Yes, there was a smattering of laughter, but mostly shocked silence. And then she was denounced by virtually everyone, and wasn't invited back next (this) year.

You be the judge

This is true.

Except... that it isn't. There is a moment of silence, then a few catcalls, which are quickly overwhelmed by cheers and laughter. Her speech ends seconds later, to loud applause.

Here.

Which shouldn't be surprising to anyone at the 2006 CPAC, where she announced, "raghead talks tough? Raghead faces consequences." to loud applause.

Say what you like about the left, but I don't recall them using bigotry or racism to get votes at one of their flagship political events.

Say what you like about the left, but I don't recall them using bigotry or racism to get votes at one of their flagship political events.

It detracts from the class warfare.

But from Davis's audience's reaction you can sure tell quite a bit about the oh-so-pious GOP base, at least those who were there and doing the laughing and applauding. I'm sure that most of them would undoubtedly describe themselves as "Christians."

Really, this sort of thinking is just childish. Both parties are made up of people, good and bad, and there are loathsome characters on either side.

No question about that.

One could just as easily point out Rev. Wright's congregation enthusiastically applauding while he damns America and blames AIDS on government conspiracies and say that's the democratic base.

I suppose you could, but Air America and a handful of conspiracy-mongering black talk hosts and ministers aside, the sort of stuff that Davis peddles plays far better to mass audiences on the Republican side---witness Rush Limbaugh's mocking of African American speech patterns, which sure as hell didn't make him persona non grata among either the GOP base or the GOP politicians---than conspiracy mongering does among the Democratic base.

That is, unless I'm missing something, and all of a sudden Limbaugh, Ingraham, Savage & Co. have been routed in the ratings by the likes of Janine Garofalo. Those numbers don't lie about the appeal of that sort of stuff to the Republican base. Hell, Limbaugh and his dittoheads ARE the Republican base.

Say what you like about the left, but I don't recall them using bigotry or racism to get votes at one of their flagship political events.

It detracts from the class warfare.

Meaning exactly what by that, JC? Calls for repealing tax cuts for the upper 1% of income brackets? That equates with Coulter? Denunciations of corporate thieves like Lay and Skilling are similar to the sort of crap that Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage and Ingraham been spouting for years?

Meaning exactly what by that, JC?

Meaning it was an attempt at humor, Andy.

Meaning it was an attempt at humor, Andy.

Andy's having an off-day--he is usually three or four steps ahead of me, and I knew you were making a joke.

This long election cycle is tough.

Either that or he's worried about Philip Hughes and Ian Kennedy.

We're all worried about Hughes and Kennedy.

Meaning it was an attempt at humor, Andy.

That line would have gotten a big laugh at CPAC.

That line would have gotten a big laugh at CPAC.

Imagine if I'd spiced it up with some reference to affirmative action?

We need more integrity in our attack politics.

That'd make a good SNL skit: the election cycle on The Honest Planet:

HRC: I hope McCain beats that pretty "boy." #### unity; I want another shot in 2012, and I hope Napolitano and Rice both die in plane crashes before then.

Obama: Yeah, I think America is still racist as hell, and I myself don't like working-class whiteys or old white Republicans.

McCain: Hell, yeah, I want to bomb Iran and Iraq back to the stone age, and I'll cut whoever's taxes need to be cut to get my ass elected.

Meaning exactly what by that, JC?

Meaning it was an attempt at humor, Andy.

JC, knowing you I would have picked up on that more readily if it hadn't been for some of your earlier and pointedly serious remarks about condescension and elitism, both of which are buzz words parroted ad nauseum by the "class warfare" crowd. But I'm sorry I stupidly lumped you in with them.

We're all worried about Hughes and Kennedy.

I'm not laughing about that, although in my better moments I realize it's only been two starts each. And the umps didn't help either of them in two of those games, especially in Kennedy's start against the Rays.

We're all worried about Hughes and Kennedy.

Worse yet, the losses to the DL of Jose "Doubles Machine" Molina and Wilson "Pink Eye" Betemit.

That'd make a good SNL skit: the election cycle on The Honest Planet:

I'd hire my flamingly right wing business partner to write McCain's speeches, and my late (would be now 113) aunt to write Obama's. She used to sleep with this issue of LIFE under her bed. Said she always wanted to be able to tell her friends that she had "slept with Stalin." She had a droll sense of humor.

And Hillary? Hell, she doesn't need any speechwriters to get filthy and nasty. She's doing okay on her own.

We need more integrity in our attack politics. I'm sure a lot of these folks don't like one another. It'd be really refreshing if they'd just come out with how they feel instead of talking around it and then apologizing. Forget a cleaner election, let's have a truly dirty election. Just get both sides to vent.

Whatever his policies, I would have to give serious consideration to any candidate who managed to work the word "douche-bag" into a televised debate.

It detracts from the class warfare.

What I find so sadly funny about that is how Republicans relentlessly wage class warfare, then accuse Democrats who dare to point it out, of waging class warfare. Get a spine, Dems! Hang the bastards with the rope they sold to you. On my political highlight film is Bush, speaking to the elegant assembled: "some call you the elite, but ah call you... mah base". And Gore lost that election?

Yes, phony left-wing conservative arkitekton, clearly wanting people to keep a tiny bit more of their own money is "relentlessly waging class warfare."

And you know the "base" line was at a humorous dinner, right?

Yes, phony left-wing conservative arkitekton, clearly wanting people to keep a tiny bit more of their own money is "relentlessly waging class warfare."

And you know the "base" line was at a humorous dinner, right?

That's our David. All insults from the left are to be taken seriously. All insults from the right are just, you know, jokes.

And Hillary? Hell, she doesn't need any speechwriters to get filthy and nasty. She's doing okay on her own.

Yeah, her campaign's gotten to the point of being tough to parody.

That's our David. All insults from the left are to be taken seriously. All insults from the right are just, you know, jokes.

The "base" bit probably wasn't quite the knee-slapper the "where'd the missing WMD's go?" line was, but then, it's really hard to pick a favorite among such a vast catalog of hilarity.

From what you quoted, Softball, I can't imagine that our David's got any friction left with his strawman.

The "base" bit probably wasn't quite the knee-slapper the "where'd the missing WMD's go?" line was, but then, it's really hard to pick a favorite among such a vast catalog of hilarity.

They were both kind of funny, actually.


EDIT: though none of them are as funny as arkitekton pretending he's a conservative.

Heck, Fred Phelps is a democrat and it's tough to get much lower than him.

How the hell is Fred Phelps a democrat? Not that I'd expect him to be that happy with Republicans, either.

They were both kind of funny, actually.

Yeah, joking about the fact that your rationale for an endless war turned out to be bullshite's feckin' hilarious. I'm sure the families of our military dead were particularly amused. I agree the "base" line's funny by comparison.

Put it this way--the WMD joke would've been funnier (or less unfunny) if anyone in the world other than Bush had made it.

Put it this way--the WMD joke would've been funnier (or less unfunny) if anyone in the world other than Bush had made it.

It wouldn't have made any sense if anyone other than Bush had made it. There's nothing funny about looking for WMD and not finding them; the whole point was that Bush was making fun of himself. If you want to say that it was tasteless, I can accept that -- but there's a difference between tasteless and not funny.

There's nothing funny about looking for WMD and not finding them

Actually, looking for stuff you can never find is a staple of comedy.

Expect Tikrit! to hit TV screens in the fall of 2009, with Steve Carell as the zany weapons inspector, Dave Gorman as his cynical sidekick, Rachel Bilson as the aid worker he's is in love with, and Thom Barry as his impatient and demanding boss.

So who's the Keith Olbermann of the right--the truthteller who, night after night, relentlessly skewers the thieves and liars and on the left?

EDIT: though none of them are as funny as arkitekton pretending he's a conservative.

Hey, I think of myself as a conservative, and tend to think of other conservatives as men (and women) of action -- out starting companies, making money, being entrepreneurs, etc. But I guess that if the conservative tent is big enough to hold a guy who spends his days arguing politics on an internet baseball site (8525 posts and counting!), it's also big enough for arkitekton.

There's nothing funny about looking for WMD and not finding them; the whole point was that Bush was making fun of himself.

It still wasn't funny.

If you want to say that it was tasteless, I can accept that -- but there's a difference between tasteless and not funny.

True, there is a difference (and a tasteless joke *can* be funny). But this was both tasteless and not funny. Not funny because it's such an obvious joke. "Bush is a fool who led us into a costly war for dishonest or erroneous reasons." What's the punchline?

I think the other reason is that the lack of WMDs is viewed as a *really* big f-up by a lot of people. I mean, it might be funny for your boss to joke with you about a bad business decision he made. It would be a lot less funny if that poor decision forced him to lay you off. Doing this bit, especially with the war still going on, was more like the latter.

How the hell is Fred Phelps a democrat? Not that I'd expect him to be that happy with Republicans, either.

As I recall, he was a civil-rights attorney back in the day.

But I guess that if the conservative tent is big enough to hold a guy who spends his days arguing politics on an internet baseball site (8525 posts and counting!), it's also big enough for arkitekton.

Kind of you to say, Buck. I guess for a couple of the nutters on this site, I missed the secret handshake.

#329 Robinred: "In Caro's great biography of LBJ, he is taking to George Brown, of Brown and Root, about why Brown's brother Herman, a hardcore rightwinger, was so tight with LBJ and gave him so much money. Part of it was money and power, of course, but GBrown says (paraphrase but close) "Lyndon was for the nigggers, he was for the little boys, but when you got down to it, to nutcutting, he was as practical as anyone."

Nothing to add here. I just want to second that Robert Caro's LBJ biography (three volumes, so far) is brilliant. The Power Broker, likewise, is a must read. My only complaint with Caro is that I have to wait so long for each book to come out. I started reading his Johnson books when I was 18 years old. I'm now 44.

ANDY #343: "I wouldn't want Obama to be held to the complete oratorical oeuvre of Alcee Hastings or Cynthia McKinney myself."

Despite Congressman Hasting's background as a disgraced federal judge, I don't equate him with C. McKinney. Maybe I have simply missed him saying things which are outrageous. But whenever I have heard Mr. Hastings talk, he has struck me as a bright guy with a calm demeanor. Ms. McKinney, by contrast, struck me as a nutjob.

ANDY #343: "I wouldn't want Obama to be held to the complete oratorical oeuvre of Alcee Hastings or Cynthia McKinney myself."

Despite Congressman Hasting's background as a disgraced federal judge, I don't equate him with C. McKinney. Maybe I have simply missed him saying things which are outrageous. But whenever I have heard Mr. Hastings talk, he has struck me as a bright guy with a calm demeanor. Ms. McKinney, by contrast, struck me as a nutjob.

Unfortunately, the oratorical oeuvre of Rep. Hastings includes his words and actions in his salad days, when he was impeached by a vote of 413 to 3, with the "yea" votes including John Conyers, Nancy Pelosi, and Charles Rangel. The chief difference between him and McKinney is that McKinney's conspiracy theories seem to embrace the entire universe, rather than merely her political opponents.

Another endorsement of Obama came in yesterday from one more swishy San Francisco elitist type, Pittsburgh Steelers' owner Dan Rooney.

But I guess that if the conservative tent is big enough to hold a guy who spends his days arguing politics on an internet baseball site (8525 posts and counting!), it's also big enough for arkitekton.

Well, libertarians aren't really in the conservative tent. We're in a very small tent somewhere off to the side that's really only closer to the conservative tent because liberals call out the police dogs on us whenever we come near their tent.

And arkitekton is square in the middle of that liberal tent. Or maybe off on the left side of it.


(8526!)

So, how about that Bob Johnson!

How the hell is Fred Phelps a democrat? Not that I'd expect him to be that happy with Republicans, either.

As I recall, he was a civil-rights attorney back in the day.

No kidding. Wow. That's...odd.

Expect Tikrit! to hit TV screens in the fall of 2009, with Steve Carell as the zany weapons inspector, Dave Gorman as his cynical sidekick, Rachel Bilson as the aid worker he's is in love with, and Thom Barry as his impatient and demanding boss.

Classic, AG.

Maybe we can get that zany cut-up Steve Buschemi to play Nicholas Berg in the "Don't Lose your Head!" episode.

The Nielsen's would jump right off the screen.

No kidding. Wow. That's...odd.

You really surprised by that, retro?

I mean, after Roy Cohn being both a Jew and a queer?

I never had heard of Fred Phelps before now, and I just Wikid him. Jesus Motherf*cker of Mercy.
There is sometimes such a thing as too much information.

But no, it's not that unusual for old style civil rights supporters to hate gays, just as there are undoubtedly many gays who are flaming racists. Not everyone quite embraces the notion of human solidarity. Maybe a few thousand years from now we'll get around to it.

I think this pretty much says it all about the good Rev. Phelps, Andy:

Phelps says that he is a preacher who believes that homosexuality and its acceptance have doomed most of the world to eternal damnation. The church at Westboro which he leads has 71 confirmed members, 60 of whom are related to Phelps through blood or marriage or both.

The church at Westboro which he leads has 71 confirmed members, 60 of whom are related to Phelps through blood or marriage or both.

The question then becomes: Which category (if not "both") does Ann Coulter fall under?

I went to the funeral of a man who served in the same unit as my wife's cousin in Iraq. He was killed in a helicopter crash and her cousin found out the funeral was just a few miles from us and asked us to attend. It was, as you may guess, a very moving and dignified event. But I couldn't help noticing that there were a lot of bikers in attendance but they didn't actually come in to the service. I'm talking maybe 70 or 80 guys. Tough, bad looking guys. I asked about them - I thought perhaps the Sgt. had been a biker (he was pushing 40) but that seemed odd. Maybe his father or brother, though neither seemed the type. It turns out that these guys, I forget what they're called, have taken to going to the funerals of servicemen who've fallen in order to keep Phelps and his crew out. What with the bikers and the Marines on hand, I'm not sure how Phelps would've fared.

How the hell is Fred Phelps a democrat? Not that I'd expect him to be that happy with Republicans, either.

As I recall, he was a civil-rights attorney back in the day.

No kidding. Wow. That's...odd.

IIRC, he was running for local office as a democrat as recently as the mid 90s.

I suppose you could, but Air America and a handful of conspiracy-mongering black talk hosts and ministers aside, the sort of stuff that Davis peddles plays far better to mass audiences on the Republican side---witness Rush Limbaugh's mocking of African American speech patterns, which sure as hell didn't make him persona non grata among either the GOP base or the GOP politicians---than conspiracy mongering does among the Democratic base.

That is, unless I'm missing something, and all of a sudden Limbaugh, Ingraham, Savage & Co. have been routed in the ratings by the likes of Janine Garofalo. Those numbers don't lie about the appeal of that sort of stuff to the Republican base. Hell, Limbaugh and his dittoheads ARE the Republican base.

How on earth does the popularity of talk radio show the evilness of the republican base? Are you that threatened by the existence of a media outlet that doesn't promote mainstream liberal political thought? It's as silly as claiming that all black people are in lockstep with Rev. Wright's beliefs. Considering Dems aren't winning any national elections without taking an overwhelming supermajority of the black vote, I'd say that makes their base look even worse.

The difference between us is that I don't believe that about blacks. You apparently believe that all talk radio listeners are closet racists.

The question then becomes: Which category (if not "both") does Ann Coulter fall under?

She's his daughter, sister and wife, Andy.

The Phelps' are a very close-knit family.

You apparently believe that all talk radio listeners are closet racists.

If Limbaugh mocks AA speech patterns, and you still listen...

Good Face, have you ever listened to Limbaugh's dialect riffs? Have you ever heard Savage's rants about Muslims? Does Coulter gets shunned by her fans for her little asides about "fagggots"? Does the continued popularity of talk show hosts like that not say anything to you about their audience? Apparently not.

Obviously not everyone who listens to these folks subscribes to all their curious takes on the world. After all, when you're driving across country their stations are often about the only ones close enough to pick up. And maybe their fans just tune in for the jokes, the way people used to buy Playboy for the interviews.

She's his daughter, sister and wife, Andy.

Don't worry about it Andy, it's Chinatown.

Obviously not everyone who listens to these folks subscribes to all their curious takes on the world. After all, when you're driving across country their stations are often about the only ones close enough to pick up. And maybe their fans just tune in for the jokes, the way people used to buy Playboy for the interviews.

There's big money in it for the first person who can do a radio show in real time right after Limbaugh, deconstructing each and every bit of nonsense and falsehood he spews on the day's show. There would have to be humor involved, so the person couldn't be a humorless leftist, which eliminates a lot of candidates, but still.

There would have to be humor involved, so the person couldn't be a humorless leftist...

Like Al Franken. Yeah, you really have to look far to find a "humorless leftist".

That's if he loses to Coleman. If he does, there's your man!

Are you that threatened by the existence of a media outlet that doesn't promote mainstream liberal political thought?

Don't tell me you actually listen to a moron like Limbaugh, TGF.

Please don't tell me that.

Good Face, have you ever listened to Limbaugh's dialect riffs? Have you ever heard Savage's rants about Muslims? Does Coulter gets shunned by her fans for her little asides about "fagggots"? Does the continued popularity of talk show hosts like that not say anything to you about their audience? Apparently not.

Limbaugh is not racist. Savage, from what I can tell, is. Coulter isn't; she just likes getting attention. (She's also not a talk show host.) She says things solely for their shock value; she doesn't believe them and I doubt her audience does, either.

Limbaugh is not racist.

Yes he is.

Like Al Franken. Yeah, you really have to look far to find a "humorless leftist".

Four words: Stuart Saves His Family.

Coulter isn't; she just likes getting attention. (She's also not a talk show host.) She says things solely for their shock value; she doesn't believe them and I doubt her audience does, either.

This is correct. Her success says more about the society that so amply rewards phony provocateurs -- and makes one have to resort to being a provacateur to get attention -- than it does about her.

The Good Face, from page 4: Words mean stuff. Blinding oneself to their meaning through a devotion to ideology is unwise at best.

Kind of hard to argue with "Words mean stuff" but that is not really what this is about. This is a dispute about connotation, not denotation. I said to DMN on page 1 that I saw little point in he and I doing a back-and-forth deconstruction of Obama's words, essentially, since as Nieporent wound up saying on page 4, this is about Obama's "attitude." In Obama's rephrasings and retractions over the last few days, he has reframed the remarks, and basically said that he meant it the way Sugar Bear Blanks and Dial interpreted it as opposed to the way you and David did. Whether one believes him is, as you said, largely a partisan issue in many cases.

Two ironies about this, one local, one global. You recall our little dust-up about your use of the term "Whole Foods Liberal." You said I was being "way too sensitive" and said there is "nothing wrong with being a liberal or shopping at Whole Foods." And, that is true, literally. So I ran it by a couple of liberal, oragnic-food eating friends, and they snorted derisively and said "of course" it was an insult. And, a quick google search reveals this from James Wolcott's blog at Vanity Fair:

From TBogg, we learn that the subtitle of Jonah Goldberg's low hanging fruit (no innuendo intended) has undergone yet another revision, from...
Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton

to
Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from Hegel to Whole Foods
to
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning

(snip)

One can plausibly speculate that executives at Whole Foods and lawyers representing the company (whose stock is listed on NASDAQ) were none too enchanted to see the upscale grocery chain slagged on the cover of a book featuring a happy face with a Hitler mustache. Corporations can be sensitive about that sort of attention, despite Jonah's admission that he's a frequent shopper at Whole Foods, filling his cart with the very items he finds symptomatic of "the organic order"** that pervaded the "German fascist mind then...and the liberal fascist mind today," the shameless phony. Perhaps Jonah feared that if the subtitle stood, the store would take away his shopping cart and ban him from the cheese section forevermore. No book is worth that.

***

So, this seems to be pretty good evidence that in some righty quarters at least, "Whole Foods" has a pretty negative connotation. As with you and Obama, it wasn't what you said, literally, but perception of the attitude behind the words, because of their connotations and the way he framed them.

The other irony is that many of the same people (not here, to an extent, but somewhat here, and in general) who are slamming Obama are those who rail about "PC Liberals" parsing words and being hypersensitive.

But of course, that is the price one pays for wanting to be the president. And, ultimately, the "beauty" of the situation is that the first phase of it will not be decided by Clintonites or Republican pundits suddenly concerned with the feelings of working-class Democrats in Pennsylvania, but by the voters themselves. People who are determined to vote Democrat because of the war and the economy but think Obama is an "elitist" jackoff can tell him so next Tuesday and again on May 6.

Good Face, have you ever listened to Limbaugh's dialect riffs?

Good Face told me in the last Obama thread that he does not listen to any talk radio and is "not even a Republican."

Limbaugh is not racist.

He's not?

"The American Indians were meaner to themselves than anybody was ever mean to them. The people were savages. It’s true, they damn well were … these people were out there destroying timber, they were out there conquering and killing each other, scalping people."

Really?

"Limbaugh handicapped races in new Survivor series, suggested 'African-American tribe' worst swimmers, Hispanics 'will do things other people won't do'".

she doesn't believe them and I doubt her audience does, either

.

Evidence?

There was a fairly long Limbaugh/racism discussion here when ESPN canned him after the Donovan McNabb flap. I seriously doubt that Limbaugh is racist in the sense that he actually thinks other races are inferior to whites, in large part because I think Limbaugh is a smart man. But he is, also, as someone said in that thread, a "race-baiter" and he makes derogatory race-related comments/jokes to appeal to his audience.

Of course, he is just kidding around, and I doubt his audience believes any of it, anyway.

Good Face told me in the last Obama thread that he does not listen to any talk radio and is "not even a Republican."

Both true. Talk radio bores me to tears and I'm really more of a libertarian with some conservative leanings, although less ideologically pure than a DMN. My views on abortion, gay marriage, religion, and affirmative action take me well off the republican reservation. My views on guns, taxes, and in theory, government spending (the repubs at this point are really no better than the dems) probably put me back on it. I think G.W. Bush was a lousy president, although I don't believe he's a drooling moron or an evil machiavellian manipulator with malicious intent. Just an arrogant guy with poor judgment. Like most of the country, I really don't know what the heck to do with Iraq... every proposed course of action has scary consequences.

IIRC, he was running for local office as a democrat as recently as the mid 90s.

Well, he's in Kansas, so it was probably a GOP-dominated district (or precinct, or whatever), and the local GOP of course wouldn't have wanted anything to do with him. Probably figured running as a Dem was the only way to get on the ballot.

she doesn't believe them and I doubt her audience does, either.

Agreed on the former, not so much on the latter.

Well, he's in Kansas, so it was probably a GOP-dominated district (or precinct, or whatever), and the local GOP of course wouldn't have wanted anything to do with him. Probably figured running as a Dem was the only way to get on the ballot.

Hilarious. "Well, I don't like this Democrat, so I'm just going to pretend that he's actually a Republican pretending to be a Democrat, since that's more convenient for me. After all, the media has never told me that he's a Democrat (imagine that!), so I'm sure it's not true. Is that okay with you guys?"


EDIT: By the way, I'm not sure that "Governor of Kansas" or "United States Senator from Kansas" qualifies on those terms. Sorry about that.

There's nothing funny about looking for WMD and not finding them; the whole point was that Bush was making fun of himself.

It would have been a lot funnier if one of the pictures had shown Bush being blown apart by an IED while looking under his desk for the WMDs. That would have been hilarious. See, good comedy needs an element of truth.

Kind of hard to argue with "Words mean stuff" but that is not really what this is about. This is a dispute about connotation, not denotation. I said to DMN on page 1 that I saw little point in he and I doing a back-and-forth deconstruction of Obama's words, essentially, since as Nieporent wound up saying on page 4, this is about Obama's "attitude."

Wait, I need to clarify this. When I say that it's about his attitude, I don't mean that it's not about his words; I don't agree that it's about connotation rather than denotation. The words matter because they reveal his attitude.

In other words, I'm saying that the issue of whether Obama offended people with his word choice is unimportant; if he had said the same thing in a different, more subtle, more sensitive way it would be equally bad.

In Obama's rephrasings and retractions over the last few days, he has reframed the remarks, and basically said that he meant it the way Sugar Bear Blanks and Dial interpreted it as opposed to the way you and David did. Whether one believes him is, as you said, largely a partisan issue in many cases.

I disagree; in Obama's rephrasings and retractions over the last few days, he has not said anything different. I don't "disbelieve" him; I believe he means what he said. And that's the problem.

As I said, I view him as basically saying what Thomas Frank said -- and Frank's problem wasn't word choice any more than Obama's is.

It would have been a lot funnier if one of the pictures had shown Bush being blown apart by an IED while looking under his desk for the WMDs. That would have been hilarious. See, good comedy needs an element of truth.

Can we fit in being strangled by an IUD as well?

There was a fairly long Limbaugh/racism discussion here when ESPN canned him after the Donovan McNabb flap. I seriously doubt that Limbaugh is racist in the sense that he actually thinks other races are inferior to whites, in large part because I think Limbaugh is a smart man. But he is, also, as someone said in that thread, a "race-baiter" and he makes derogatory race-related comments/jokes to appeal to his audience.

Of course, he is just kidding around, and I doubt his audience believes any of it, anyway.

I'm not sure where to go from here. First, being smart has little to do with being racist. I'm sure there are tons of kumbaya and equal-rights loving morons out there. Secondly, he appeals to his audience with "race-baiter" and other derogatory comments, but they don't believe any of it? Huh? It can't be both, he's either a racist who believes this stuff or he's just appealing to his racist base who demands more "bone in the nose" jokes. Either way, its pretty hard to defend a guy who has that much history baiting African-Americans and other minorities as not being a racist.

It would have been a lot funnier if one of the pictures had shown Bush being blown apart by an IED while looking under his desk for the WMDs. That would have been hilarious. See, good comedy needs an element of truth.

Can we fit in being strangled by an IUD as well?

And to think that they call leftists humorless. Look at all of these well developed senses of humor.

As I said, I view him as basically saying what Thomas Frank said -- and Frank's problem wasn't word choice any more than Obama's is.

The thesis of Tom's book was that people don't vote in their economic self-interest -- indeed, vote directly contrary to it -- in favor of other issues they hold dear. Obama's point was more that they do it because politicians of both parties have made promises they didn't deliver on, holding out the promise that if politicians deliver, those other issues may not seem so important.

The "brainwashing" or "condescension" posited by some is in neither the book nor the remarks, but calling it that is plainly part of the strategy to turn the votes the way they've been turned -- which was in the book.

I seriously doubt that Limbaugh is racist in the sense that he actually thinks other races are inferior to whites, in large part because I think Limbaugh is a smart man.

Why do you think someone is smart just because he is glib? Glibness and intelligence are two different things.

For my part, I think he says too many stupid things to be considered smart. Criminy, he flunked out of college and is hopelessly ill-informed on historical issues.

The words matter because they reveal his attitude.

No; the way you interpret the words "reveals" your perception of his attitude, and that's "the problem." The other issue is what you mean, exactly. If your concern is that Obama is imputing all this immense power to govt to impact people's lives, beliefs, and thoughts, and you find that offensive, well, I disagree with that interpretation of what he said to begin with, but given your fidelity to Libertarian ideology, that makes some sense. That would be emblematic of the many philosophical differences you'd have with any liberal Democrat.


If however, as I said earlier, you are claiming that you have objective insight into how Obama's mind works, his character, and what he "really thinks" about these people because the SF version is "real" and the rest is spin and said the same thing anyway, you are just being a neocon mouthpiece, instead of the above-the-fray Libertarian you claim to be.

As I said upthread, my guess is that it is some of both. I seriously doubt Obama has any great understanding of or admiration for white working-class gun owners in small rust belt towns, and there is no doubt that he retracted/rephrased simply to try to get some votes back. But I also don't think he is totally contemptuous of them, based on those original words. Go back and read the thread--the words used are "implies" "suggests" etc. As SBB said, a lot of this is "projection."

And to think that they call leftists humorless. Look at all of these well developed senses of humor.

Yeah, you're right. I should have gone with "shot by sniper fire" instead. Less graphic.

It would have been a lot funnier if one of the pictures had shown Bush being blown apart by an IED while looking under his desk for the WMDs. That would have been hilarious. See, good comedy needs an element of truth.

Can we fit in being strangled by an IUD as well?


And to think that they call leftists humorless. Look at all of these well developed senses of humor.

Jokes about ebonics = sick, vicious racism.

Jokes about POTUS being murdered = HIGH-larious hijinks. Unless it's a democrat. Then it's sick and vicious.

For my part, I think he says too many stupid things to be considered smart. Criminy, he flunked out of college and is hopelessly ill-informed on historical issues.

He appears smart to his audience, many (most?) of which has no baseline by which they can make the measurement accurately. Sort of like a 5 foot 2 guy thinking he's tall because he hangs around with only six year olds.

Jokes about POTUS being murdered = HIGH-larious hijinks.

Apparently jokes about the reason we sent 4,000 soldiers to die are pretty funny as well. Who would have guessed?

Secondly, he appeals to his audience with "race-baiter" and other derogatory comments, but they don't believe any of it

?

That part was sarcasm.

First, being smart has little to do with being racist

.

That is a tough one, but I think it depends on how you define "smart."

Either way, its pretty hard to defend a guy who has that much history baiting African-Americans and other minorities as not being a racist.

I'm not defending him. He is what he is. But I think he does what he does to appeal to his audience, not because he's lurking at stormfront.com--notice how I defined "racism." Very narrowly.

Well, the humor was in the WMD/IED/IUD thingy, not Bush himself. So it wasn't actually a political joke.

Democrats are humorless? Egads.

The thesis of Tom's book was that people don't vote in their economic self-interest -- indeed, vote directly contrary to it -- in favor of other issues they hold dear. Obama's point was more that they do it because politicians of both parties have made promises they didn't deliver on, holding out the promise that if politicians deliver, those other issues may not seem so important.

That is not the thesis of Frank's book, and if you think it was, you must have skipped whole chapters from the book. The thesis of Frank's book was that people don't vote in their economic self-interest -- indeed, vote directly contrary to it -- in favor of other issues that Machiavellian conservative elites trick them into thinking are important.

Obama's point wasn't exactly the same as Frank's, in that he doesn't blame conservative elites for tricking people into caring about these things; Obama's point was that people caring about these things was a natural reaction to government failures.

Neither speaker gives people credit for actually naturally believing these things, however; neither one can believe that someone might have values which he holds higher than material prosperity.

The "brainwashing" or "condescension" posited by some is in neither the book nor the remarks, but calling it that is plainly part of the strategy to turn the votes the way they've been turned -- which was in the book.

You don't have much in the way of self-awareness, do you? That statement not only demonstrates you didn't read the book, but is self-refuting. Statements about "the strategy to turn the votes the way they've been turned" represent the brainwashing and condescension.

I seriously doubt that Limbaugh is racist in the sense that he actually thinks other races are inferior to whites, in large part because I think Limbaugh is a smart man. But he is, also, as someone said in that thread, a "race-baiter" and he makes derogatory race-related comments/jokes to appeal to his audience.

Of course, he is just kidding around, and I doubt his audience believes any of it, anyway.

So we've learned that words mean stuff!, except over conservative radio, where it's just it's okay to make racist and misogynistic jokes because, hey, it's all in good fun.

Obama's point was that people caring about these things was a natural reaction to government failures.

No, Obama's point was that people VOTING for these things is a natural reaction to government failures. That's not quite the same as "caring" about them.

Apparently jokes about the reason we sent 4,000 soldiers to die are pretty funny as well. Who would have guessed?

Ah, the "He started it!" school of political thought. I would think lefties would want to be LESS like Bush, but you learn something every day.

although less ideologically pure than a DMN

Seems to me that we have a lot more bullsh*t libertarians these days than we do ideologically pure ones. (Read five minutes of Glenn Reynolds, for instance.) The libertarian label is too easily applied in the here and now.

DMN, I haven't read every word you've written in the BBTF threads that skew political, but my impression is that you've done very little criticizing of, for instance, the Patriot Act, the Federal Marriage Amendment, John Yoo, the expansion of executive power, the "wisdom" of getting into Iraq, imperialism, and the mushrooming federal deficit. These developments--and indeed this administration--should horrify a libertarian. Instead, though, I see much more grousing devoted to what a Democratic president might do instead of what our current Republican president has done. I guess I'm asking: where's the outrage? I understand the impulse not to cast your lot with political opponents in trashing Bush, but, come on, there's a lot here to get pissed off about.

Outside of the diminishing Lew Rockwell strain, I see to little to distinguish a troubling number of self-professed libertarians from the neo-cons who've been playing "chemistry set" for the last eight years.

I ask these questions as someone with more than a few libertarian leanings and as someone who probably falls comfortably to the right of most BBTF posters. In other words, I'm genuinely asking. We could've used full-throated libertarian outrage around these parts for the last several years, and instead we've gotten meek hedging and, ultimately, enabling from bullsh*t libs like Reynolds and, more recently, Megan McCardle. Not a good thing.

I never had heard of Fred Phelps before now, and I just Wikid him. Jesus Motherf*cker of Mercy.
There is sometimes such a thing as too much information.

I give the old college try at not hating another human being, but I try and fail with Phelps. I hate him. Hope he dies yesterday.

If however, as I said earlier, you are claiming that you have objective insight into how Obama's mind works, his character, and what he "really thinks" about these people because the SF version is "real" and the rest is spin and said the same thing anyway, you are just being a neocon mouthpiece, instead of the above-the-fray Libertarian you claim to be.

Uh, that word doesn't mean what you think it means.

As I said upthread, my guess is that it is some of both. I seriously doubt Obama has any great understanding of or admiration for white working-class gun owners in small rust belt towns, and there is no doubt that he retracted/rephrased simply to try to get some votes back. But I also don't think he is totally contemptuous of them, based on those original words. Go back and read the thread--the words used are "implies" "suggests" etc. As SBB said, a lot of this is "projection."

I don't think Obama is "contemptuous" of the "white working class" people we're discussing; while it's risky to judge someone based on his public persona, that doesn't seem in character with the way he comports himself. As I said upthread to Andy, I doubt it's a conscious thing on his part. Condescension and contempt are pretty far apart.

Condescension toward voters is how politicians get elected at the national level. It's why there is demand for the services of miscreants like Dick Morris and Karl Rove.

Ah, the "He started it!" school of political thought. I would think lefties would want to be LESS like Bush, but you learn something every day.

The difference, of course, is that my initial sarcastic comment wasn't intended to elicit laughter, but was rather intended to disgust, andto show someone like you exactly why we feel the president's "joke" was similarly disgusting. Guess it failed on you. Not surprising.

Obama's point was that people caring about these things was a natural reaction to government failures.

No, Obama's point was that people VOTING for these things is a natural reaction to government failures. That's not quite the same as "caring" about them.

That's the best argument in defense of Obama that I've seen, but I don't see any way to get that out of what he said. He said that they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. (Emphasis added.) True, his second speech, in Indiana, where he explained away the first S.F. speech, does say something more like what you said -- but the claim that people vote on guns because the government fails them on economics still implies that he thinks gun rights really aren't important to people.

There is never, ever, an appropriate time for a commander in chief to joke about an ongoing war. Ever.

As far as I'm concerned, jokes about killing or harming that commander in chief are fine. It's what we're founded on.

(Oh you think the founders wouldn't have lopped George's head off had he ventured to North America?)

Ah, the "He started it!" school of political thought.

Well, it's true, isn't it?

In the middle of a terrorist war, he invents a reason (faulty) to attack another country not involved with the jihadist movement and then rammed it through Congress and the UN before proper debate could occur.

No; the way you interpret the words "reveals" your perception of his attitude, and that's "the problem."

No, the problem is that you guys haven't figured out that insulting someone and then telling them that they were too stupid to understand you is nothing but a double insult (like there's a benign non-offensive interpretation of a statement like "typical white person").

As DMN accurately noted earlier on, the first rule when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. But in the modern age, it seems that being a hard-core leftist means never having to say you're sorry, and so this will be their undoing once again.

but the claim that people vote on guns because the government fails them on economics still implies that he thinks gun rights really aren't important to people.

It does nothing of the sort. Imagine there are two issues, issue A and issue B. Both are important to me. In a perfect world, my voting behavior would be determined by a combination of how I feel about these issues, taking both into account. But 25 years of frustration has taught me that there's nothing I can do (at least in the voting booth) that will make any impact on issue A. I'm naturally going to base my vote on issue B. It would be stupid not to. Doesn't mean issue A isn't important to me. It just means I feel powerless to change it. I honestly don't know how you can believe your last sentence and still think objectively.

Neither speaker gives people credit for actually naturally believing these things, however; neither one can believe that someone might have values which he holds higher than material prosperity.

Obama, in a March '07 speech at the Selma march commemoration: "Materialism alone will not fulfill the possibilities of your existence," he said. "You have to fill it with the golden rule. You've got to fill it with thinking about others."

How on earth does the popularity of talk radio show the evilness of the republican base?

Good Face, have you ever listened to Limbaugh's dialect riffs? Have you ever heard Savage's rants about Muslims? Does Coulter gets shunned by her fans for her little asides about "fagggots"? Does the continued popularity of talk show hosts like that not say anything to you about their audience? Apparently not.

Limbaugh is not racist.

Strictly speaking, he's not. But he sure goes in for a lot of race-based dialect humor. If that humor didn't resonate with his audience, I doubt if he'd be where he is today.

Savage, from what I can tell, is.

I'm sure you had to listen to him for at least 30 seconds to figure that one out. And who makes up his millions of listeners? Are they all merely curious anthropologists?

Coulter isn't; she just likes getting attention. (She's also not a talk show host.)

Sorry I mistakenly thought that Coulter had a show of her own (I may have been thinking of Ingraham---they all look alike) but the reference to wasn't to any racist remarks, but about her love of the word "fagggot," which she uses for apparently humorous effect. The target is different, but the nastiness is far worse than Limbaugh's.

She says things solely for their shock value; she doesn't believe them and I doubt her audience does, either.

Funny, then, that her books are all bestsellers. Who do you think is buying them, and why? Who, exactly, do you think her audience is made up of, if not mainly the sort of people who agree with her? Do you think that people pay to see her speak for the same sort of reason they pay to see the circus? Is she really that entertaining to anyone who doesn't buy into her worldview?

And doesn't that worldview dovetail rather nicely with a pretty good percentage of the Republican base? If not, then who, exactly, makes up her fan base? Apolitical Goths?

The difference, of course, is that my initial sarcastic comment wasn't intended to elicit laughter, but was rather intended to disgust, andto show someone like you exactly why we feel the president's "joke" was similarly disgusting. Guess it failed on you. Not surprising.

Ah, so your noble intentions justified your poor judgment. You really are just like Bush.

And to think that they call leftists humorless. Look at all of these well developed senses of humor.

Yeah, they're really hilarious aren't they?

I'll bet they wouldn't find that cartoon quite as funny if it showed something like Jimmy Carter being blown up in Israel by a Hezbollah rocket attack.

Ah, so your noble intentions justified your poor judgment. You really are just like Bush.

My poor judgment? You're the ####### moron who completely missed the point in the first place and you're lecturing me on judgment? Hilarious.

And to think that they call leftists humorless. Look at all of these well developed senses of humor.

Yeah, they're really hilarious aren't they?

Someone hasn't seen the Half-Hour News Hour.

I have never listened to Rush Limbaugh - I'd never listen to any kind of talk radio. So I've no idea if he's racist, but the evidence provided in this thread is some pretty thin gruel.

"Limbaugh handicapped races in new Survivor series, suggested 'African-American tribe' worst swimmers, Hispanics 'will do things other people won't do'".

Yeah, and if you click on the link, he also says:

"The white tribe," "if it behaves as it historically has," will "bring along vials of diseases" and "will wind up oppressing" the other tribes by "deny[ing] them benefits" and "property," but will later "try to put [the other tribes] on some kind of benefit program."

Come on, you have to admit that's funny. It is CBS who used a reality TV show to pit different races ("tribes" as per Survivor) against each other - and Limbaugh comments at length on how this is a bad thing - and it's clear he's just having a bit of fun with it. Unless you actually think there is going to be biological warfare on a reality TV show...

Unless you actually think there is going to be biological warfare on a reality TV show...

If you remove 'a' and 'show' you have a political platform I could get behind.