Asks NRO's Jim Geraghty, conceding that he is "a stodgy old-school traditionalist who doesn’t understand how to fight the Left with its own tools and expose their hypocrisy and double standards, and I’m a dry, boring inside-the-Beltway insider…"
I made the same point last night (and got the predictable "they did it first" pushback from righty commenters). I'm not a stodgy old-school traditionalist or an inside-the-Beltway insider. I like edgy, arty humor and imagery, and the main political thing I do here on this blog is call lefties on their hypocrisy and double standards. And I find the use of sexual humiliation against Nancy Pelosi disgusting. I don't want to be anywhere near people who amuse themselves and make their political points that way.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१४४ टिप्पण्या:
I don't pay much attention to Breitbart.com, but from what I've seen, they are not the appropriate caretakers of the Breitbart name.
I don't want to be anywhere near people who amuse themselves and make their political points that way.
Agreed.
And I find the use of sexual humiliation against Nancy Pelosi disgusting.
I found Pelosi's remarks about the Tea Party being like Nazis disgusting. As Meade was Tea Party-curious, you probably should have felt some of that too.
And the sexual humiliation? I don't recall the outcry here when Christine O'Donnell was smeared. Maybe you thought it was edgy.
And you've completely forgiven Sullivan's odious smearing of Sarah Palin.
This sort of tit for tat could go on forever...
And I find the use of sexual humiliation against Nancy Pelosi disgusting. I don't want to be anywhere near people who amuse themselves and make their political points that way.
Did I miss the post condemning the Democrats for doing this to any Conservative or Republican woman?
I certainly don't recall hearing all this hubbub when Saturday Night Live did this very same thing.
Why all of a sudden now? I'm sure Breitbart gets a lot less exposure than does Saturday Night Live?
Perhaps it's because we've become so accustomed to the Democrats doing this, that we give them a pass. But we want Republicans to act like grown ups?
Please explain why all the fuss now, all of a sudden.
I think they may be testing out a recent (excellent) political tactic of Ben Shapiro, which is to introduce today's generations to the nasty-but-effective "mutual assured destruction" principle that has keep nuclear WWIII at bay so far.
It will likely be most effective in the boycott-the-boycotters strategy, but he is testing out where else it might also work.
Just my opinion. I applaud the effort.
We'll build our own mob by being virtuous and true to our own principles.
Jesus tried that.
Whether or not this helps the right, I can't help but remember the non-response to the many vile things said about Sarah Palin.
Or the images of Bush as a chimp.
None of these actions are polite, but the rage and shock seem one-sided.
How is it possible to further humiliate a lawmaker who says we have to pass a law to find out what's in it? The Right has long made the mistake of treating their opponents, who are a motley assortment of fascists, scumbags, and hustlers, like they're people of worth and dignity. Treat them with the contempt they so richly deserve and that contempt will spread.
They say turnabout is fair play, and it is, technically, but it comes off as wallowing with a pig in the mud.
But if we don't do it, then the wingers say we aren't trying.
Political partisans dramatically misunderstand the weakness of their arguments. A weak argument strengthens the viewpoint of the opposition. The punch-back-twice-as-hard crowd needs to stop punching itself in the face.
"I certainly don't recall hearing all this hubbub when Saturday Night Live did this very same thing."
Look, as an attack on ME, that's just stupid. I don't even know what the SNL "thing" is. To treat me as though I was supposed to have blogged about it is either deliberately bad reasoning or just plain dumb.
And I find the use of sexual humiliation against Nancy Pelosi disgusting. I don't want to be anywhere near people who amuse themselves and make their political points that way.
Sorry, Ann, but I have problems recollecting when you pushed back against lefty things like wishing death on Ann Romney (she supported her husband -- how dare she!), Kelly Ayotte, suggestions that prominent conservative women be "hate f*cked"? Did I just fail to check in on your blog that day?
You come across as wanting Republicans to be nice, but it's okay if Democrats are their usual filthy selves. Let me know when and if that strategy ever wins elections.
Sexual Humiliation?
Miley Cyrus is the epitome of modern feminism! I think Former Speaker Pelosi should be honored at the comparison.
Eric, your next response needs to be genuinely substantive and thoughtful and evidence-based (or you can clearly and explicitly state that you should not have said what you did about me because you did not know what you were talking about).
Wake me up when Breitbart goes after SanFranNan's underage grandkids.
You come across as wanting Republicans to be nice...
I'd prefer that Republicans not be morons.
So you call out hypocrisy in your way they do it in their way. Now you are being consistent when you say you disapprove because it is crude and demeaning because that is what you had called the liberals on in similar situations.
Do you object to demeaning political cartoons or is that okay? I've seen some nasty ones in my time. Photoshopping politicians faces on other bodies is an extension of that political cartoon. It's a form of political speech.
@Big Mike I have a "gender politics" tag, so why don't you go back and look. There are fewer than 500 old posts to use to refresh your recollection.
Assertions about what YOU remember, used to attack me, and really trashy and low.
I deserve more individual respect and attention than that.
If you don't know, don't say things like that.
I don't blog about everything that happens, but your charge that I have called righties but not lefties on sexism is plainly wrong. If anything, I go after lefty hypocrisy on this blog.
Those who want to support Breitbart are so stuck on their idea that the left gets away with what the right gets called on that they are using that against me, where it does not fit.
All you have is that stock argument and it doesn't belong against me.
Pathetic!
The "they did it too!" argument just shows where the real divide is. It's not between everyone on the Left, and everyone on the Right. It's between those of both sides who think the actions of their opposite numbers give them free license to do any sort of despicable things, versus those of both sides who draw a line and are willing to refrain from certain things that are beneath them.
Pointing out that some lefty moron on MSNBC (or a righty twit on FNC) did the same to someone on "your side" only means that you're willing to let all political discussion slide inevitably into the gutter.
There is something the matter with California so the Breitbart ad fits in quite well in that marketplace.
The DC speech police can go to hell.
Oh, please.
I did not find the Pelosi Photoshop to be "sexual humiliation". (Neither would I call Spy's dominatrix images of Hillary or Palin as sexual humiliation.)
It was projecting the image of Pelosi in the character of Miley Cyrus, a pop culture figure.
The exact same thing SNL did with Michele Bachmann and John Boehner.
Imagine how easy it would be to debate if every comparison was invalid because it was "predictable".
You'd have to go to Hustler's picture of S.E. Cupp with a penis in her mouth to be "sexual humiliation".
Jeez Professor -you put up with Titus's comments and you get all school marmy about this cartoon?
Just as a matter of definition, I don't think the ad is using sexual humiliation of Pelosi. It's not sexually insulting toward her, it's just generally disrespectful, which is the message I think it means to convey, along with the idea of politicians as mere celebrities.
When I finally looked at the ads -- including the three featuring men, which (I'm not surprised) no one is complaining about -- the whole thing seemed kind of meh.
I think feminists should be up in arms over the overprotective how-dare-they white knights rushing in to protect the helpless little woman from satire. It's kind of 20th century. (sniff)
I find Pelosi's communism disgusting and don't want to be around people who would defend her against any slur.
Ann,
Clearly you're lacking some context for the Biden/Pelosi images. Here's the opening salvo in that particular exchange, the SNL "thing" that was referred to above.
@Althouse, I promise to look. And if I'm mistaken with respect to attacks on specific women, I shall apologize.
However I stand by my last sentence. As a tactic, standing tall and being nice doesn't come across as successful in 21st century politics.
"Eric, your next response needs to be genuinely substantive and thoughtful and evidence-based (or you can clearly and explicitly state that you should not have said what you did about me because you did not know what you were talking about)."
Are you referring to the other thread? I didn't say anything about you in this thread.
If this had been done immediately following SNL's Boehner-Bachmann video, then it would have been equal time for equal disgust.
However, I think people need constant reminder of the low-politics manner in which the Left has referred to the right. The way to do this is to have the politicians publicly rebuke such things. Unfortunately, if Dems have no shred of decency to separate themselves from such things, then "bring a gun to a knife fight"
@Althouse, BTW, I'm not attacking you. I'm telling you what reality looks like from where I sit. If it turns out that I'm wrong, then I'll admit it and change my viewpoint.
But I suspect that I'm not wrong.
This faux outrage sounds like battlespace preparation for a Hillary Clinton run for the presidency. After years of left wing smears against conservative women, now it's suddenly bad that someone does the same thing to women on the left. This faux outrage would have some credibility if the same standards were applied to the vile attacks and smears on Sarah Palin and other conservative women. For the record, the attacks are all vile but since the left has established the precedent that it's ok to attack women for their political views, we can so the same. Politics is a blood sport after all.
First, who said "Breitbart" speaks for anyone but "Breitbart".
Second, whether such frivolous satire "helps the right" or the left is a completely separate issue.
Third, even the Politico article had to admit the SNL comparison and linked to the clip.
Ann,
If it's true that, "the main political thing [you] do here on this blog is call lefties on their hypocrisy and double standards" then I don't think it's outlandish for people to have expected to see a condemnation of that skit when it aired.
Sure, not writing about it doesn't mean you supported it, but the silence (assuming you didn't just miss the firestorm surrounding it) is revelatory.
@eric Yes. This post is a continuation of that discussion and refers to it specifically. You don't start here with a clean slate. I have gone to some trouble to interact with you and I expect a response.
I am moderating the comments, and I don't have to approve junk comments or unsupported attacks on me. I have flagged your work as a problem and I am giving you some assistance in raising your game.
I don't know why you wouldn't just actually try to respond after the trouble I've taken.
Seriously, though, Professor, do you also find the "sexual humiliation" of Zuckerberg or Biden disgusting? Or is that a stodgy old double standard? (If you're looking for a slightly better-founded attack on you.)
You don't have to avoid the people. Just show them a better way.
Maybe if it doesn't look better to them, it needs to be rephrased.
How else will you know it needs to be rephrased.
Or some assumption unmade and replaced.
Who cares if Pelosi is slimed. She's a big girl, right?
A reason for attention is that it's not effective, it doesn't make the point, not that it offends women.
"@Althouse, BTW, I'm not attacking you. I'm telling you what reality looks like from where I sit. If it turns out that I'm wrong, then I'll admit it and change my viewpoint. But I suspect that I'm not wrong."
You don't level an attack on someone and lazily rely on your not remembering things. I have called you on the poor ethics of writing about someone this way. It is NOT good enough to say you just don't know but if you ever do find out anything then you will change.
You should do the research and educate yourself OR if you are lazy you should withdraw your statements and apologize.
That is what an ethical person would do.
What kind of conservatism is it to behave at that level of ethics?
Depressing!
I'd say the trouble that the right has is that women aren't serious adults in the political game.
Not offending women may not be the right response.
Change feminism in the direction of adulthood instead.
"Seriously, though, Professor, do you also find the "sexual humiliation" of Zuckerberg or Biden disgusting?"
Yes to Zuckerberg. As for Biden, I didn't notice a Biden one.
You sound like children when you say, "but they did it too".
After all the botox, and plastic surgery maybe a little twerking will make her relevant again.
"Third, even the Politico article had to admit the SNL comparison and linked to the clip."
I linked to Politico yesterday because that was the first place I saw it, but I didn't read enough of it to see the SNL link.
I'm only saying this because people seem to be getting on my case for not talking about some damned thing that was on SNL, like it's my job to monitor what's on TV.
"I don't know why you wouldn't just actually try to respond after the trouble I've taken"
Because of this, from your other thread:
"If that isn't what you're saying, I can't understand what you are saying."
You've framed what I wrote in your own way and then told me that if it isn't your interpretation, another interpretation cannot be understood.
I don't see the point in continuing once you've admitted that. I've noticed, having read your blog almost every day, that you try to be precise when using words. So I take you at your word that you cannot understand my point.
And if that's the case, why continue this particular conversation?
Prof sed:
Look, as an attack on ME, that's just stupid. I don't even know what the SNL "thing" is. To treat me as though I was supposed to have blogged about it is either deliberately bad reasoning or just plain dumb.
How about a comment now that you have seen he SNL "thing"!
Republicans aren't wimpy and ineffectual because they haven't gone tit-for-tat with liberals in producing political, er, art depicting someone shitting in Pelosi's mouth. They're wimpy and ineffectual because they cave and grovel before every liberal accusation and they'll stand for principle on nothing.
Yeah, I'm a bad ass, look at this nasty shit I can do with photoshop, I'm really stickin' it to that cunt Pelosi.....but...whimper whimper...please don't call me a racist or a *-phobe....
The left, conservatives complain, use ugly imagery to attack the right. It's outrageous, they say.
So, they now say "Let's do the same thing." Huh?
And then they say the left is hypocritical?
Daniel Moynihan once came up with what he called the "iron law of emulation." That was the theory that groups in opposition to one another start to resemble one another over time. At least tactically.
Advice to conservatives: You can't win this game using their tactics. The media won't allow it.
Besides, you're becoming that which you oppose.
Adult TV Talk Show Host says:
I asked my writing staff for some political humor for tonight's monologue, something edgy, and America I think we've done it. Now, edgy is a tough act to pull off, because if you're too edgy you put off the people in the audience; you have to find just the right amount of safe edginess to be successfully edgy, and my writing staff, they have the 'safe edginess' thing down pat, it is a pleasure to read the cue cards that come from these professionals...
Even better, we had the graphics people come up with funny pictures to go along with the jokes, they are very talented: it really does look like Harry Reid and the Koch Brothers in diapers. And America, isn't that what politics today is all about? All the politicians, acting like babies? And babies wear diapers, so you can see how all this came together, it was a group effort, good work on everyone's part, good work...
Later on our show, we'll have a stand-up comic who is safely edgy in his own right, wait 'tll you hear his jokes about politicians being like prostitutes, edgy stuff right there -- but just the right amount of edginess -- we know what you like, America, and I hope you trust us to never go over the line, we pride ourselves in being responsible with our humor; please stay with us after this commercial break and we'll have some zany stuff, zany...
It's OK. Remember what someone told Reynolds back in the day: you're not a public utility. You're doing the right thing by running an interesting blog and inviting and challenging comments and deleting them on occasion (and I won't be surprised if you don't let this one pass).
Don't worry about it.
Does it help them in any way? Well, probably not with the folks on the left that do this kind of thing day in, day out. They'll just go into projection mode and blame Republicans for the state of incivility in our modern discourse. Sigh...
Does it hurt? I don't frankly think it does. Stuff like this appeals to those who are tired of the right being above the fray wusses on a pretty regular basis. So, the young...perhaps more libertarian leaning righties will giggle at it and GET THE JOKE. :)
Stodgy old establishment types can respectfully distance them from it and rise above the fray...again... This will make them look reasonable...sane...and nothing like those crazy birds (as John McCain put it) look...crazy.
The real question is...who's winning the right? The Rand Pauls, Ted Cruzes and their ilk? Or the McCains and Bushes? Because that's what this art is really about. Breitbart.com thinks it's the former, NOT the later. THAT'S why this art was even made in the first place.
Does this help the right in any way?
Yes, it does. It makes the left look like a bunch of whiny, crybaby hypocrites to anyone who remembers the constant flood of similar attacks by the left on politicians on the right.
I don't pay attention to Breitbart.com either. But, I don't remember Althouse expressing disgust at the 'edgy' things the "Progressives" did with images of Sarah Palin, her daughter, her son, Christine O'donnell, Stacy Dash, etc. If memory serves, seems like the general gist of your posts were: "here's what the left did, and the right went crazy!" but not a personal expression of disgust.
Is it hypocritical of the Right to now use the same strategy that they once vilified? Yes, I think so. But they are trying to figure out how to use the Left's tools for fighting what they believe to be an assault on America. It probably won't work, and I fear that in doing so, the Right will become indistinguishable from the Left. That is, if you think Breitbart represents the Right, I don't.
One thing I have noticed, Leftists have no problem with hyprocrisy and inconsistency. They are able to blow right past it without a backward glance.
Question--why do you go after "lefty" hypocrisy and not "righty" hypocrisy? That is a genuine question. My assumption is you have a readership base that expects certain material and you provide them with that material.
Ann Althouse said...
All you have is that stock argument and it doesn't belong against me.
Althouse's positions:
1. "GOP mainstreamers have to get distance from [Breitbart's campaign], and
2. I don't even know what the SNL "thing" is. To treat me as though I was supposed to have blogged about it is either deliberately bad reasoning or just plain dumb.
So there is no similar requirement or need for mainstream liberals or politicos to distance themselves from similarly offensive campaigns, choosing not to address it is sufficient distance.
Just because you watch for double standards doesn't mean you catch them all.
Althouse said:
"And I find the use of sexual humiliation against Nancy Pelosi disgusting. I don't want to be anywhere near people who amuse themselves and make their political points that way."
I agree with EDH when he said that he "did not find the Pelosi Photoshop to be "sexual humiliation"." I thought the left was all about the righteousness of nontraditional sex. So what's the problem? Isn't Miley Cyrus is a well accepted member of the sexually liberated left? Just yesterday I saw Miley Cyrus' glamorous picture on several women's magazines at the checkout stand at Walmart.
Nobody is responsible for it but the people at Breitbart. Anyone who doesn't want to be associated with it doesn't have to be. Don't visit their web pages and don't donate to them.
All taken care of.
@Ann,
why did you ask a question phrased "will this help the right", rather than "will this hurt the left" ?
I suspect that the people who put this up intended more to hurt their ideological opponents than help their ideological friends.
Whether this is a success, and whether there is any associated hurt, is a related-but-distinct question.
"How about a comment now that you have seen he SNL "thing"!"
Your question assumes a fact that isn't true.
It's not Althouse's job to monitor what's on tv. However, bringing up the SNL thing just highlights the preposterousness of the idea that there is joint responsibility when someone you may agree with in some things does something you find repulsive.
It reminds me of when Althouse thought Mitt Romney had to denounce something someone on the right said because she found it "ugly".
He wasn't responsible for what they'd said, and he didn't need to address it. Just as we don't ask the whole left to address something SNL did.
People are responsible for themselves.
Sexual humiliation? Miley is all about GRRL POWER!
Palomino!
"ut, I don't remember Althouse expressing disgust at the 'edgy' things the "Progressives" did with images of Sarah Palin, her daughter, her son, Christine O'donnell, Stacy Dash, etc. If memory serves, seems like the general gist of your posts were: "here's what the left did, and the right went crazy!" but not a personal expression of disgust."
Again, totally lazy and low.
Who cares what you remember? The blog is right here and searchable? Why don't you check what I said about these people at the time?
I think it's flagrantly disrespectful to me to write in terms of YOUR memory.
Search the archive. I'm not going to do it for you. I'll just suggest you withdraw what you have said and apologize. Otherwise, back up your statements with actual facts.
Ann wrote: "I linked to Politico yesterday because that was the first place I saw it, but I didn't read enough of it to see the SNL link."
In the interests of upping YOUR game, especially in the area of self-awareness, you need to think on the fact that you do that ("I didn't read enough of it to see"), a lot.
A lot.
Quantify it this way. How many jokes have been made about Boehner's visits to a tanning salon versus how many jokes have been made about Pelosi's Botox injections. My guess is that if you did a thorough survey of all late night comics, then you would find the punch lines heavily weighted against Boehner. Both politicians had similar offices, and their vices are roughly comparable. If you're a Republican, you're subject to far worse and far more frequent ridicule than a Democrat.
There is many reasons Obama won a second term, one of which was that Romney did not go for the juggler in the last campaign. He ran what could be called a "respectful" campaign and got smoked.
I'm sorry, the gloves are off from my perspective. When a party uses the full force of the federal government to go after their political enemies, playing nice doesn't get it.
There are tags for O'Donnell and Palin, so if you find one post by searching the name, you can click on the tag and find them all.
As for Stacy Dash, I've never written about her and I don't know what the controversy was, but it didn't cross the line into bloggable for me.
Your question assumes a fact that isn't true.
I assumed you were reading the comments and watched the clip that KLDAVIS linked to. Guess not!
As to whether the ads help the right in any way, well ... they're not designed to help the right. They're designed to help the web site. Sometimes it seems like that web site's goal is to help the right, but when push comes to shove, the staffers' jobs and income will come first.
(FYI, Heyooyeh, the Prof has explained in the past that the reason leftists' hypocrisy interests her more is because she's surrounded by them in Madison. Makes sense.)
Here's a post on O'Donnell to get you started. You can find the tag there.
Here's one on Palin.
These things are not hard to find using a search tool.
When I think of all the work I've done writing here for 10 years, I am really annoyed by these bullshit assertions based on what one commenter on another seems not to recollect.
It's sexual humiliation if done by the right.
Pearls clutched, Victorian vapors, shock! disgust! 'Oh my heavens!'.
If arising from the left, it's sexual empowerment or satire, depending.
Vagina vagina vagina! Slut walk! Twerking! Pole dancing! ;lesbian in college! Hooking up! Rape culture!
I call bullshit.
No one really cares about this crap, and no one is offended. it's just the required response.
No one can claim to be humiliated in a debased society. These are tired old images, not shocking in the least because it's all been done before.
The outrage is as faux as the virtue claimed. Pelosi's supposed Catholicism is more humiliating than that stupid poster.
Humperdink said...
Romney did not go for the juggler in the last campaign.
Was that a Batman episode?
Now, edgy is a tough act to pull off, because if you're too edgy you put off the people in the audience; you have to find just the right amount of safe edginess to be successfully edgy, and my writing staff, they have the 'safe edginess' thing down pat, it is a pleasure to read the cue cards that come from these professionals...
Barthelme, Snow White, the buffalo hump plant.
...It's that we want to be on the leading edge of this trash phenomenon, the everted sphere of the future, and that's why we pay particular attention, too, to those aspects of language that may be seen as a model of the trash phenomenon. And it's certainly been a pleasure showing you around the plant this afternoon, and meeting you, and talking to you about these things, which are really more important, I believe, than people tend to think. Would you like a cold Coke from the Coke machine now, before you go?
"It's between those of both sides who think the actions of their opposite numbers give them free license to do any sort of despicable things,"
Except I've never (and I do mean never) talked to a Lefty who was outraged by the despicable things the Left does. It's taken as given that the Left has license to make these kind of attacks. Furthermore I've never talked to an independent or low-information voter who voted against the Left because they were outraged by such an attack.
We have the culture we have, and you're not going to prevail in modern politics by pretending to be William F. Buckley.
It's time to go for the juggler.
So, I've scanned through several years worth of 'gender politics' tagged posts here, and I can't find any related to the disgusting attacks on any of the women I mentioned. Nothing about the disgusting stuff from that Leftist radio host and Rebecca Kleefisch, which I thought would hit close to home for someone based in wisconsin, mostly nothing about Palin, O'Donnell, and Dash. Although there was one about Bill Maher, Brett Favre's Penis talking, and Maher made it say something about Palin (october 17,2011 10:29 AM). But even that post didn't concisely express disgust like the sentence related to Pelosi. Perhaps your outrage-y posts are under a different tag?
Professor, I urge you to consider that some of us have limited memories and means of recollection.
It's one of the areas that I think people misunderstand: individuals tend to think everyone else has a memory, and a sense of accuracy, alike to their own.
Probably Oliver Sacks and a group of criminal investigators and prosecutors would have something to say about this. But I've already forgotten where I started, so, anyway.
wow, this comment thread has taken an interesting turn. some of the comments are ponderables that's for sure.
Perhaps Professor Althouse hopes that the American right will prevail; but, only as a moral standard-bearer. While politics is a difficult business, we should at least try to make it seem classy. You know, the traditional perspective, where conservatives are the adults in the room.
To mock, or muck. That is the question.
As usual, The Professor is right about sexual satire on women leaders not being GOP Kosher. It's more like the 1800s era political cartoonists.
I note that Breitbart Hollywood sems to be aimed at local Hollywood hip and is not the same edition the Breitbart News.
The Hollywood guys are off base for Americans, but when in Hollywood they are doing as the Hollywoodians do.
One thing about Breitbart Hollywood has been its fearlessness. Like the first spontaneous Tea Partiers talking back truth about ObamaCare to ther GOP elders, those guys will say what's on their politically incorrect minds everytime.
I'm sorry to have to point this out, but if several unconnected (other than by this post) have a hard time remembering similar concise expressions of disgust vis a vis women on the rightward end of the political spectrum, maybe it's not them. Just a thought. Perhaps it's an expression of group think as people read through the comments before posting.
I don't know, as I don't read the comments before making my first comment in any thread. I read through them after I've made my initial comment precisely to avoid picking up other people's ideas in my comment.
The Breitbart Orphans are having a hard time with direction without their leader. Art isn't their calling, get out in the streets and get in somebody's face!
I am not going to condone the stuff, but Nancy Pelosi does not personally deserve respect, but rather, condemnation, and ridicule. She, and her Speakership, are a good part of why we are where we are today with the economy, and where we are going with health care and health care insurance. Millions are without work, or are underemployed, because of her and the 111th Congress where she helped orchestrate the ongoing "Stimulus", Obama(/Pelosi&Reid)Care, Dodd-Frank, etc. As I keep pointing out, most likely, the reason that we are still mired in the Obama Recession is that the federal govt. is spending approx. 5% more of GDP since the time she took the Speaker's gavel. Much of this is money that would have gone into real jobs in the past, but instead is being diverted to supporting the lifestyles of and in trade for the votes of the takers who elected and reelected Obama. Her PPACA just made things worse by penalizing businesses who hire full time workers.
I don't like undenied pederast Harry Reid any more. But at least he fought his way up from poverty to where he is today. That is the American dream. Pelosi, on the other hand, is from a powerful Dem party machine family. And, while she and hers haven't made nearly as much money as Sen. Feinstein's family has through government graft and corruption (with Feinstein's husband's company being the prime contractor on billions in govt. contracts), they have benefited financially too. Point is that she isn't where she is because of her brains (obviously), or probably even hard work, but ultimately through graft and corruption.
Does she deserve our respect? I don't think so. This isn't to say that I condone this sort of making fun of her, but rather, pointing out that if anyone deserves this on the left, it is she.
And, BTW - she isn't really a communist, but rather, closer to a fascist, in terms of politics and economics. The difference being between state controlling the means of production through ownership, or through crony capitalism.
"Professor, I urge you to consider that some of us have limited memories and means of recollection."
1. There is a searchable archive here, so anyone making an assertion about me can check what can be checked.
2. You don't have to say anything at all if you don't remember. It's not like I was testing memories. People were volunteering their own frail impressions of me and criticizing me based on that. No one asked them to do that. I'm happy to concede that memories are faulty and weak, but the problem is with people making statements about me based on their NOT remembering things.
Humperdink said...
Romney did not go for the juggler in the last campaign.
ARM said: "Was that a Batman episode?"
Nope, a Benghazi episode. Maybe you missed it. Romney sure did.
In fact, we know that there are many people on the Left who share our "traditional" morality. Kind of. They just happen to have different priorities. While hoping, secretly, that someone will represent their true understanding of moral, or at least moderate behavior.
Stand your ground, conservatives. The storm is just beginning. The waters are becoming choppy. Our ship of state will be scuttled without a strong, sturdy anchor, rightly placed, to steady us in these uncertain and treacherous times.
Women have great memories.
As CNN says (and says): Breaking News: Conservatives cannot use the tactics of the left.
The media and other elite institutions dominated by the liberal/left will simply not let you do so.
It's a losing tactic.
The classy ship sailed long ago. Americans are morons and idiots, esp in superficial and propagandized places like Los Angeles.
It's important to mock and ridicule the authoritarian left. The audience in LA won't respond to nice and classy. It is also important to exercise free speech.
Distasteful? so what? Distasteful is Solyndra, IRS targeting, the vilification of the Koch family, crammed legislation on party line vote in the dead of night, Harry's Reid's corrupt nepotism. and on and on.
eh. Point at the paper poster with outrage while Rome burns.
Stupid caricatures and ugly photoshops are boring.
Gee, George W. Bush looks like a chimp! That's the joke. Get it?
We can say awful things about Sarah Palin because she's a Republican. That makes it OK.
ZZZZZ.
So why perpetuate this garbage? It's not apalling or offensive. It's not funny. It's predictable and boring. I don't need it pointed out that liberals do this all the time. I can read.
Losers stoop to stupid personal attacks. Remember the stench of Democratic Underground during Bush's second term? That's what this is- the smell of losers.
Except you voted for President Obama, whose Organizing for America and related entitites are the worst offenders in this arena.
Cognitive Dissonance much?
Apropos of nuthin', they say a movement has come of age when it can control the extremists in its own ranks.
Has anyone considered Breitbart ≠ GOP?
Is The Nation = DNC?
Humperdink said...
Romney did not go for the juggler in the last campaign.
Was that a Batman episode?
No, it was ¡Cirque De Olé!
Althouse has been pretty consistent on this issue so I'm puzzled as to the charges of inconsistency.
If this had been Palin instead of Pelosi she would have criticized it as well.
And so would many of the people who find the Pelosi image acceptable.
Although I did find this under the Sarah Palin tag:
"
"I am no fan of radio hosts who get mean and personal. So I shed no tears for the Radio Sly-mer..."
"... who was this afternoon fired from WTDY-AM 1670 after 15 years," says David Blaska, as Midwest Family Radio dumps local talk radio and picks up the CBS sports package.
[I call him the Sly-mer because he did things like call then-Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice an Aunt Jemima. He suggested that Wisconsin’s lieutenant governor performed sexual favors to win election, rejoiced at her diagnosis of cancer, and made fun of her children.]
The man was on for 4 hours a day, 5 days a week, so it's not surprising that — trying to be interesting/exciting/outrageous — he went too far sometimes, presumably many times. Such is life in free-speech America.
So what if he was a big old lefty asshole? He had his place here in Madison, where there should be local talk radio. It's sad to lose the voice of John "Sly" Sylvester. "
So maybe expressions of dismay that there haven't been similar expressions of disgust regarding what Sylvester did to Kleefisch, albeit without a visual, aren't because of faulty memories?
Look, as an attack on ME, that's just stupid. I don't even know what the SNL "thing" is. To treat me as though I was supposed to have blogged about it is either deliberately bad reasoning or just plain dumb.
Althouse doesn't ignore attacks on the right because she's partisan, she has just never noticed any of it.
Ted Kennedy's hyperbolic character assassination of Bork was the first time I remember civility thrown out in the "deliberative body" of government. Seems that was before popular culture was such a determining factor in electoral politics. It's been downhill since then.
The current outrage seems to be from a sense of shock that republicans would finally, finally, stoop to the level of the popular culture to win the affections of the young.
If this is what it takes to get young votes, is there a better example of why the voting age needs to be raised to 21? or how about 26?
Hell, BITD, 26 was too old for the draft. Now it's the age of emerging from Mom's basement to buy your own healthcare.
It is a simple tactic to take the loudest an stupidest expression of an ideology, and claim that the whole thing is like that.
And it should be easy to refute- you just size up the cost of losing the idiots (not much), and cut them loose. But instead, look at this! Look at all the cretins come out of the woodwork, proclaiming that they don't see anything wrong that Pelosi poster. Say it louder, cretins! Tell your neighbors! Double down- print some up, put them on your local telephone poles, on big signs in your yard.
If someone asks why you're being such a scumbag, whine about how much Saturday Night Live offends your sensibilities, and ask your interlocutor why they aren't up in arms about that.
"As for sexual humiliation? I think it's fair game after how they treated Christine O'Donnell...."
Yeah, say that. Tell your mother.
A small, anti-government. anti-big media news company decided to have an edgy ad campaign for a new local news office.
I don't see what the big deal is, this is just a local news story. To smear all Conservatives and Republicans because some local ad buyer used a local artist to create something that would catch the eye on Hollywood Boulevard seems to be a reach.
On the other hand, Ms. Cox should be joyous about these ads. She has won. Her plan to pull down the national conversation on government by regaling us with stories of Republican staffers' penchants for rough anal sex has worked successfully. She made Republican politicians into another group of entertainers to be gossiped about. Now, Breitbart and his progeny have come along to fill the empty Democrat hole.
"So, I've scanned through several years worth of 'gender politics' tagged posts here, and I can't find any related to the disgusting attacks on any of the women I mentioned. Nothing about the disgusting stuff from that Leftist radio host and Rebecca Kleefisch, which I thought would hit close to home for someone based in wisconsin, mostly nothing about Palin, O'Donnell, and Dash. Although there was one about Bill Maher, Brett Favre's Penis talking, and Maher made it say something about Palin (october 17,2011 10:29 AM). But even that post didn't concisely express disgust like the sentence related to Pelosi. Perhaps your outrage-y posts are under a different tag? "
I've done the same thing but looking for something different.
My criticism isn't that Althouse doesn't stand up for women everywhere, as she clearly has. My criticism is, she calls for the right to distance themselves from this, she connects all righties but not all lefties.
Here are some samples:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/04/i-can-see-stupid-from-here.html
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/01/i-defend-tracy-morgan-for-what-he-said.html
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/01/let-me-tell-you-something-about-sarah.html
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/01/theres-climate-of-hate-out-there-all.html
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/12/shes-like-ominous-blob-in-horror-films.html
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/11/who-is-this-woman-this-fruit-bat-in.html
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/02/deglamorizing-sarah-palin.html
What I see from Breitbart here is very clever. They have played the game of the left and caught the Nancy Pelosi's and the DWS's in hypocrisy.
You can disagree with my characterization of the breitbart message. Maybe you think it's accidental what I'm claiming they are trying to do (And also what they seem to be claiming). You can say it won't work, or that they shouldn't do it.
But to say you weren't tricked after calling them insane in the other thread?
Also, after having read through a lot of the archives, I've noticed there is advice to the right (and Republcians) to be better, to distance ourselves, to repudiate certain people or things, but I don't notice similar advice to the left (Democrats).
Is there a tag for it so I can search and see if this has also been balanced?
Hyperventilate all you want. I remember Caribou Barbie who actually managed not to abort a Downs Syndrome child--and was criticized for it.
Pelosi twerking? A particularly vile image--but then consider the subject who is a particularly vile person.
Roost on the Moon said...
It is a simple tactic to take the loudest an stupidest expression of an ideology, and claim that the whole thing is like that.
And it should be easy to refute- you just size up the cost of losing the idiots (not much), and cut them loose. But instead, look at this! Look at all the cretins come out of the woodwork, proclaiming that they don't see anything wrong that Pelosi poster. Say it louder, cretins! Tell your neighbors!........
So you're ok with the tactic when used by the Left agaisnt the Right, but not the other way around?
You also seem to think it's ok for the Left to take statements by someone like Todd Akin and ascribe them to everyone on the Political Right?
Prof. Althouse, in my heart I think you're still looking for a reason (any reason) to vote Democrat.
In Party Reversal world, idiots painting little Adolf 'staches on every Republican with a pulse, who treat conservative members of "traditionally Liberal" demographics worse than anything done to those "traditionally Liberal" individuals by Conservatives, who manage to equate Libertarians with National Socialists, such behavior gets a yawn.
The intellect is a funny thing. Sometimes I think it's primary purpose is to justify all the stupid programmed deep in our prejudicial lizard brains.
@Ann,
I apologize if I implied that you agreed with the apparent response of most media sources to the various methods of sexual shaming in politics.
With that in mind, I am reminded that it is too easy to assume that if you use language similar to that of most of the hypocrites, that you are one of them.
I am very mad at the double-standard that has hampered public discourse for most of my life. I can remember Clarence Thomas getting raked over the coals in the media for his treatment of a subordinate woman. Within a decade, Bill Clinton had lots of apologists on his side for taking sexual advantage of a subordinate.
I am also very aware that "pop culture" is full of political slander cloaked as humor. While this irks me, it is part of the way that elections happen in the U.S.
The "swing vote" that often decides elections is mostly the voters who make their decision based on social cues during the last month of the campaign. These are not rational analyses. The social cues are often slogans, based loosely on statements like the slanders on Sarah Palin, or these defamatory images of Pelosi & co. that you complain about here.
I wish it were otherwise.
But as a few commentors have mentioned, the tradition of using vile slanders to stir up the political base and demoralize political opponents has been present in one form or another since the beginning of the United States.
"I don't want to be anywhere near people who amuse themselves and make their political points that way."
Yet you endorse and encourage Crack calling all white people racists. Or, since it is more important apparently that the attack be person specific, you had no problem with him calling me a racist and a Nazi. In fact, since his commencement of those nasty attacks you have even advertised his appearance on radio and live blogged it!
Don't you see a double standard on your part there?
John Lynch said: "Losers stoop to stupid personal attacks. Remember the stench of Democratic Underground during Bush's second term? That's what this is- the smell of losers."
Except they are winning.
RecChief said...
So what if he was a big old lefty asshole? He had his place here in Madison, where there should be local talk radio. It's sad to lose the voice of John "Sly" Sylvester. "
And I take delight in thinking that he may be now reduced to Ramen Noodles meals.
So we now have perfect balance on that topic, here on Althouse.
If the image meant that the GOP would pick up a few points in the younger demographic, then would it be OK? Could we have whole new set of themes -
"Why we call our selves Grand Old PARTY (picture of Pelosi)"
"If you support the Democrats TWERK"
"Fifty Shades of Grope" poster - (porn pix of various sexual acts Dems like Filmer convicted of with their name below)
But
Will this tend to help the Ukraine?
Will it tend to fix the public schools?
Will it tend to save the Christians being shot in Syria?
Will it help the Milwaukee public school system?
What about the debt?
I'm only really interested in politics that work on such - not tit for tit slams between persons trying to gross each other out. And I suspect I'm not alone.
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...
RecChief said...
"So what if he was a big old lefty asshole? He had his place here in Madison, where there should be local talk radio. It's sad to lose the voice of John "Sly" Sylvester. "
Actually, that's a quote of Althouse, [b]not[/b] showing disgust at Sly's assertion that Kleefisch performed sexual favors to win election.
"So you're ok with the tactic...but not with...?"
I don't care about that. You're confusing yourself, trying to make some point about hypocrisy. To be clear: I'm saying that those posters are cretinous. They are made by and for scummy people, with bad values, and noxious beliefs.
Only a very mixed-up person would act on the impulse to defend them. It's dull and childish to build some kind of case, where the evidence is all the times you were offended in the past.
No matter how lame and delicate you are, those posters are by and for creeps.
"I'm only really interested in politics that work on such - not tit for tit slams..."
Too bad; it's all Alinsky all the time now, and far too late too bitch about debased and disgusting discourse being 'unhelpful'.
You call anti-SSM bigots and soon enough you got Pelosi in a bikini.
I know! OutRAGEous!
The impersonal is impolitical, but no one cares.
Professor...
Do you see "sexual humiliation" in the graphic of Jerry Brown? Or only in the pic of Ms. Pelosi?
I see great agitprop.
Ms. Cyrus sells an unapologetic, one-note image to the world. Many find it's relentless repetition vulgar -- even if they don't understand why.
Team Pelosi engages in her own campaign of dogged and unapologetic messaging. Linking the vulgarity of the two is brilliant.
A picture, after all, is worth a thousand words -- for certain demographics, it's worth more than any amount of words at all.
Especially words tucked away in a musty old Corner at National Review.
Roost on the Moon said...
"don't care about that. You're confusing yourself,"
No I was asking a question as that is what your post seemed to suggest. And still does.
Thanks for the combination of the mentally ill and no true scotsman assertions at the end though, it was cute and entertaining.
I just want to know, where was your outrage at Hustler's photshop of SE Cupp? at Slyvester's assertions about Kleefisch? at Maher's characterizations of Palin? Also, please expound on why pointing out the hypocrisy of the left by getting all faux outraged at these posters is in any way a defense of the posters themselves?
"I like edgy, arty humor and imagery, and the main political thing I do here on this blog is call lefties on their hypocrisy and double standards. And I find the use of sexual humiliation against Nancy Pelosi disgusting."
isn't what you're doing an example of slut shaming?
It seems like your outrage is really one sided. You even make the point that "they did it first" is not a good argument. Yet, when libs do it first we don't usually get the "How dare they use such imagery" from the left. Because there's nothing wrong with using such imagery to describe the right.
Watch the People vs Larry Flynt which highlights the true story of Larry fighting for the right to put out a parody ad saying that "Jerry Falwell's first sexual encounter was with his mother in an outhouse". The Supreme Court said such speech was protected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell
So, did saying that Falwell had sex with his mom in an outhouse help the left in any way? Well, sure. They got to stand up and scream how they were all for the first amendment and Falwell was trying to batten down freedom of speech.
And Hollywood rode that message all the way to millions of dollars of box office gross.
Suddenly, saying Pelosi twerks is beyond the pale. Since when did the left become Jerry Falwell?
Eric:
I certainly don't recall hearing all this hubbub when Saturday Night Live did this very same thing.
Exactly!
Here's a link to a description of Myley as Michelle Bachman twerking and tongue kissing a doll of Abraham Lincoln.
http://thestir.cafemom.com/entertainment/162164/miley_cyruss_best_snl_skit
But Breitbart - HOW DARE THEY! GASP! Pelosi is a human being!
Give me a break with the faux outrage.
At what point does "edgy" (good) pass over to "disgust" (bad?
I'm not a stodgy old-school traditionalist
Dude(tte) ... you totally are that. Straight up.
Do you consistently tell yourself this stuff in the mirror, hoping that someday it will be true.
You voted for Barack "freakin'" Obama.
This incident calls for a Slut Walk
to protest the stodgy religious Left. They have forsaken their liberal ambitions, and halted their progressive morality. Bring out the Libertines!
I find Pelosi's numerous stupid statements ("We'll have to pass the bill to find out what's in it," for instance) far, FAR more offensive that that graphic. Although I do think that they owe Miley Cyrus and apology.
Lets go back to being the party of stodgy old white guys and shuffle quietly to our graves.
This stuff works. It would be better if we never had to use it, but sorry, we do.
One of Alynski's rules is "Hold them to their own standards."
He did this because it weakens us. Maybe we never get on the comedy shows in a positive light because polite and respectful are not funny, except as targets.
Nancy Pelosi disgusting
True, that.
It seems to me what the Breitbart.com folks are doing is exactly what a lot of other sites do, creating controversy to bring page views and measure click-throughs.
While I feel Breitbart.com has changed for the worse since Andrew Breitbart died, I can see that they are living up to how he presented some of his views, by using flashy headlines (this case imagery). These Breitbart California ads are imagery to attract site visits and they are working very well, it seems.
Now I can understand Republicans wanting to distance themselves from this, however, as some commenters have pointed out, SNL did mock Republicans around the time the govt shutdown with a parody of a Miley Cyrus video. However, I don't recall outrage on the part of the GOP at the video with how Miley Cyrus depicted Michelle Bachmann in that video, and thus, I'm sure there was no follow-up outrage expressed by the Democrats either. To me, it’s a double standard on politicians in general, and most media outlets, that NBC/SNL can have Miley Cyrus, as Bachmann in the video, act in an overtly sexual manner, but Breitbart.com cannot depict Nancy Pelosi just as Miley Cyrus. NBC & SNL did it for parody knowing there would probably be tons more views of it come Monday once the tabloid sites picked it up. Breitbart.com launched their California site with these images in hopes more people would come check out their new site. They did something similar with Texas political figures for Breitbart Texas.
Whether a news site should be showing these ads is another story I suppose, however, I don’t feel that comedy shows or sites should be the gatekeepers for parody or satire. Or maybe Breitbart.com just needs to come out with a Breitbart Comedy site, and then they are in the clear, like Viacom’s Comedy Central or Comcast’s NBC SNL show.
I personally could care less about Pelosi or what she thinks about the ads, politicians and public figures are fair game. And if depicting a “well-respected” politician as a controversial musician in an ad is wrong, then free speech in the US is headed in the wrong direction.
Where are you, perfesser? Rec Chief not only called out your left-wing hypocrisy, he provided a slew of examples. Where is your thoughtful, measured reply, or even your thoughtless snarkery? Are you on the fainting couch trying to recover from this sexual assault on your ego? What a fucking phony you are. Typical democrat party hypocrite.
if the image of pelosi/cyrus is disgusting, how about the leftists on twitter figuratively dancing on the grave of Margaret Thatcher on the anniversary of her death?
Althouse wrote:
Look, as an attack on ME, that's just stupid. I don't even know what the SNL "thing" is. To treat me as though I was supposed to have blogged about it is either deliberately bad reasoning or just plain dumb.
But now you do know. Somewhat say you now about the hypocrisy of holding breitbart to
A standard that dems aren't being held to.
I do know this. Almost no dems came forward to decry bachmans treatment on SNL. No bloggers. Debbie wassermN made no hay about it. No distancing of anyone to anything.
Doesn't that tell you something? Especially about those now criticizing Breitbart? I can't imagine they NO one watched SNL. It's usually a pretty popular show, and if you missed it you can catch clips on Hulu
Even now the only people
Saying anything are republicans asking about the double standard.
Ann seems to care about what some commenters think about her--enough to argue with them or cut them off. I think this is a mistake. I am grateful to be ignored.
Also, after having read through a lot of the archives, I've noticed there is advice to the right (and Republcians) to be better, to distance ourselves, to repudiate certain people or things, but I don't notice similar advice to the left (Democrats).
Maybe she's not rooting for the Left, is another possibility, so far not noted as a possibility.
@Althouse, sorry to be so late getting back to this thread; it was a long day at work and I decided that even if I couldn't get through all 500 posts with the "gender politics" tag I could get through a hundred or so.
Conclusion #1: You do push back, somewhat, against sexist attacks on Republican women. But not as often as perhaps you think (I couldn't find a post by you regarding the widely expressed wish by lefty bloggers that Ann Romney just die, for instance), and there is nothing like your over-the-top reaction to Nancy Pelosi depicted as twerking. (Three posts in two days?) Considering that Nancy Pelosi has never been shy about flinging mud herself, I don't understand the special solicitousness. I really don't.
Conclusion #2: You don't like to see Republicans getting down in the dirt with the lefties, but you still can't explain how Republicans are supposed to win elections by trying to be above the fray while mud is flung at them.
Final conclusion: I think I'm owed an apology for your cheap shot that my comment was "trashy and low," and implying that I'm unethical. I've been reading your blog very nearly daily since before the 2008 elections, so I'm coming up on 6 years now. I have formed an opinion about your position regarding attacks on women from both left and right, and I think that my opinion is fact-based. Certainly reviewing a hundred or so posts with the "gender politics" tag ought to be enough to confirm or deny my impressions, and my conclusions are what they are because the posts I reviewed say what they say. You push back against sexism from the mainstream media and, to a lesser extent, from mainstream Democrats, but not as hard and by no means always. Things at least as bad (unless you regard "hate f*cking" as an appropriate fate for conservative female commentators and bloggers?) did not get a rise out of you.
I didn't attack YOU (to echo your use of capitals). I'm just telling you what reality is. You wrote your posts, and I'm very certain I understood what I read. My challenge still stands; explain to me how Republicans can beat mud-flinging Democrats without fighting back?
Maybe she's not rooting for the Left, is another possibility, so far not noted as a possibility.
That's one possibility -- one I'd associate with thoughtfulness. But another is the Inga stance -- constantly harping on what conservatives "need to do" while proclaiming oneself a liberal. It's malicious mobying behavior.
Michael Fitzgerald said...
"Where are you, perfesser? Rec Chief not only called out your left-wing hypocrisy, he provided a slew of examples......."
You know, I think this is an unfair characterization of our host. I might remind you moderation is on, so if Althouse wanted to, she could have disappeared those comments of mine. And no one would have been the wiser. Here's something to think about, why did she post my comments, even though in the eyes of several commenters, they didn't make her all that great?
@RecChief Thanks. The answer to where am I… Jeez! I was getting a full night's sleep, spending time with my family, eating breakfast….
"Final conclusion: I think I'm owed an apology for your cheap shot that my comment was "trashy and low," and implying that I'm unethical."
Well, I think you owe me an apology so that makes us even.
Deal with it. You took the initiative to attack me, without basis, and I was nice enough to request that you go back and find evidence supporting your attack. Of course, you were unsuccessful, and you won't even admit it, you just weaken your attack into bullshit, and bullshit means you don't care whether what you are saying is true or false.
Remember: YOU chose to attack me. That is the salient point here. You went on the attack, against me, without evidence, and you were wrong, and you still won't admit it. You retrench to butthurtedness over my words "trashy and low."
Bullshit.
Those who made an assertion that I don't do something have created for themselves the difficult task of proving a negative.
Those who say I do X more than Y have an even harder task. The subjective impression that there's more X than Y is likely to occur in the brains of those who are upset by X but like Y.
And leftwing readers, I assure you, believe I do Y more than X.
I call bullshit on these subjective impressions. The attack is totally weak and meaningless to me.
If you can't be more insightful about your own skewed impressions, at least acknowledge that you are fallible and that there is nothing here that I can respond to.
I'm not going to do the research project on my own archive to make up for your lack of care on this topic. I am irritated at having been disrespected here.
I can't believe the energy I have put into this back and forth, and I don't think it is good for me. Either people appreciate what I am doing here or they don't. I shouldn't put my writing time into explaining how I should be more appreciated.
And it doesn't prove that there's no Y to find examples of things that would be Y that were not blogged. Do you realize how many things I don't blog, in both X and Y? You haven't done a comparison of the balance of X and Y to point out Ys that haven't been covered, because you're not comparing it to Xs that haven't been covered.
Well, I appreciate that you posted my comment and I respect that. I still don't understand why you are so solicitous of a woman who glories in flinging mud herself, but I surrender, ma'am.
That's one possibility -- one I'd associate with thoughtfulness. But another is the Inga stance -- constantly harping on what conservatives "need to do" while proclaiming oneself a liberal. It's malicious mobying behavior.
Surely you're not suggesting Althouse is mobying her own blog.
That strike me as a notion both odd and improbable.
Moby: 1. "An insidious and specialized type of left-wing troll who visits blogs and impersonates a conservative for the purpose of either spreading false rumors intended to sow dissension among conservative voters, or who purposely posts inflammatory and offensive comments for the purpose of discrediting the blog in question. ...
"2. Left wing troll who tries to imitate a right winger, usually poorly due to left wing's complete misunderstanding of who right wingers are. Often given away by telltale first line, 'I'm a lifelong Republican, BUT...' or 'As a lifelong Republican, I have to disagree with (Republican figure)...' "
(Source: Urban Dictionary)
r,l wrote: Surely you're not suggesting Althouse is mobying her own blog.
Wouldn't that fall under the scope of "living freely through writing"?
BTW, I just recalled some strange fiction: link.
Meade's missive was not an example of mobying, and it certainly did not seek to discredit either Althouse the blog or Althouse the woman.
Low blow, chickenlittle, low blow.
I suggest that if you want to go there, have the balls to go there.
You know less than you think you do, but--what the hell, who cares, whatever.
God forbid that I should suggest that there is no high ground in the sort of betrayal that you practice.
@r,l: But it was a fine example of character fraud.
Congratulations, chickenlittle. You win, having achieved sonuvabitch status in the pantheon. Bless your heart.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा