. Just become one admires one’s tactics/strategy doesn’t mean they also endorse their ideology or actions.

  6. “Just become one admires one’s tactics/strategy doesn’t mean they also endorse their ideology or actions.” (Jeffery James)

    This should seem obvious, yet, no one on the Right (in America) does this? I wonder what the best reading for this topic is?

    On the other hand, now that people can be banned from investment opportunities in America for speech, the Right should also study why Jewish security failed during the same time period.

  7. Seerov,

    American history is different from Europe’s, and just as our conservatives are not their Rightists, our liberals are not their Leftists. However, in the GOP’s attempt to reestablishment itself around Leninist, or democratic centralist, in light of the Roosevelt coalition, Republicans have been proactive about refusing any form of association with any who are not willing to put the Party’s interests first. The Democrats have not been so particular, however. Therefore, while liberals are not actively hostile to those leftists who would be otherwise willing to help, conservatives are hostile to Righsts who do not put Party first.

    Eddie,

    The point of political correctness is important. Let’s hope that PC is not just a tool to attack Republicans, but not Democrats.

    Jeffrey,

    Franco was better than the alternative. So was Pinochet. Of course, the main difference is that while Franco was simply a nationalist, Pinochet was actively pro-American. (For this reason, Leftists pursue persecution of Pinochet-era officials, but not Franco-era officials.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *