OF BLOWHARDS AND CHILDREN
I don’t quite know where I’m going with this so let’s just start a free form, free association post on ass-hat conservatives and childish Republicans.
Yes, here I go again. And again. I don’t care if the left “does the same thing” or that criticizing and riding conservatives whose appalling antics make me cringe in embarrassment for even being associated with such schlock artists causes some of you to explode with indignation that I won’t play ball with “the team” and spout idiocies about how wonderful the public face of the GOP and conservatism is. I am not in the business of excusing the stupidity of anyone - right or left.
If you take the time to peruse the nearly 3,000 posts on this blog you will note that my criticism of the left for their tactics and behavior is, if anything, more hyperbolic, more sarcastically bombastic than almost anything I say about righties. My liberal-bashing credentials are as sound as anyone’s and I defy anyone on the right to say otherwise.
In short, I am an equal opportunity purveyor of snarky goodness. Right, left, center - doesn’t matter. Do something or say something idiotic and I have no qualms of calling you out for it. If you guys haven’t realized that by now, I don’t know what else I can do to convince you.
Be that as it may, Jon Henke, as levelheaded a politico (and conservative) that you’ll find anywhere, wrote last Friday at Next Right:
Many of the most prominent voices in the Republican Party appear determined to behave like children.
At some point, Republicans have got to start demanding their leaders behave like adults instead of demagogues and buffoons. We need at least one grownup party.
Those links lead to (in order):
* a Steve Benen blog post on Hannity telling his viewers that the president “decided to give 9/11 sympathizers a voice on the world stage,” by saying during his Cairo address “I am aware that there are still some that would question or even justify the events of 9/11.”
*Senator Inhofe calling Obama’s Cairo address “un-American.”
* Michael Steele, guest hosting for Bill Bennett had this to say about “Sotomayor: “God Help You If You’re A White Male Coming Before Her Bench.”
First, how Obama making mention of the wide-spread belief (especially in Egypt) in the Arab world that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by Israel or the CIA could possibly be construed as “giving 9/11 sympathizers a voice” is just plain stupid. In fact, in one of the few strong parts of the speech, Obama said belief in such conspiracy theories about 9/11 was an Arab fantasy:
But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.”
A sincere thank you to the president for standing up and saying what needed to be said to those ignorant, conspiracy mongering anti-Semites in the region.
Hannity is as bad as any Media Matters flunkie who consistently takes what conservatives say out of context in order to make it appear that the right eats babies in the morning, rapes virgins in the afternoon, and tops off the day by lynching black people at night.
I’m supposed to be proud to be associated with someone who utters such monstrously misconstrued, patently false statements as Hannity - a true cotton candy conservative with about as much intellectual heft as helium balloon? The fact that he does it on a regular basis and is cheered on by many on the right is even more depressing.
And what about Senator Inhofe? Here’s a conservative who is standing athwart history yelling “stop” at the sun, demanding it not rise. His campaign to promote conspiracy theories about global warming is an embarrassment to anyone who values open debate and respect for the scientific process. I can understand the desire to push back against those whose climate sensibilities are informed by a left wing political agenda. But spouting ignorant nonsense about climate change doesn’t advance the cause and, in fact, has set back the campaign by skeptics to get at least some of the science re-evaluated. He is reckless in that he constantly gets his facts wrong. Advocates for sanity on Climate Change like him, we don’t need.
It is one thing for some internet hack to accuse the president of being “un-American.” It is quite another when a United States senator says the same thing. I tire of trying to explain that Obama’s liberalism demands that he bring America down, airing our dirty laundry to the world, exposing America’s “sins” (as he sees it).
He loves America in a different way than conservatives. Does that delegitimize it? I can’t find the words to describe how idiotic it is to believe that one’s patriotism is more heartfelt than another’s, as if love of country is something that can be quantified or measured. Criticizing America is not the same as hating it - period. Anyone who has ever taken a high school freshman course in history could tell you there is plenty to criticize in our past and anyone who is aware of the post World War II activities of the CIA can also find much fault with the actions of our country. Does that mean we should love it any less? Does that mean that someone who sees these transgressions, these black marks against us, and talks about them is necessarily “un-American?”
I personally find it offensive that Obama feels the need to run around the world talking about our mistakes without, at the same time, extolling our many virtues with equal fervor. By doing so, he plays into the hands of the anti-Americans who like nothing better than to have their nonsensical views of America validated. Obama is wrong - not un-American. And Inhofe is a cretin for saying otherwise.
Finally, what to say about GOP chairman Steele and his ignorant statement that white males will need God’s help if they are luckless enough to appear before Judge Sotomayor after she is confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice? Yes, it’s over the top. Yes, it’s idiotic based on her record (Ricci aside which, as many have already pointed out, denied a couple of Hispanics promotion in the fire department as well). And yes, the statement by Steele is an insult - just like when a liberal calls a conservative a racist.
I oppose Sotomayor’s nomination because I believe she is undistinguished as a judge, her selection was identity politics played to the hilt, and her beliefs about federal judges making law is contrary to the constitutional principles on which America was founded.
But she is not a racist - although she appears to dwell on the issue of race quite a bit. And there is no evidence whatsoever in her 10 year career on the federal bench that white people are treated any differently than people of color. If Steele had bothered to read anything about her instead of spouting talking points, he would certainly find much to criticize without intimating that she’s some Hispanic version of Al Sharpton or David Duke.
Finally, for some real Blowhardiness, Jay Severin wins the cuckoo prize. The Boston area talk show host has just returned from “indefinite” suspension for some remarks he made on air about Mexicans:
The proximate cause of Severin’s latest banishment was a fusillade of intemperate remarks that he made about Mexican immigrants, whom he labeled “leeches,” “primitives” and “criminaliens.” Hospital emergency rooms, he said, have become “essentially condos for Mexicans.” He also blamed, in the midst of the national hysteria over swine flu, our neighbors south of the Border for bringing disease into the United States. “In addition to venereal disease and the other leading exports of Mexico — women with mustaches and VD — now we have swine flu.”
But this was not the first time that Severin, a former political consultant to Pat Buchanan, had made disgusting comments about a whole group of people on his WTKK radio show. In a 2004 conversation with a caller about whether the United States should “befriend Muslims,” Severin retorted, “You think we should befriend them; I think we should kill them.” How’s that for a foreign policy!
Yeah, but liberals say worse stuff, ya know.
Hard to imagine, that. Liberals only say that kind of stuff about Republicans - usually. Letterman’s poisonous hatred of Sarah Palin (and the rest of the media’s apparent belief that you can say any kind of vileness about the Alaska governor and not have to make a trip to the penalty box because whatever you can come up with, Democrats have already said worse) is certainly worthy of stern disapprobation. But Severin’s rants against entire ethnic groups and religions are sublime in their utter disregard for rational discourse and revealing of a petty, small minded, ignorant worldview.
One of my favorite movie quotes is from Gettysburg where the “tough old Mick” sargeant Buster Killrain is talking to Colonel Chamberlain about black sufferage and whether it’s a good idea.
“Only a peawit judges by the group.”
Thank you Buster.
Rick Said:
I wish both sides truly understood this.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 6/10/2009 @ 12:18 pm
The problem for thinking conservatives is access to the megaphone. The Limbaugh crowd can be brought to a boil by ceaseless denunciations of Liberals, that means listeners or book sales and that translates into revenue. Who is going to sponsor a radio program where the speaker calmly explains conservative solutions to problems without the standard anti liberal diatribe? Hate to say it but most “conservatives” I talk to can go on and on about Liberals and their proposals but are unable to make a case for what smaller government would be like or what conservative solutions there are to any problem. The Limbaugh ditto heads are phonies who act more like cult members than people with a political philosphy, and unfortunatly they are the majority of conservatives. My hope is that thinking conservatives will find that megaphone so that there is a reasoned counterpoint to the left, but how to go about that is the 64 dollar question.
Comment by grognard — 6/10/2009 @ 12:37 pm
Sotomayor’s remarks–oft-repeated, it turns out–are facially racist. Whether she is, though, is another matter (a distinction the Left seems unable to make at times). That will be flushed out at the hearings.
And Rick: to call a distinguished senator a “cretin” because of a stupid remark doesn’t really help your case.
Comment by jackson1234 — 6/10/2009 @ 1:17 pm
“But she is not a racist - although she appears to dwell on the issue of race quite a bit.”
What is a racist, if not someone who dwells quite a bit on race?
Comment by Anonymous — 6/10/2009 @ 1:37 pm
“But she is not a racist - although she appears to dwell on the issue of race quite a bit.”
What is a racist, if not someone who dwells quite a bit on race?
Comment by Person of Choler — 6/10/2009 @ 1:37 pm
I think you should cross-post to PJM. Not enough crazy people here.
Comment by michael reynolds — 6/10/2009 @ 1:44 pm
Jackson1234 said:
His case is pretty solid. Also, a United States Senator calling the President un-american kinda detracts a bit from his “distinguished” status.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 6/10/2009 @ 2:47 pm
What is a racist, if not someone who dwells quite a bit on race?
Yes, that makes perfect sense. MLK Jr. by your definition is one of the greatest racists of all time.
Comment by Derrick — 6/10/2009 @ 3:00 pm
In the long run, level headed people will prevail in the conservative movement. That is my honest belief and the hyperbole will pass. Sure, you will still have talk radio. As entertainment, as it should be, but not forging policies. Here is a saying from the (German) left that I tend to agree with: just because millions of flies eat poop doesn’t mean I have to join them.
Comment by funny man — 6/10/2009 @ 4:17 pm
Why is Hannity given a voice in any debate?
An ignorant, lightweight, deceitful puppet.
Not only gives conservatives a black eye, but the entire human race.
Will one of his fans please explain his appeal?
Seriously.
Comment by Pecos Pete Meyers — 6/10/2009 @ 5:30 pm
This is one of the main reasons, I hope the Ron Paul revolution catches on. I am sick of the blow hards and childish dolts that permeates our political cultures. I am sick of hearing the terms ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ misused and abused. I wish I could to see the day that more intelligent adults like Dr. Paul holding office. Not just in politics but the media as well.
Comment by Quartermain — 6/10/2009 @ 5:32 pm
You wrote: “…my criticism of the left for their tactics and behavior is, if anything, more hyperbolic, more sarcastically bombastic than almost anything I say about righties. My liberal-bashing credentials are as sound as anyone’s and I defy anyone on the right to say otherwise.”
As someone on the left who has repeatedly experienced your bombastic sarcasm, I say “amen”. But I am a bit surprised that you would actually write it. Maybe you really did have an epiphany on the road to Damacus.
Comment by HyperIon — 6/10/2009 @ 5:53 pm
Save us, Dr. Paul. Make it be the 19th century again!
Comment by michael reynolds — 6/10/2009 @ 5:55 pm
MMM Ron Paul - politician of choice for people who shoot guards at holocaust museums.
Comment by yoyo — 6/10/2009 @ 7:49 pm
Good heavens.
I’d forgotten why I stopped reading this blog, but now I remember why.
Not that you care, but no I don’t think that President Obama particularly likes America.
Comment by Tom the Redhunter — 6/10/2009 @ 8:07 pm
Funny to hear you blasting away at conservatives for taking snippets out of context, as you do the same to them. There is not one public official, left or right, that you can’t play this game with.
Rough estimate: for every whacky, out of context thing Hannity has said (which I admit are numerous), he has informed the conservative ranks of 10 things that are valid, and not out of context. Nobody in the MSM is going to go after cretins like Letterman for his sexually perverted attacks on a 14 year old daughter of a politician… who else is bringing to the public the rank Chicago politics of the UAW (essentially) bribing the Obama administration with millions in campaign contributions resulting in a massively unfair distribution of GM’s and Chrysler’s ownership? I could go on.
You dismiss the excuse of “the other side is doing it too” without regard to the causal association of “being above it” with failure. As our mutual friend Stacy McCain says, “When a guy begins a fight by slamming a barstool into the back of your head, the Marquis of Queensberry rules do not apply”.
Think it stupid all you want, be above it, and keep losing elections. I’ve stopped bringing knives to gunfights, so I think I’m going to give these hard-nosed, “take a dose of your own medicine” fighters a break. Your supercilious condemnation, most of which is as out of context as your indictment of them, sort of makes you a childish blowhard.
Comment by lionheart — 6/10/2009 @ 8:34 pm
One thing is true regarding attacking Obama and gang, there is enough legitimate criticisms of their tactics, ideology, policies and arrogance to go forever without once mentioning patriotism.
Comment by mike farmer — 6/10/2009 @ 11:08 pm
@Lionheart:
“Nobody in the MSM is going to go after cretins like Letterman for his sexually perverted attacks on a 14 year old daughter of a politician”
Guess you don’t watch Kieth Olbermann then, since he spent a good chunk of his show Wednesday going over this issue.
p.s.: You really think Letterman was talking about the 14-yead old daughter getting knocked up, and not the 18-year old daughter . . . y’know, the one that got knocked up? Really? Making fun of the pregnant daughter that’s been in the news for the last 7 months seems more unlikely to you than David Letterman pushing statutory rape?
Or did Hannity tell you it was the 14-year old?
Comment by busboy33 — 6/11/2009 @ 12:16 am
Mr Moran, It was by chance I found your website months back and try to view it as often as possible. My location in the sandbox precludes the internet show, but will look forward to it when home. Deeply appreciate what I consider a balanced, honest, persons evaluation to call it as you see it and explain what and why you think and say of your conclusions - thrown with appropiate heat when required. Being an independent, conservative in many ideas, liberal or moderate of others ideas I daily marvel that Declaration of Independence and the Consitution are not better appreciated by the citizens and elected leaders of our country - these documents and the process that granted them, the American experiment, are the best hope for this planet in my humble opinion. Explaining poor behavior or lack of intelectual honesty because the “other guys” are doing it is stupidity. Deeply appreciate your efforts! To Sgt Killrain’s quote reminded me of another celtic gem once shared with me in a rather intense tactical event: “I’m Irish, we treat everyone the same - we hate everyone equally …”
Comment by gryphon — 6/11/2009 @ 2:06 am
busboy,
If Letterman is too stupid or too lazy to researh which daughter attended the game with Gov. Palin, perhaps he deserves greater condemnation for that, than for his unfunny joke.
Where I heard about this event is unimportant (it was Drudge). But even if I had heard of it from Hannity, it would prove the very point I am making- not everything he says is out of context. Rick singled out one stupid thing Hannity said, to paint him as a person that regularly issues “patently false statements”. By doing that, isn’t Rick guilty of the same offense?
Comment by lionheart — 6/11/2009 @ 4:06 am
Mr Lionheart,
you must be joking:
“Rough estimate: for every whacky, out of context thing Hannity has said (which I admit are numerous), he has informed the conservative ranks of 10 things that are valid, and not out of context.”
This statement, even if true (which it clearly isn’t), is insanity.
How do his followers distinguish the two?
They clearly don’t have that ability. Mr Lionheart.
Comment by Pecos Pete Meyers — 6/11/2009 @ 4:37 am
@lionheart:
Respectfully (fully admitting last post was snark-laden) I think you’re missing the general structure of humor here. A joke about Sarah’s daughter being knocked is going to refer to Bristol . . . because that’s the “news” fact that is being lampooned. A joke about Palin’s wardrobe being bought is going to refer to the RNC wardrobe kerfluffle . . . regardless of whether or not the specific clothes at the heart of that issue have or have not been returned or donated to charity or whatever.
If John Edwards is seen in the company of a woman, the joke is going to be that he’s having sex with her, regardless of whether its the mistress or not. Or, the jokes is going to be that he paid hundreds of dollars for a haircut, regardless of what he actually paid for his last haircut.
Letterman is a comedian, not a reporter. He’s not reporting on a Sarah Palin trip — he’s telling Sarah Palin jokes. It isn’t supposed to be factually accurate. Its supposed to humorously (a debatable quality, granted) magnify or highlight a commonly understood issue.
Here’s an example from the same source. Letterman did his Top 10 list on Sarah P.’s trip to NY, and number 2 (the “zinger” on the Top 10 list) was something along the lines of “Went to Bloomingdale’s to get new makeup to update her ’slutty stewardess’ look”. Ms. P’s response was “I didn’t even go to Bloomingdale’s”. The point of the joke was that she’s generally considered a hottie (although when your competition is Hilary, Mitch McConnell, and Nancy Pelosi that’s not too hard a title to get), it wasn’t that she bought makeup at Bloomingdale’s. Quite frankly, she’s getting laughed at more for demonstrating she’s too damn stupid to get a joke than the original “joke” ever got.
Let me go back to the question I asked before — do you honestly believe that a late night talk show host on a major network would tell “sex-with-a-14-year-old” jokes? Doesn’t that seem an almost insane idea? Let me build on that — do you honestly think Drudge truly believed that the 14-year old, and not Bristol, was the butt of the joke? I’m no fan of Drudge, but he doesn’t seem that out of touch to me. Why would he push this idea, then?
One reason — he’s deliberately not realizing it specifically to be outraged . . . and to outrage you. Same reason Hannity seemed to not realize Obama’s quote had more words to it (funny how he didn’t hear them). That’s dangerous.
“Well, he’s only dangerously trying to manipulate people some times.”
That’s just not good enough.
Comment by busboy33 — 6/11/2009 @ 5:31 am
yoyo, you chose your blog name well.
Comment by Quartermain — 6/11/2009 @ 8:40 am
Mr. Reynold could you clarify your comment please? Why do you believe all change is good because it is change? Change is not always the same as positive progress?
Comment by Quartermain — 6/11/2009 @ 8:43 am
Letterman’s explanation reminds me of the Alabama defendent accused of statutory rape of a 13 yr old girl — “I’m sorry your honor, she had the body of a 15 year old.”
Comment by mike farmer — 6/11/2009 @ 10:57 am
Quartermain:
happy to. Libertarians seem to believe we are all gentleman farmers. We live in cities now. We have complex international relationships. And we have an economy which is, of necessity, intertwined with government in major ways.
Comment by michael reynolds — 6/11/2009 @ 12:34 pm
Keep fighting the good fight, Rick….somehow we need some voices of reason to save us conservatives from ourselves. How long can this self-destruction continue?
Comment by Chris — 6/11/2009 @ 1:21 pm
Thank you, Mr. Reynolds. Not all libetarians agree on everything. Speaking for myself, I believe the complex international relationship or globalism undermines sovereignty of the nations involved, benefiting very few, and impoverishing most. The marriage between big business and big government is undermining our republic. For example, http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/humpingdog.html.
As a result, I believe that local autonomy and a micro-economic approach is a way to go. Thank you for taking the time in responding to my question.
Comment by Quartermain — 6/11/2009 @ 2:15 pm
@mike farmer:
so, “I would never make a joke about statutory rape. Thats’s disgusting” is the same thing as “she looked do-able”?
Keep trying to figure out why the Right gets more and more discredited.
Comment by busboy33 — 6/11/2009 @ 7:53 pm
“Hannity is as bad as any Media Matters flunkie who consistently takes what conservatives say out of context in order to make it appear that the right eats babies in the morning, rapes virgins in the afternoon, and tops off the day by lynching black people at night.”
Media Matters, for most part, does not take the content out of context. I have caught a few reports that deviated from accuracy but the majority of the posts are simply a transcript of the show.
Comment by Elizho — 6/11/2009 @ 8:46 pm
How about extolling our virtues, and shutting the hell up about our mistakes? What exactly do we gain by airing our sins to the world at all from the President’s podium? Obama is a temporary President, and he does not really speak for all Americans–though he should. Not an empty suit here–more like an evil suit.
Comment by mannning — 6/13/2009 @ 9:45 pm
The definition of “mistakes” varies by up to 180 degrees between liberals and conservatives.
Comment by mannning — 6/14/2009 @ 12:04 am
This post cites yet another 59 scientists that have joined the roles of Inhofe’s list of dissidents on AGW.
They are an impressive group. Whatever Inhofe’s stumbles are, his list is becoming formidable.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3
Comment by mannning — 6/15/2009 @ 4:03 pm