Pundits like Cal Thomas, and others such as George Will and Charles Krauthammer, puzzle me. These old white men are often treated like wizened men of yore, what spake truth with every utterance. They go on panel shows and fart and belch nonsense, then go home and shit out umpteen columns about their chosen bugaboos. I don’t understand the deference from literally EVERYONE in the media. Can we just grab any old doddering fool and have them blubber in to a hot microphone for twenty minutes and be utterly wrong? It surely would be much cheaper.
Cal Thomas predominantly writes about religion and the culture wars therein. Like a black sportswriter, his chosen topic is unfortunately evergreen. Mr. Thomas is constantly couching the topic du jour through his bullshit lens of “truth” and since he’s a seemingly tenured syndicated columnist, never answers for anything. Every topic he’s covered, and the very words he farts, are always thoroughly debunked with common sense before he gets around to his point. Like clockwork, you’ll see him provide some argument that has clearly been done away with. His current topic “redistribution of wealth”…more importantly, his wealth, and the wealth of the catholic church.
It’s clear that those of the more evangelical right-wing catholic mindset don’t care much for Pope Francis. For some odd reason, their prayers for Benedict to keep Pope-ing around, disenfranchising catholics the world over with his hyper-dated worldview and pedophile cover ups, fell on deaf ears. To the rest of the world, Pope Francis has been a unbelievable breath of fresh air.
As a non-catholic I’m a big fan of a populist pope. I mean, we don’t have too many types of world leaders with the peaceful reign longevity or worldwide reach of a pope. Ideally, the pope sets the religious standards for the entire world. Saying things like “be excellent to yourselves and each other” and “give your money and time to those in need”. All that bullshit that bums out those evangelical right-wingers who use their faith as a cudgel to silence and get rid of things that make them feel icky inside.
Mr. Thomas uses that tired notion of “redistribution means they take ALL the money EVER and just GIVE it FREELY to all the OTHERS! (who have done nothing for society but TAKE!)”. Then couples that with the other tired notion of “redistribution didn’t work under the New Deal or War on Poverty it just went down 16%” Where did that figure come from? Who knows?!
His solution: The Pope should put his money where his mouth is and just start redistributing ALL the Vatican’s money if it‘s such a great idea! So…a silly non answer? Sounds about right from a right-wing pundit.
Unfortunately, I couldn’t find Cal Thomas’ net worth on the internets. I’m assuming from the humble brag in his second paragraph he considers himself wealthy, and taxed enough already. He prattles on about how he gives to charity, and if the government started just outright taking his money, where would all the good his money does for his tiny tribe go? You see, he’s taken care of his money responsibly, unlike other people…you know…the others?
It’s this kind of insipid article writing that trickles down (hey a trickle down idea that actually works!) to the stooges of the GOP/right-wing. That wealthy people paying taxes is a punishment. That those tax monies aren’t being poured in to things THEY want, so they are being wasted on things like the OTHERS. Ironically, the right-wing stooges don’t give nearly enough to charity as say a Cal Thomas would, but assuming they tithe and give to charity, they do it under the guise of philanthropy from the tops of their noses. Which they both share in great amounts. Mr. Thomas acts as if he gives so much of his money to charity, that if he didn’t, the charity would fold up and blow away. Which is absurd. And so what if they did? It isn’t like those in need and those who provide charity are just going to end one day.
It’s in the hypothetical that Cal Thomas unveils the type of modern christian that everyone has grown to loathe. In their passive-aggressive actions, they have completely lost what their faith was founded on. Hell, even Mr. Thomas in a recent column about public prayer, extols the quiet reflection that is demanded of his very faith. So prayer, we should probably be hush hush, but when giving your time and money to those in need you can just blast it over the bullhorn? “LOOK AT ALL THE GOOD WORKS I AM DOING! THANK GOD FOR ME AND MY MONEY THAT I FREELY GIVE TO THESE OTHERS!” Give me a break!
The simplicity with which Mr. Thomas breaks down what causes poverty is laughable. Has this man ever known need, probably not, and his breakdown shows that in spades. Let‘s break them down:
1) a dictatorial governmental system that thwarts individual initiative and liberty. What the hell is he talking about? You have to wonder if this means some sort of third world situation or is a reference to the tyrannical ruler Obama. I’m more inclined to lean to the latter merely because it’s a staid talking point, and Cal Thomas has never met a tired talking point he didn’t like. Because of Obama’s tyrannical dictatorship both initiative and liberty have struggled. Which explains why the DOW is hitting record highs, and corporate profits are at an all time high! Somehow the liberty of the working class is getting squashed by all the liberty these overpaid CEO’s are getting, but who’s to parse the thwarting of liberty!?
2) a religious system that oppresses people, especially women, in the name of an angry deity who is ready to pounce on anyone having pleasurable experiences. Again, he may be flying too close to the sun on this one. I’m supposing he’s talking about the OTHER religions that oppress women in the name of an angry deity that’s NOT Christianity? Cal Thomas may be on to something if there is an ongoing problem about impoverished gays. I’m thinking this is a dig at the Vatican, which is the thesis of his article, but the vagueness is puzzling. Is he talking a theocracy, because Mr. Thomas’ articles tend to lead one to believe that ’s the only government system he’d really get behind?
3) the wrong economic system, which stifles growth and discourages risk-taking. This seems eerily similar to the first cause of poverty. Also, an example of what a wrong economic system is would be beneficial to the reader. Once more, I assume this is a dog whistle “Obama is an evil tyrant” sort of thing and nothing more. I guess I’d say just put what I wrote under poverty cause number one under this one too. I mean, if he’s not even trying at this point…why should I?
4) Wrong lifestyle choices when it comes to education, sex, marriage and crime. Mr. Thomas must have a word count, because I really feel like these are more like poverty causes 4-7 or 8ish. More to the point, it’s also the veiled racist portion of Mr. Thomas’ article. As he’s done with the bulk of his column, he’s somehow married disparate concepts that exist in a simplistic wrongheaded worldview. You can’t "wrong lifestyle choices" education if you’re living in the slums and ghettos. You can’t "wrong lifestyle choices" who your parents are and how much money and stability they come with. It’s so easy to make smart decisions when you’re born into stability and means, like I assume Cal Thomas has.
In all these causes, Mr. Thomas offers no real solutions, which is all well and good and probably the most christian thing to do in this case. He just supplies this notion that attempting to fix social injustice has been a failure, so why even bother? Surely the benevolent charitable givers alone should be able to lift those unwashed masses out of their poverty! He talks about moving poor children to better educational opportunities, but who’s going to pay for that? The GOP/right-wing balk at this notion and only attempt to offer solutions that will only enrich their moneyed interests and still provide no better an education. In the grand false equivalency, he writes “[…] liberal politicians won't let them escape for fear of losing political contributions from teachers' unions.” What a crock of shit.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Confederacy of Dunce: Kathleen Parker
It was funny when I was going about doing what little research I do for these pieces that I happened upon this Kathleen Parker Washington Post page. That alone wasn’t the humorous bit, but the headline next to her very botoxed face was. “Taking the country’s pulse - and assessing it’s health. Twice a week.” Now, this doesn’t say whether she’s actually any good at taking a pulse OR assessing a health. Just as I assume no one ever proofs or edits her columns to make sure they have any ounce of credibility to them. Some form of editor would have been nice, if only to prevent her from a public display of her column prowess on Meet The Press a few weeks back.
Kathleen Parker kinda/sorta proclaimed that southerners are dumb...well, at least not "sophisticated" The clip doesn't really help her case either. She kind of just rambles through her talking point anxiously looking to hand it off to the guy to her left. Had it not been for a transcript, I wouldn't have a clue as to what she truly said. So you can kind of understand why people, especially Southerners, would be upset about this comment.
Well, never fear! She decided to do a little backtrack by proudly rolling out her Southern bona fides.
But how much damage control did she really expect to do? I mean millions or people purportedly watch Meet The Press every Sunday, I imagine a tiny fraction of those people actually READ a Kathleen Parker article.
The major bone I have to pick with Ms. Parker is mostly over her southern bona fides. I'm never surprised at anything she says anymore, and I'm more ashamed of the corporate media for tapping her for any sort of on opinion, knowing full well she's full of shit. Was she brought on to Meet The Press because the clip was Southern person adjacent, and the producers thought "Hey, do we know anybody remotely Southern?" Then some shaky handed intern typed in to the internets: "Pundit that claims to be Southern and Lives Withing 20 Miles of Studio" and up popped Kathleen Parker?
What's more, it's never clear how Ms. Parker delinates what makes her Southern. Is she a Southerner because she grew up in Florida, in a nearly 100% white population (which arguably could be a Southerner construct)? That she was also educated in Florida, and got degrees in Spanish Literature? She doesn't share any of that in her bona fides article. Instead, she leans back on the local flavor, and the fact that her family has been based in South Carolina since 1670!
My land! 1670 is a long time ago.
She begins her article by trying to rewrite history. Which I applaud her effort. If she could have just been as eleqouent on television as she is in this opening salvo, things could've been different. But she's Kathleen Parker. Also, she is a Southerner (her words). So she's using the "I have a black friend" argument to talk mess on fellow Southerners? On top of that, she's continuing her useless war against the internets by also asserting that "[...] at least one person with a laptop was offended [...]" and she was beset upon by ALL of social media.
At least she does admit she didn't really answer David Gregory's question on the ad and instead, tore off on her own by reacting to "[...] something that has irked me for years — the media stereotype of the Southerner as a befuddled hayseed [...]" To which no one was asking her to, A. And really didn't come across in that mumble/ramble that she assumes was a "reaction", B.
Funnily enough, she blames those who are unfamiliar with her "body" of "work" (defending Southerners?) for taking her out of context and being offended (on top of a failed "bird brained/flock mentality" dig). This coming from the same woman who armchair quarterback's 90% of her columns about the Beltway from her home office, in South Carolina. Most of her body of work is taking things people say out of context and just flip-flopping around on the topic until she runs out of column space. She's also a follower of the pundit class pack to the utmost. And she's taking people to task for doing the same to her?
Even if that was the case, you can tell it got to her enough that she felt compelled to roll out her bona fides, even though it does nothing to dispel her stupid "reaction" on Meet The Press. No one cares that you live in South Carolina, married a Southerner, that your great-great-great-grand pappy settled the land, and when compelled can speak with a Southern accent Kathleen Parker. Further, the self-deprecation isn't a flattering look on you either. No one's really buying it.
Well, she tried and failed. And as they say in the South: Well, bless your heart
Kathleen Parker kinda/sorta proclaimed that southerners are dumb...well, at least not "sophisticated" The clip doesn't really help her case either. She kind of just rambles through her talking point anxiously looking to hand it off to the guy to her left. Had it not been for a transcript, I wouldn't have a clue as to what she truly said. So you can kind of understand why people, especially Southerners, would be upset about this comment.
Well, never fear! She decided to do a little backtrack by proudly rolling out her Southern bona fides.
But how much damage control did she really expect to do? I mean millions or people purportedly watch Meet The Press every Sunday, I imagine a tiny fraction of those people actually READ a Kathleen Parker article.
The major bone I have to pick with Ms. Parker is mostly over her southern bona fides. I'm never surprised at anything she says anymore, and I'm more ashamed of the corporate media for tapping her for any sort of on opinion, knowing full well she's full of shit. Was she brought on to Meet The Press because the clip was Southern person adjacent, and the producers thought "Hey, do we know anybody remotely Southern?" Then some shaky handed intern typed in to the internets: "Pundit that claims to be Southern and Lives Withing 20 Miles of Studio" and up popped Kathleen Parker?
What's more, it's never clear how Ms. Parker delinates what makes her Southern. Is she a Southerner because she grew up in Florida, in a nearly 100% white population (which arguably could be a Southerner construct)? That she was also educated in Florida, and got degrees in Spanish Literature? She doesn't share any of that in her bona fides article. Instead, she leans back on the local flavor, and the fact that her family has been based in South Carolina since 1670!
My land! 1670 is a long time ago.
She begins her article by trying to rewrite history. Which I applaud her effort. If she could have just been as eleqouent on television as she is in this opening salvo, things could've been different. But she's Kathleen Parker. Also, she is a Southerner (her words). So she's using the "I have a black friend" argument to talk mess on fellow Southerners? On top of that, she's continuing her useless war against the internets by also asserting that "[...] at least one person with a laptop was offended [...]" and she was beset upon by ALL of social media.
At least she does admit she didn't really answer David Gregory's question on the ad and instead, tore off on her own by reacting to "[...] something that has irked me for years — the media stereotype of the Southerner as a befuddled hayseed [...]" To which no one was asking her to, A. And really didn't come across in that mumble/ramble that she assumes was a "reaction", B.
Funnily enough, she blames those who are unfamiliar with her "body" of "work" (defending Southerners?) for taking her out of context and being offended (on top of a failed "bird brained/flock mentality" dig). This coming from the same woman who armchair quarterback's 90% of her columns about the Beltway from her home office, in South Carolina. Most of her body of work is taking things people say out of context and just flip-flopping around on the topic until she runs out of column space. She's also a follower of the pundit class pack to the utmost. And she's taking people to task for doing the same to her?
Even if that was the case, you can tell it got to her enough that she felt compelled to roll out her bona fides, even though it does nothing to dispel her stupid "reaction" on Meet The Press. No one cares that you live in South Carolina, married a Southerner, that your great-great-great-grand pappy settled the land, and when compelled can speak with a Southern accent Kathleen Parker. Further, the self-deprecation isn't a flattering look on you either. No one's really buying it.
Well, she tried and failed. And as they say in the South: Well, bless your heart
Monday, April 21, 2014
Jonah Goldberg Uses Confirmation Bias to Prove Confirmation Bias!
Sometimes, odd things happen. Like a few of the pundit class will all happen to harp on one of the bullet points in the Talking Points Memo. Of course, it’s of varying quality, and overall, not quite worth the mass effort on all their fronts. The topic: the “radical left”. Oh, and that Mozilla guy that had to step down because liberals forced him. The usual suspects? Charles Krauthammer, Russ Douthat and Jonah Goldberg.
I’ve been meaning to write about this mythical radical left wing of the liberal party for some time. In the great false equivalency machine that is the pundit class, there HAS to be a mirror to the TEA Party patriots that are ruining things for everybody…right? There has to be some radical movement on the left that is punishing democrats for not supporting climate change, fighting for a fair wage, at-will abortions, and so on. Every single day we hear about shaky Democrats in Congress that are being primaried by even more liberal fellow Democrats. Right? Yeah, I thought so.
This is one of those topics that you kind can’t believe the GOP/right-wing still mess around with. There’s that continuing notion from them about the “War on Women” being false, yet time and again some republican is putting their foot in their mouth on women’s issues. This piece by Dana Milbank talks about the Heritage Foundation holding a shindig with women right-wing luminaries that you just can’t make up. That there’s some radical left is utterly false.
That all the author’s articles mentioned start from a place of attacking truth and facts is unsurprising. They’re trying to make a basic argument that at the very least the liberals are just as bad as the conservatives when it comes to certain topics. Krauthammer’s “thought police” is a more sinister way of saying “people are trying to make Charles Krauthammer feel bad for being a stooge”. Or better yet “Charles Krauthammer is an old white man who’s white knuckle grasp on culture wars is slipping and no one cares”. It’s Glenn Beckian in it’s “the left is destroying people for being anti-gay and anti-woman” when it’s more like times are changing and the general public are course correcting society again.
Now, the Krauthammer and Douthat articles about liberal overreach are at least passable as they at least stay on topic. But I was more drawn to Jonah Goldberg’s article because of not only it’s profound stupidity, but how it perfectly encapsulates the right-wing pundit’s viewpoint on the left is somehow equal to the right. Confirmation bias is a nasty thing. It’s on full display on the GOP/right-wing, so it’s a bit odd that Jonah Goldberg, who lives in a glorious glass house, would start chucking rocks about the topic.
It’s humorous that Mr. Goldberg’s article is about an assumed confirmation bias, when he’s actively contributing to bit of his ideology’s very own the week this was published. It becomes clear when you look at just the examples I gave. He also continues to show that conservatives are allergic to facts and truth with his article condemning liberals for being diabolically rigid when it comes to facts.
Ezra Klein’s got a website that is attempting “explanatory journalism” which Mr. Goldberg just outright mocks, doesn’t even bother trying to define what that might mean in the context of media. “Phooey! Facts!” And that liberals have confirmation bias too, not because of anything Jonah Goldberg relates in his article, but because Ezra Klein said so! Well, at least Mr. Goldberg is maintaining the lazy legacy of his pundit class.
Mr. Goldberg then goes on to rattle off from the Talking Points Memo about the scary liberal scourges who are looking to “purge” those who don’t think like they do! Thought police! Coming in the night, taking your bigotry and misogyny…probably your guns too…Bastards! Then hamhandedly tries to blame this “disinterested servants” idea on liberals? That these “servants” got in to government and were more keen on staying in power and expanding their reach than serving their constituency? What?!
Fearing that he’s losing his footing, Mr. Goldberg turns to the tried-and-true attack piece for help here. You see Klein makes the mistake of showing all kinds of conservative biases, but no liberal ones. Odd, I wonder why that would be? One ideology has majority control of talk radio, a pundit class that dominates the opinion page, a channel completely dedicated to it and its “news”. The other ideology? Well, they sort of have chunks of the internet that the libertarians have let them borrow, MSNBC…kind of, and Paul Krugman?
Mr. Goldberg, from reading Klein’s piece, assumes he didn’t make much effort to find liberal confirmation bias. How he comes to this conclusion he doesn’t elucidate on, which is his typical wont. But, since Klein does at least admit that there is SOME liberal confirmation bias, he doesn’t have to anyway. Then he goes on to attack Paul Krugman for thinking he‘s better than conservatives essentially.
After going through his hate Rolodex of right-wing boogeyman and shoe-horning in how they‘re mire in their own confirmation bias, Mr. Goldberg get’s back on track. You see, liberal confirmation bias had lead to “bad policies”. What policies are those? Nope, not here. But he does assert this grand assumption that liberals think that they have sole access to the Truth. Yes, he capitalized truth.
He abandons that notion, but it is worth exploring. Why would one ideology be so in to the Truth? When did that become such a bad word? Why did truth start having two sides to it in the wake of a GOP/right-wing resurgence with Fox News? When did insisting that people accept truth become a personal attack on their rights and freedoms?
Funnily enough, if you change all the words in this article to conservative, it starts to make a LOT more sense. I would love if liberals wielded the power that Krauthammer, Douthat and Goldberg mention in their articles. We would actually get things done as a nation.
Mr. Goldberg’s folly is that he uses up an entire article essentially proving just how deep confirmation bias is in the GOP/right-wing. It’s become so engrained in the ideology they can’t even see when they themselves are falling victim to it. His article is far less informative about the liberal confirmation bias as he is displaying right-wing group think buoyed by Fox News and talk radio. It’s the same bubble that has mired there message through the last decade. Remember when Dick Morris predicted a Romney landslide in the 2012 election? That’s just one example of the level of the group think bubble. I could go on for days.
It is time, however, to push back against the GOP/right-wing and their ideological rigidity. If they get this agitated over a little push back from a few liberal pundits, just think of what they’ll do when more of the general public start acting accordingly. We saw how they lost their minds in the in the midst of the Occupy Movement, and history has shown just how utterly on the wrong side of it the right-wing is. But liberals must also get away from trying to educate people to the facts and truths of news. For too long, they’ve wasted too much time trying to win debates with facts. The GOP/right-wing doesn’t trade in facts and truth, they trade on fears and prejudices. We need more pundits like Jesse Myerson, who satirize the self serious pundit class, and less cookie cutter Rachel Maddow’s, who make easy right-wing targets and get paid no mind because to the GOP/right-wing she’s an icky girl and a lesbian.
I’ve been meaning to write about this mythical radical left wing of the liberal party for some time. In the great false equivalency machine that is the pundit class, there HAS to be a mirror to the TEA Party patriots that are ruining things for everybody…right? There has to be some radical movement on the left that is punishing democrats for not supporting climate change, fighting for a fair wage, at-will abortions, and so on. Every single day we hear about shaky Democrats in Congress that are being primaried by even more liberal fellow Democrats. Right? Yeah, I thought so.
This is one of those topics that you kind can’t believe the GOP/right-wing still mess around with. There’s that continuing notion from them about the “War on Women” being false, yet time and again some republican is putting their foot in their mouth on women’s issues. This piece by Dana Milbank talks about the Heritage Foundation holding a shindig with women right-wing luminaries that you just can’t make up. That there’s some radical left is utterly false.
That all the author’s articles mentioned start from a place of attacking truth and facts is unsurprising. They’re trying to make a basic argument that at the very least the liberals are just as bad as the conservatives when it comes to certain topics. Krauthammer’s “thought police” is a more sinister way of saying “people are trying to make Charles Krauthammer feel bad for being a stooge”. Or better yet “Charles Krauthammer is an old white man who’s white knuckle grasp on culture wars is slipping and no one cares”. It’s Glenn Beckian in it’s “the left is destroying people for being anti-gay and anti-woman” when it’s more like times are changing and the general public are course correcting society again.
Now, the Krauthammer and Douthat articles about liberal overreach are at least passable as they at least stay on topic. But I was more drawn to Jonah Goldberg’s article because of not only it’s profound stupidity, but how it perfectly encapsulates the right-wing pundit’s viewpoint on the left is somehow equal to the right. Confirmation bias is a nasty thing. It’s on full display on the GOP/right-wing, so it’s a bit odd that Jonah Goldberg, who lives in a glorious glass house, would start chucking rocks about the topic.
It’s humorous that Mr. Goldberg’s article is about an assumed confirmation bias, when he’s actively contributing to bit of his ideology’s very own the week this was published. It becomes clear when you look at just the examples I gave. He also continues to show that conservatives are allergic to facts and truth with his article condemning liberals for being diabolically rigid when it comes to facts.
Ezra Klein’s got a website that is attempting “explanatory journalism” which Mr. Goldberg just outright mocks, doesn’t even bother trying to define what that might mean in the context of media. “Phooey! Facts!” And that liberals have confirmation bias too, not because of anything Jonah Goldberg relates in his article, but because Ezra Klein said so! Well, at least Mr. Goldberg is maintaining the lazy legacy of his pundit class.
Mr. Goldberg then goes on to rattle off from the Talking Points Memo about the scary liberal scourges who are looking to “purge” those who don’t think like they do! Thought police! Coming in the night, taking your bigotry and misogyny…probably your guns too…Bastards! Then hamhandedly tries to blame this “disinterested servants” idea on liberals? That these “servants” got in to government and were more keen on staying in power and expanding their reach than serving their constituency? What?!
Fearing that he’s losing his footing, Mr. Goldberg turns to the tried-and-true attack piece for help here. You see Klein makes the mistake of showing all kinds of conservative biases, but no liberal ones. Odd, I wonder why that would be? One ideology has majority control of talk radio, a pundit class that dominates the opinion page, a channel completely dedicated to it and its “news”. The other ideology? Well, they sort of have chunks of the internet that the libertarians have let them borrow, MSNBC…kind of, and Paul Krugman?
Mr. Goldberg, from reading Klein’s piece, assumes he didn’t make much effort to find liberal confirmation bias. How he comes to this conclusion he doesn’t elucidate on, which is his typical wont. But, since Klein does at least admit that there is SOME liberal confirmation bias, he doesn’t have to anyway. Then he goes on to attack Paul Krugman for thinking he‘s better than conservatives essentially.
After going through his hate Rolodex of right-wing boogeyman and shoe-horning in how they‘re mire in their own confirmation bias, Mr. Goldberg get’s back on track. You see, liberal confirmation bias had lead to “bad policies”. What policies are those? Nope, not here. But he does assert this grand assumption that liberals think that they have sole access to the Truth. Yes, he capitalized truth.
He abandons that notion, but it is worth exploring. Why would one ideology be so in to the Truth? When did that become such a bad word? Why did truth start having two sides to it in the wake of a GOP/right-wing resurgence with Fox News? When did insisting that people accept truth become a personal attack on their rights and freedoms?
Funnily enough, if you change all the words in this article to conservative, it starts to make a LOT more sense. I would love if liberals wielded the power that Krauthammer, Douthat and Goldberg mention in their articles. We would actually get things done as a nation.
Mr. Goldberg’s folly is that he uses up an entire article essentially proving just how deep confirmation bias is in the GOP/right-wing. It’s become so engrained in the ideology they can’t even see when they themselves are falling victim to it. His article is far less informative about the liberal confirmation bias as he is displaying right-wing group think buoyed by Fox News and talk radio. It’s the same bubble that has mired there message through the last decade. Remember when Dick Morris predicted a Romney landslide in the 2012 election? That’s just one example of the level of the group think bubble. I could go on for days.
It is time, however, to push back against the GOP/right-wing and their ideological rigidity. If they get this agitated over a little push back from a few liberal pundits, just think of what they’ll do when more of the general public start acting accordingly. We saw how they lost their minds in the in the midst of the Occupy Movement, and history has shown just how utterly on the wrong side of it the right-wing is. But liberals must also get away from trying to educate people to the facts and truths of news. For too long, they’ve wasted too much time trying to win debates with facts. The GOP/right-wing doesn’t trade in facts and truth, they trade on fears and prejudices. We need more pundits like Jesse Myerson, who satirize the self serious pundit class, and less cookie cutter Rachel Maddow’s, who make easy right-wing targets and get paid no mind because to the GOP/right-wing she’s an icky girl and a lesbian.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Movie Review: The Unknown Known
Movie Review: The Unknown Known
The Big Takeaway: Donald Rumsfeld narrates a documentary on his life in public office.
The Little Takeaway: A waste of time. The two men participating in a masturbatory game of “cat-and-also-cat” is never going to make as compelling a documentary as they think. This movie will please no one with any political bent.
At the end of the movie Donald Rumsfeld flatly says “I think you’re chasing the wrong rabbit.” And he’s right. I suppose director Errol Morris thought he might have something when he got Rumsfeld to agree to sit down and chat about his life, both private and public. To be fair, the first half-hour or so of the movie is indeed interesting, if not a little bit flat and uninformative as to how his circumstances developed Rumsfeld as a person. But that’s fine, you find Rumsfeld himself to be engaging and fun. As the film wears on, however, you begin to see just how utterly false, condescending and a tad horrifying that same posture becomes.
Immediately for me, as is no surprise, Rumsfeld reminded me of all the things I absolutely loathed about the Bush administration. The Frank Lutz-tization of vocabulary (it’s not torture it’s “advanced interrogation tactics” for example), that somehow people were making decisions but no one was taking theme blame. The sinister incompetence that seemed to infest the entire administration is on display in this film in fits and bursts. If you didn’t love the Bush years, this movie isn’t going to change your mind one bit.
But what if you’re one of those conservatives that thought W. was just one of the greatest presidents ever? Well, you’ll find nothing here really either. Rumsfeld himself seems uninterested in celebrating anything he did as secretary of defense, and rightfully so. All he really do was execute our nation getting in to two needles wars. Time and time again he repeats that history will ultimately decide if the administrations actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were wise. In addition to that, I don’t think we’ll need THAT much time to know what an utter failure the Bush administration was.
For a man that was so effusive with memo writing Rumsfeld doesn’t say much. The film time and time again touches on this notion of these myriad of memos resembling a blizzard. As the memos came be known as “snowflakes”. It’s through these memos that the bulk of the narrative heft is laid. You find out how Rumsfeld ran the Pentagon, how he dealt with his peers, and so on. He also narrates these memos, but never elucidates on them, believing them to speak for themselves.
Therein lies the problem: a documentary is only as good as the topic its covering. Rumsfeld is a shitty topic, and therefore the movie suffers for it. It’s not a bad film, per se, but by hanging it’s hat on Rumsfeld, it falls way short of anything approaching a compelling documentary. It’s just masturbatory and you get the notion that Morris thinks he’s doing more than what appears on the screen.
But you’d be hard pressed to find either Morris or Rumsfeld disagreeing with that notion. From time to time in the movie you can hear Morris’ voice pipe up with incredulity at something Rumsfeld says, or asking him to expound on something. He does the old trick of having the interviewee say something, then contradicting it with facts or figures to the contrary. And this being Rumsfeld, there is plenty of material. You have to wonder if it's a conscious choice on the part of Morris, or he just had so little to go on from Rumsfeld, he had to pad out the movie with this cliche garbage.
You get the idea that Morris thinks he’s playing a game of cat-and-mouse with Rumsfeld. But Rumsfeld is masterful at this kind of bullshit. The only time he shows any emotion is when he relates the story of visiting a soldier clinging to life at Walter Reed. He get teary-eyed, and that’s about it. The rest of the movie’s running time is Rumsfeld and his toothy-grin dodging questions and passing blame around to anyone else but himself.
It’s clear that Rumsfeld is doing a bit of legacy clean-up, which is why he chose to do this movie. On top of that you can palpably feel the arrogance and narcissism dictating that he do this film as well. But for all the effusiveness of the memos, his presence in the film doesn’t reconcile with that, so you’re obligated to go with what is already known about the man from his years in office. In fact, I would be surprised, stemming from this if other members of the Bush Administration pop up and start doing a little chatting of their own, “correcting” the record.
The Unknown Known is a shitty documentary about a shitty man’s time in power. Even the title tips its hat to a perceived cleverness that just doesn’t exist in the movie itself. Men who have held great power are always going to come out of the woodwork and try to galvanize their legacy. It takes even greater men to humble them and show us how mortal they really are and have paved the road to their legacy with a great many mistakes. It’s going to take a lot more than Errol Morris’ cheeky barbs to clip Rumsfeld’s wings.
Final Verdict: Pass!
The Big Takeaway: Donald Rumsfeld narrates a documentary on his life in public office.
The Little Takeaway: A waste of time. The two men participating in a masturbatory game of “cat-and-also-cat” is never going to make as compelling a documentary as they think. This movie will please no one with any political bent.
At the end of the movie Donald Rumsfeld flatly says “I think you’re chasing the wrong rabbit.” And he’s right. I suppose director Errol Morris thought he might have something when he got Rumsfeld to agree to sit down and chat about his life, both private and public. To be fair, the first half-hour or so of the movie is indeed interesting, if not a little bit flat and uninformative as to how his circumstances developed Rumsfeld as a person. But that’s fine, you find Rumsfeld himself to be engaging and fun. As the film wears on, however, you begin to see just how utterly false, condescending and a tad horrifying that same posture becomes.
Immediately for me, as is no surprise, Rumsfeld reminded me of all the things I absolutely loathed about the Bush administration. The Frank Lutz-tization of vocabulary (it’s not torture it’s “advanced interrogation tactics” for example), that somehow people were making decisions but no one was taking theme blame. The sinister incompetence that seemed to infest the entire administration is on display in this film in fits and bursts. If you didn’t love the Bush years, this movie isn’t going to change your mind one bit.
But what if you’re one of those conservatives that thought W. was just one of the greatest presidents ever? Well, you’ll find nothing here really either. Rumsfeld himself seems uninterested in celebrating anything he did as secretary of defense, and rightfully so. All he really do was execute our nation getting in to two needles wars. Time and time again he repeats that history will ultimately decide if the administrations actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were wise. In addition to that, I don’t think we’ll need THAT much time to know what an utter failure the Bush administration was.
For a man that was so effusive with memo writing Rumsfeld doesn’t say much. The film time and time again touches on this notion of these myriad of memos resembling a blizzard. As the memos came be known as “snowflakes”. It’s through these memos that the bulk of the narrative heft is laid. You find out how Rumsfeld ran the Pentagon, how he dealt with his peers, and so on. He also narrates these memos, but never elucidates on them, believing them to speak for themselves.
Therein lies the problem: a documentary is only as good as the topic its covering. Rumsfeld is a shitty topic, and therefore the movie suffers for it. It’s not a bad film, per se, but by hanging it’s hat on Rumsfeld, it falls way short of anything approaching a compelling documentary. It’s just masturbatory and you get the notion that Morris thinks he’s doing more than what appears on the screen.
But you’d be hard pressed to find either Morris or Rumsfeld disagreeing with that notion. From time to time in the movie you can hear Morris’ voice pipe up with incredulity at something Rumsfeld says, or asking him to expound on something. He does the old trick of having the interviewee say something, then contradicting it with facts or figures to the contrary. And this being Rumsfeld, there is plenty of material. You have to wonder if it's a conscious choice on the part of Morris, or he just had so little to go on from Rumsfeld, he had to pad out the movie with this cliche garbage.
You get the idea that Morris thinks he’s playing a game of cat-and-mouse with Rumsfeld. But Rumsfeld is masterful at this kind of bullshit. The only time he shows any emotion is when he relates the story of visiting a soldier clinging to life at Walter Reed. He get teary-eyed, and that’s about it. The rest of the movie’s running time is Rumsfeld and his toothy-grin dodging questions and passing blame around to anyone else but himself.
It’s clear that Rumsfeld is doing a bit of legacy clean-up, which is why he chose to do this movie. On top of that you can palpably feel the arrogance and narcissism dictating that he do this film as well. But for all the effusiveness of the memos, his presence in the film doesn’t reconcile with that, so you’re obligated to go with what is already known about the man from his years in office. In fact, I would be surprised, stemming from this if other members of the Bush Administration pop up and start doing a little chatting of their own, “correcting” the record.
The Unknown Known is a shitty documentary about a shitty man’s time in power. Even the title tips its hat to a perceived cleverness that just doesn’t exist in the movie itself. Men who have held great power are always going to come out of the woodwork and try to galvanize their legacy. It takes even greater men to humble them and show us how mortal they really are and have paved the road to their legacy with a great many mistakes. It’s going to take a lot more than Errol Morris’ cheeky barbs to clip Rumsfeld’s wings.
Final Verdict: Pass!
Monday, April 7, 2014
With Friends Like These: Your Good Friend Kathleen Parker!
First, read this.
Now that you’re done, hopefully, you are somewhat saddened at just how bad things are going to get for our political system. It’s awful enough our pundit class is out of touch, it’s quite another when they’re just out and out defending the poisoning of our government. The cherry on top, well and the sprinkles to, shaming someone for speaking the truth.
I’m not surprised that Shithead Hall of Fame® Inductee™ Kathleen Parker wrote this in the slightest. I imagine that she’s currently giddily standing by her mailbox waiting for a fat paycheck from the Koch brothers, or more like, their myriad of subsidiaries, fists clinched, with a shit eating grin on her face. She’s hoping attached the check is a letter of thanks, and that the envelope is perfumed with the scent of money.
I think my favorite part of the article is near the beginning when she name drops the Koch brothers and then adds: “Who? Exactly.” Now, I’m not saying the Koch brothers are a fully known quantity, but they are known. Maybe not known is that they’re pouring vast amounts of their wealth in to right-wing think tanks and political action committees, and have essentially wrestled away one house of congress from the American people. But they’re known.
Ms. Parker nuzzles up to her corporate masters with the tried and true “they’re job creators”: what with noting that they employ a mere 60,000 people. Truly, and they are using their wealth for good: “they are spending gobs of their own money to sway politics toward free-market principles and away from current government expansionist trends.” Yeah, we’re not even in to the body of her “article” and this is the table she is setting.
What I enjoy more is the notion that she thinks Harry Reid “broke protocol” by calling out the Koch brothers and then labeling them “un-American”. It’s hyperbolic, to be sure, but the bigger news should be that at least ONE democrat is finally punching back with nonsense of his own!
I mean seriously, for over a decade we’ve had to listen to GOP/right-wing stooges assert all kinds of insanity and accuse myriads of people of all manner of things. We don’t even bat an eye anymore at someone calling Obama a tyrannical ruler. That’s on both sides of the aisles in this beautiful thing we call the “false equivalency”. Which Ms. Parker uses with a cudgel like grace throughout her Koch brothers commercial.
But her assertion that Democrats are trying to make the Koch brothers the “face” of the Republican party is wrong. You can’t make something that’s so apparently true. And while the Koch brothers may never be the “face” of the GOP/right-wing they are now the driving force behind the party, the “id” for lack of a better word. More to the point they continue to be the dank, dark underbelly of the whole party.
The cudgel of false equivalency swings wildly when Ms. Parker notes that “liberal commentators” are frequently admonishing the Koch brothers. Funnily enough, the article on her website links to a Washington Post (well played Washington Post Opinion Columnist Ms. Parker) piece about Rachel Maddow going after the Koch brothers on a near nightly basis. So…just a singular liberal commentator then? She asserts that although they aren’t nearly as powerful as Rush Limbaugh, they still have large followings. Enough so that they’ve shone a bright light on those dastardly Koch brothers…which "no one has heard of"? The Kathleen Parker amounts of horseshit that this article is, is indeed confounding.
To call what Harry Reid said as “McCarthyesque” is laughable. If there was indeed any stakes in calling a monolith such as the Koch brothers “un-American” it would be one thing. You can’t blacklist and ruin someone who’s already won. With limits on campaign financing essentially rendered moot by the United States Supreme Court, elections are now ONLY for the highest bidder. Running for political office was financially untenable already. It seems that now running for office means you’ll have to get corporate sponsorship, not unlike another red state favored past time: NASCAR.
Ms. Parker’s flip-flopping in this article is dizzying as she tries to stick the landing on her commercial. She laments that indeed having the super-wealthy “influence” political outcomes, the bigger issue is name calling? That one senator calling out one monolith is somehow the slippery slope that will lead to “A Senate committee investigating such un-American activities as advocating free-market principles or pursuing capitalist endeavors?” is ridiculous. But Ms. Parker assumes that this already has. She is beyond stupid.
The cherry on top? She finishes her “article” with this: “Yes, it was bad when right-wingers called Obama un-American, but Obama is the most powerful man in the world and the rabble is just that. Reid owes the Kochs — and the American people — an apology.” No, no he doesn’t. Obama isn’t going to be in power forever. The Koch brothers aren’t suddenly going to lose billions of dollars or influence any time soon. The foothold they currently have on the political system is just a start. With friends like these in the pundit class, for those like Kathleen Parker who asserts that she is “center-right” (like most of America), the American people ought to be really afraid for the future.
Now that you’re done, hopefully, you are somewhat saddened at just how bad things are going to get for our political system. It’s awful enough our pundit class is out of touch, it’s quite another when they’re just out and out defending the poisoning of our government. The cherry on top, well and the sprinkles to, shaming someone for speaking the truth.
I’m not surprised that Shithead Hall of Fame® Inductee™ Kathleen Parker wrote this in the slightest. I imagine that she’s currently giddily standing by her mailbox waiting for a fat paycheck from the Koch brothers, or more like, their myriad of subsidiaries, fists clinched, with a shit eating grin on her face. She’s hoping attached the check is a letter of thanks, and that the envelope is perfumed with the scent of money.
I think my favorite part of the article is near the beginning when she name drops the Koch brothers and then adds: “Who? Exactly.” Now, I’m not saying the Koch brothers are a fully known quantity, but they are known. Maybe not known is that they’re pouring vast amounts of their wealth in to right-wing think tanks and political action committees, and have essentially wrestled away one house of congress from the American people. But they’re known.
Ms. Parker nuzzles up to her corporate masters with the tried and true “they’re job creators”: what with noting that they employ a mere 60,000 people. Truly, and they are using their wealth for good: “they are spending gobs of their own money to sway politics toward free-market principles and away from current government expansionist trends.” Yeah, we’re not even in to the body of her “article” and this is the table she is setting.
What I enjoy more is the notion that she thinks Harry Reid “broke protocol” by calling out the Koch brothers and then labeling them “un-American”. It’s hyperbolic, to be sure, but the bigger news should be that at least ONE democrat is finally punching back with nonsense of his own!
I mean seriously, for over a decade we’ve had to listen to GOP/right-wing stooges assert all kinds of insanity and accuse myriads of people of all manner of things. We don’t even bat an eye anymore at someone calling Obama a tyrannical ruler. That’s on both sides of the aisles in this beautiful thing we call the “false equivalency”. Which Ms. Parker uses with a cudgel like grace throughout her Koch brothers commercial.
But her assertion that Democrats are trying to make the Koch brothers the “face” of the Republican party is wrong. You can’t make something that’s so apparently true. And while the Koch brothers may never be the “face” of the GOP/right-wing they are now the driving force behind the party, the “id” for lack of a better word. More to the point they continue to be the dank, dark underbelly of the whole party.
The cudgel of false equivalency swings wildly when Ms. Parker notes that “liberal commentators” are frequently admonishing the Koch brothers. Funnily enough, the article on her website links to a Washington Post (well played Washington Post Opinion Columnist Ms. Parker) piece about Rachel Maddow going after the Koch brothers on a near nightly basis. So…just a singular liberal commentator then? She asserts that although they aren’t nearly as powerful as Rush Limbaugh, they still have large followings. Enough so that they’ve shone a bright light on those dastardly Koch brothers…which "no one has heard of"? The Kathleen Parker amounts of horseshit that this article is, is indeed confounding.
To call what Harry Reid said as “McCarthyesque” is laughable. If there was indeed any stakes in calling a monolith such as the Koch brothers “un-American” it would be one thing. You can’t blacklist and ruin someone who’s already won. With limits on campaign financing essentially rendered moot by the United States Supreme Court, elections are now ONLY for the highest bidder. Running for political office was financially untenable already. It seems that now running for office means you’ll have to get corporate sponsorship, not unlike another red state favored past time: NASCAR.
Ms. Parker’s flip-flopping in this article is dizzying as she tries to stick the landing on her commercial. She laments that indeed having the super-wealthy “influence” political outcomes, the bigger issue is name calling? That one senator calling out one monolith is somehow the slippery slope that will lead to “A Senate committee investigating such un-American activities as advocating free-market principles or pursuing capitalist endeavors?” is ridiculous. But Ms. Parker assumes that this already has. She is beyond stupid.
The cherry on top? She finishes her “article” with this: “Yes, it was bad when right-wingers called Obama un-American, but Obama is the most powerful man in the world and the rabble is just that. Reid owes the Kochs — and the American people — an apology.” No, no he doesn’t. Obama isn’t going to be in power forever. The Koch brothers aren’t suddenly going to lose billions of dollars or influence any time soon. The foothold they currently have on the political system is just a start. With friends like these in the pundit class, for those like Kathleen Parker who asserts that she is “center-right” (like most of America), the American people ought to be really afraid for the future.
Monday, March 17, 2014
CPAC Happened? When?
So, the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) happened not to long ago. What’s that? You didn’t read much about it either? That’s odd. You’d think that magical time of year where the GOP and the right-wing get together to somehow figure out how to turn their electoral fortunes around would get a bit more ink, especially amongst the pundit class. All I really saw was an article from Cal Thomas saying he saw a Stormtrooper and Chewbacca at CPAC, and Michael “I’m The Truest Real” Reagan talked about how Rand Paul is the future of the republican party because he's not a Ted Cruz level of asshole.
At least Mr. Reagan get’s it, somewhat. The GOP right-wing really need to find a mainstream candidate. They’re not going to find it at CPAC, however much they want it. And from the little coverage I saw of it, that’s probably for the best. The Paul’s: both Rand and Ron are nothing more than wishful thinking amongst the most right of the right-wing. This fantasy that Libertarianism somehow is of “The Internets” and that those young people amongst it will be enough to turn the tides in a general election is laughable. What’s more, the republican party will never open up the tent wide enough for Libertarians and their candidates.
Ted Cruz, one of the presumptive clowns for the Republican Presidential Candidate Clown Car Rally, had some harsh things to say about John McCain, Bob Dole and Mitt Romney. Harsh isn’t the word I would use, and to be fair Cruz just repeated the talking point that came in the wake of the 2014 election: the candidate wasn’t “conservative” enough. Of course Dole and McCain came out and grandpa grumbled about their conservative bonafides, and more or less did show that the republican party does have a real issue: old white men that won’t go away.
The GOP/right-wing could embrace populism more effectively if they were constantly having to appease old farts that still feel a need to say something. Of course, Cruz’s comment were meant to rankle, he even did the whole “These men are great men, but come on…” preamble before he dropped the “not conservative” enough haymaker on them. But Ted Cruz isn’t a populist candidate either. Perhaps, and given enough time, when the TEA Party slowly erodes the GOP, he could establish himself as mainstream. But for now, he and his patriots are just reeking havoc on an already shaky political party.
To two grand dames of the TEA Party, Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin, showed up to…what were they doing? It seems more and more every year that these two just show up and say nothing, look pretty, and have people yell “Run For President”. Because that’s what the GOP/right-wing needs right now, people mired in controversy and blatant hypocrisy.
Even this column mentions the subdued nature of the CPAC this year, noting that it’s an off year election and that the major juice from the TEA Party Patriots of old has begun to diminish. Also mentioned is a lack of a defined leader to coalesce the party around. This is indeed a real issues the GOP/right-wing is having right now, and from the looks of CPAC this isn’t going to be remedied ANY time soon. I’m come on, Rand Paul won the straw poll!
It’s sad that nearly two years after they lost the presidential election to that rascally Obama that the GOP/right-wing can’t get their shit together as a party. It’s as if they had marginal success with one thing, the “Pelosi-Obama-Reid-Obamacare” tactic in 2010, and now have little else to work with. The fact that the Thomas and Reagan articles both mention a new tact to take should speak volumes to the actual problems the republican party is having. But it’s been the same song and dance since the election, when ol’ Mitt Romney just “wasn’t conservative” enough.
You have to wonder why the GOP/right-wing doesn’t change their message. They have to see that after four years the “Obamacare is gonna get you!” isn’t really working. Even with the faulty start and odd implementation of the program, it didn’t prevent Obama from being re-elected and the democrats were poised to lose seats in both houses of congress anyways. With the further splintering of the electorate the stakes have never been lower, and it’s odd to see the GOP/right-wing really struggle with a clear message at this point.
At least Mr. Reagan get’s it, somewhat. The GOP right-wing really need to find a mainstream candidate. They’re not going to find it at CPAC, however much they want it. And from the little coverage I saw of it, that’s probably for the best. The Paul’s: both Rand and Ron are nothing more than wishful thinking amongst the most right of the right-wing. This fantasy that Libertarianism somehow is of “The Internets” and that those young people amongst it will be enough to turn the tides in a general election is laughable. What’s more, the republican party will never open up the tent wide enough for Libertarians and their candidates.
Ted Cruz, one of the presumptive clowns for the Republican Presidential Candidate Clown Car Rally, had some harsh things to say about John McCain, Bob Dole and Mitt Romney. Harsh isn’t the word I would use, and to be fair Cruz just repeated the talking point that came in the wake of the 2014 election: the candidate wasn’t “conservative” enough. Of course Dole and McCain came out and grandpa grumbled about their conservative bonafides, and more or less did show that the republican party does have a real issue: old white men that won’t go away.
The GOP/right-wing could embrace populism more effectively if they were constantly having to appease old farts that still feel a need to say something. Of course, Cruz’s comment were meant to rankle, he even did the whole “These men are great men, but come on…” preamble before he dropped the “not conservative” enough haymaker on them. But Ted Cruz isn’t a populist candidate either. Perhaps, and given enough time, when the TEA Party slowly erodes the GOP, he could establish himself as mainstream. But for now, he and his patriots are just reeking havoc on an already shaky political party.
To two grand dames of the TEA Party, Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin, showed up to…what were they doing? It seems more and more every year that these two just show up and say nothing, look pretty, and have people yell “Run For President”. Because that’s what the GOP/right-wing needs right now, people mired in controversy and blatant hypocrisy.
Even this column mentions the subdued nature of the CPAC this year, noting that it’s an off year election and that the major juice from the TEA Party Patriots of old has begun to diminish. Also mentioned is a lack of a defined leader to coalesce the party around. This is indeed a real issues the GOP/right-wing is having right now, and from the looks of CPAC this isn’t going to be remedied ANY time soon. I’m come on, Rand Paul won the straw poll!
It’s sad that nearly two years after they lost the presidential election to that rascally Obama that the GOP/right-wing can’t get their shit together as a party. It’s as if they had marginal success with one thing, the “Pelosi-Obama-Reid-Obamacare” tactic in 2010, and now have little else to work with. The fact that the Thomas and Reagan articles both mention a new tact to take should speak volumes to the actual problems the republican party is having. But it’s been the same song and dance since the election, when ol’ Mitt Romney just “wasn’t conservative” enough.
You have to wonder why the GOP/right-wing doesn’t change their message. They have to see that after four years the “Obamacare is gonna get you!” isn’t really working. Even with the faulty start and odd implementation of the program, it didn’t prevent Obama from being re-elected and the democrats were poised to lose seats in both houses of congress anyways. With the further splintering of the electorate the stakes have never been lower, and it’s odd to see the GOP/right-wing really struggle with a clear message at this point.
Monday, March 3, 2014
TEA Party Hair of the Dog with Michael Gerson
A few things happened recently that went under reported. One, president Obama signed a debt limit increase. Two, the TEA Party celebrated it’s fifth birthday as a “grassroots” political organization. I say under reported because they’re both non news, but they are important in the run up to this years midterm elections. The GOP thinks it’s going to capture the Senate this fall, mostly on the back of Obamacare’s implementation and Democratic Party implosion. They couldn’t be more mistaken, but crazier things have happened.
But why the sudden change in tenor from the GOP right-wing? Why wasn’t there the usual Republican so and so on cable news networks screaming that the world was ending and sliding down the slippery slop of socialism as decreed by the almighty King Obama? Why is the TEA Party’s birthday marginalized to the back of the paper as a “Oh yeah, this happened”? Well, mostly because the GOP wants to win this midterm election really, really bad.
Of all the articles to pick about this fresh face emerging within the GOP, I chose Michael Gerson. He’s just your run-of-the-mill middle-aged white man that writes benign political opinion for the Washington Post. His interpretation is pretty comical, and you have to wonder if Mr. Gerson understands the mercenary animal that is a political party backed in to a corner.
First off, the hangover analogy isn’t very apt. The TEA Party has become part of the GOP, just like the evangelicals. The GOP needs all the voter bloc they have scared up in ensuring decades to pad out their old white men element that’s dying off on them. To be fair, there is a LOT of overlap between TEA Party and evangelicals, so the 2010 electoral shot in the arm of true patriots may have been a bit muddy.
This pure and faith based faux ideology is what Mr. Gerson says made the GOP right-wing start pulling away from the crazies in the party. Mentioning a recent outburst from Ted Nugent, Mr. Gerson surmises that since the ideology of the party is “faith and morality” they HAVE to pull away from old Uncle Ted, who was using “dehumanizing” language or else they look bad. So, he’s at least on point there.
But the GOP right-wing won’t pull TOO far away, as they need those thinly veiled racists to come out to the polls and vote against Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Obamacare-Abortion-They’reGonnaTakeYerGuns. In this desperate grab for the Senate they believe they can do without those who would typically come out to vote for a republican. Mr. Gerson agrees to as much when he states that the majority of republicans still identify with the TEA Party ideology.
Also worth noting is this notion that many right-wing pundits have been parroting lately: populism. I about lost my mind when I read George Will espouse it in a recent column, and of course it finds itself here in an also ran Michael Gerson column. Problem is, the GOP right-wing is totally going to take the wrong “lessons” from this recent turn of events. And I’m fairly uncertain that even though the TEA Party birthday was still marginalized, that they aren’t a potent force.
The reason I say this is because Ted Cruz spoke at the D.C. birthday bash, as did other TEA Party congress people. Ted Cruz is hoping to save a bit of face after imploding the GOP right-wing last fall with his buffoonish filibuster. Mr. Gerson seems to think the Cruz debacle was a liberating moment for the GOP, which in a way, it was. The GOP right-wing could very well send him down river under the notion that he was the old, crazy, racist, bigoted GOP right-wing. This 2014 on forward GOP is your real friend, no…neighbor, who just lives up the street in that shining city on a hill.
But the notion that Mr. Gerson provides in the populist choices that the GOP right-wing has to make is laughable: “Do they want to be identified with the tactics of Ted Cruz? Or do they want to give the populist backlash that Obama has provoked a positive governing purpose on issues from health care to education to economic mobility?” Problem is they are ALREADY identified by Ted Cruz tactics, see every recent debt limit increase, house Obamacare repeal, and so on since Obama entered office. It’s a false choice. The other choice? Give me a break! In order to capitalize on the “populist backlash” they need workable ideas. I’ve already written about some of those ideas at length. They aren’t hiding something super awesome up their sleeve that’s just going to blow independent voters minds.
To end his column Mr. Gerson sticks to the talking points memo: liberalism is in a state of disrepair…because of Obamacare? I’m curious to see if and when the GOP right-wing unleash their healthcare plan if it’s going to work minute one of implementation? That they will find no barriers to enacting the law, and that everyone will gladly accept it with open arms. This is assuming that the GOP right-wing as a whole decides to repeal Obamacare, which many have said is easier said then done. Aside from that, the independents aren’t going to be swayed because Obamacare failed, seeing as that isn’t really an issue to them. A more pressing issue to them has been and will always be the economy.
What’s more, the vast majority of independents are former republicans that have been repulsed by what the TEA Party has done to the GOP. The notion Mr. Gerson lays out is that the GOP right-wing must embrace populism to get votes has never been more apt. But it’s going to take a long, long time before the GOP shakes it’s “scary” elements that are disenfranchising voters and chiefly independents. And you can bet that if the GOP fails to grab the senate this fall, they’ll be more than happy to have that TEA Party hair of the dog to keep the party going to 2016.
But why the sudden change in tenor from the GOP right-wing? Why wasn’t there the usual Republican so and so on cable news networks screaming that the world was ending and sliding down the slippery slop of socialism as decreed by the almighty King Obama? Why is the TEA Party’s birthday marginalized to the back of the paper as a “Oh yeah, this happened”? Well, mostly because the GOP wants to win this midterm election really, really bad.
Of all the articles to pick about this fresh face emerging within the GOP, I chose Michael Gerson. He’s just your run-of-the-mill middle-aged white man that writes benign political opinion for the Washington Post. His interpretation is pretty comical, and you have to wonder if Mr. Gerson understands the mercenary animal that is a political party backed in to a corner.
First off, the hangover analogy isn’t very apt. The TEA Party has become part of the GOP, just like the evangelicals. The GOP needs all the voter bloc they have scared up in ensuring decades to pad out their old white men element that’s dying off on them. To be fair, there is a LOT of overlap between TEA Party and evangelicals, so the 2010 electoral shot in the arm of true patriots may have been a bit muddy.
This pure and faith based faux ideology is what Mr. Gerson says made the GOP right-wing start pulling away from the crazies in the party. Mentioning a recent outburst from Ted Nugent, Mr. Gerson surmises that since the ideology of the party is “faith and morality” they HAVE to pull away from old Uncle Ted, who was using “dehumanizing” language or else they look bad. So, he’s at least on point there.
But the GOP right-wing won’t pull TOO far away, as they need those thinly veiled racists to come out to the polls and vote against Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Obamacare-Abortion-They’reGonnaTakeYerGuns. In this desperate grab for the Senate they believe they can do without those who would typically come out to vote for a republican. Mr. Gerson agrees to as much when he states that the majority of republicans still identify with the TEA Party ideology.
Also worth noting is this notion that many right-wing pundits have been parroting lately: populism. I about lost my mind when I read George Will espouse it in a recent column, and of course it finds itself here in an also ran Michael Gerson column. Problem is, the GOP right-wing is totally going to take the wrong “lessons” from this recent turn of events. And I’m fairly uncertain that even though the TEA Party birthday was still marginalized, that they aren’t a potent force.
The reason I say this is because Ted Cruz spoke at the D.C. birthday bash, as did other TEA Party congress people. Ted Cruz is hoping to save a bit of face after imploding the GOP right-wing last fall with his buffoonish filibuster. Mr. Gerson seems to think the Cruz debacle was a liberating moment for the GOP, which in a way, it was. The GOP right-wing could very well send him down river under the notion that he was the old, crazy, racist, bigoted GOP right-wing. This 2014 on forward GOP is your real friend, no…neighbor, who just lives up the street in that shining city on a hill.
But the notion that Mr. Gerson provides in the populist choices that the GOP right-wing has to make is laughable: “Do they want to be identified with the tactics of Ted Cruz? Or do they want to give the populist backlash that Obama has provoked a positive governing purpose on issues from health care to education to economic mobility?” Problem is they are ALREADY identified by Ted Cruz tactics, see every recent debt limit increase, house Obamacare repeal, and so on since Obama entered office. It’s a false choice. The other choice? Give me a break! In order to capitalize on the “populist backlash” they need workable ideas. I’ve already written about some of those ideas at length. They aren’t hiding something super awesome up their sleeve that’s just going to blow independent voters minds.
To end his column Mr. Gerson sticks to the talking points memo: liberalism is in a state of disrepair…because of Obamacare? I’m curious to see if and when the GOP right-wing unleash their healthcare plan if it’s going to work minute one of implementation? That they will find no barriers to enacting the law, and that everyone will gladly accept it with open arms. This is assuming that the GOP right-wing as a whole decides to repeal Obamacare, which many have said is easier said then done. Aside from that, the independents aren’t going to be swayed because Obamacare failed, seeing as that isn’t really an issue to them. A more pressing issue to them has been and will always be the economy.
What’s more, the vast majority of independents are former republicans that have been repulsed by what the TEA Party has done to the GOP. The notion Mr. Gerson lays out is that the GOP right-wing must embrace populism to get votes has never been more apt. But it’s going to take a long, long time before the GOP shakes it’s “scary” elements that are disenfranchising voters and chiefly independents. And you can bet that if the GOP fails to grab the senate this fall, they’ll be more than happy to have that TEA Party hair of the dog to keep the party going to 2016.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)