Dana Milbank, Washington Post:
There was one candidate who rose above the usual positioning, though she stood a head shorter than the six men on the stage. Eleven minutes into the debate, Michele Bachmann stole the show, and she didn’t return it in the subsequent hour and 49 minutes.
Based on Monday night alone, Bachmann was the one who emerged as the anti-Romney from the otherwise drab field. That is supposed to delight Romney’s advisers, who see her as less viable than the more accomplished Pawlenty. But while Pawlenty on Monday was canned and meek – he doggedly resisted repeating his earlier “Obamneycare” criticism of Romney – Bachmann displayed a powerful appeal to the Tea-Party types who dominate Republican primaries.
She served Tea Partyers all their favorites: “I want to announce tonight President Obama is a one-term president. . . . I will not rest until I repeal Obamacare. . . . There is no other agency like the EPA. It should really be renamed the job-killing organization of America. . . . I fought behind closed doors against my own party on TARP.”
[…]
The scene in the “spin room” after the debate told the story of her triumph. For the first 25 minutes, there were no campaign surrogates in evidence from the Gingrich campaign (after last week’s staff mutiny, his two main surrogates were his daughters, who thought he was “great.”) Same with the Pawlenty campaign, which finally produced campaign manager Nick Ayers (who complained about the moderator’s questions on “Obamneycare,” claiming “CNN, for ratings purposes, wanted a good spat to report on.”).
Romney’s surrogates were trying to find news in their candidate’s make-no-news performance (“he won over a lot of voters in New Hampshire when he announced the Bruins were ahead,” said state Sen. Jeb Bradley).
But more reporters were crowding around Bachmann’s advisers. “We saw the entrance this evening of a candidate who deserves to be here,” Republican pollster Ed Goeas announced. “When you wake up tomorrow morning. . . you’re going to find out Michele Bachmann is driving the debate.”
Now, Rush Limbaugh is dubious about what I’m about to say, but I’m going to (re)assert it anyway (I mentioned it briefly last evening in a comment) — and do so with a degree of certitude greater than that of Anthony Weiner’s recognition of his own pedestrian, briefs-wrapped package: Bachmann is being elevated at this juncture by the mainstream press as (they hope) a way to persuade Sarah Palin not to enter the race — the idea being that the two women, both TEA Party favorites, are so similar that it makes little sense for Palin to join in and compete with Bachmann for primary votes.
Before last night, Bachmann was routinely painted as yet another extremist kook, the latest in a long line of silly buffoonish right-wing scolds who had no business taking center stage in the political arena, what with her twang and her crazy eyes — with the fact that she occasionally did, and had gained a good deal of support among TEA Party types, used as proof of her inherent racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic godbothering nefariousness.
But we’re to suddenly believe that last night’s performance — which while certainly as competent as the others on the stage, wasn’t in any way a blow-away showing — has catapulted her into mainstream media respectability, with a newly discovered “seriousness” the press had heretofore not recognized?
Yeah, right. Tickle my other one.
I’d readily support Bachmann, whom I believe to be quite solid on legal conservative issues. And I suspect many other classical liberals would back her, as well. But the sole reason, in my opinion, that leftist hacks like Milbank, or Kevin Drum, or ABC news are peddling Bachmann, is that they believe her elevation keeps Palin out — and they have recently discovered that Palin, using her reality TV money, is capable of going around them to get her message out, and to make them look foolish in their aims to finally finish her off.
I know some on the right believe the left doesn’t fear Palin at all. Those people are wrong.
When the media is fawning over Bachmann while at the same time “conservative” David Frum is informing us that Obama doesn’t have a bit to worry about from the current field of GOP candidates — hell, what’s 10% unemployment, a crashing dollar, and mind-boggling debt, when the choice is between someone as sophisticated as Obama, and the pedestrian likes of Tim Pawlenty, eg.? — someone is framing a new narrative.
And some of us know just what that is.
****
update: As if on cue.
What’s wrong with a new, more civil tone? Can’t we all just get along?
The Press is just being nice to Bachmann, the way they were nice to McCain in ’08. Nice until McCain secured the Republican nomination, I mean.
MSM = LRP (Lather Rinse Repeat)
LRP Network, where the joke is on you.
They also enjoy building up in order to tear down.
“Obamney” That’s clever. Hope it sticks.
Heard Dennis Miller this morning quoting what someone else said in relation to Palin and the election.
My paraphrase;
Whoever the Republican choice is that person does not so much have to defeat Obama, as they have to defeat the media, and Palin has already proven her ability to do that.
Bachmann’s sudden maturity is indeed a remarkable thing to behold. So will her destruction. My guess is that if she gets to the head of the pack, someone asks her to explain her (presumptive) support for capital punishment while being opposed to abortion and it’ll be off to the races in terms of bashing her for lord knows what.
Palin’s entrance, to that end, would force some reckoning upon these sorts. If Bachmann is all that for embracing Tea Party ideals, per Milbank, wouldn’t Palin be “double plus all that,” or something similar?
Here’s what’s going to happen next year:
Palin is going to enter the race, win the primary, then take the election in a Reaganesque landslide.
There.
Now, for the love of God, can we get please back to talking about Anthony Weiner?
The capital punishment versus abortion question is easily answered. What’s not easy is having enough nerve to give an honest and straightforward answer.
We have a MBM that has demonstrably elevated the candidate they want to run against (McCain, for instance, as the General said above). Any praise from the left-wing media needs to be taken not at face value, but with respect to what they are trying to accomplish. I didn’t see the debate, but many here did and pronounced her performance as “meh” so I will go with that, with the proviso that she apparently wasn’t treated as a serious candidate (then again, were any of them?).
Since they are so afraid of Palin, it makes me think that they believe she can overcome her negatives, many of which have been beaten into the popular brain by selective reporting and sheer repetition. That tends to make me believe it’s possible. I’m not sure what other conclusions we can reach from the MBM’s and beltway GOP pundit’s behavior.
Because protecting the innocent vs. punishing the guilty is such a difficult concept to convey to the lumpenproletariate (a majority of whom share the same principles.)
Here’s more evidence of what Jeff describes.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/debate-swings-door-open-for-perry-closed-for-palin/
Stick a fork in Palin, because her best friends in the media say she’s done.
A baby has the right to prove he or she will be an acceptable member of society. A criminal who has proven he (mostly) is not such a person has given up his right to live.
I meant the “mostly” in reference to the sex of the offender, not his crime(s).
Are there really people who don’t get this?
Other than the fucking idiots who call themselves “journalists,” I mean?
I suspect Jeff also did not take into account that Milbank, who is under perpetual fire for being transparently hostile to the GOP (let alone Conservatives), simply needed to throw a marker into that camp. He has to write all the time, so throwing the far-right a bone is good business. It’ll bring some leaks his way from other candidate’s staffers anxious to get some press and, as noted by all above, makes it easy for him to shoot at her later on.
13. You know I was crafting a hypothetical, right? It was, and remains, the easiest way to get a pro-lifer back on their heels at a press conference.
What I expect from Bachmann.
While not a complete list, and with unnecessary elements elsewhere, all of these requests are sensible and desirable. The problem is that most of them are utterly incompatible with the left’s Establishment, and a couple are potentially acceptable to that Establishment only as quaint contrivances fit for snickering.
Short version: JHo pessimistic she not be destroyed asap.
“The more I see of men, the more I like dogs.”
Jeff took that into account. But Jeff quickly realized that were that asserted as the main reason behind this column, Jeff would have to question the timing.
quaint contrivances fit for snickering.
Like comparing capital punishment to abortion?
The capital punishment vs abortion question can only put you on your heels if you let it.
There appears there will never be a need to command Milbank to assume the position, it being his perpetual habit to remain bent over ankle grabbing.
I think you are right on this one Jeff. I heard Gereghty quipped that he was waiting for the debate finale last night when Palin’s tour bus crashed through the back of the set and she took over.
That said, Bachman did okay last night on her own. It is the spin the day after that is being massaged and manufactured.
“It’ll bring some leaks his way from other candidate’s staffers anxious to get some press and, as noted by all above, makes it easy for him to shoot at her later on.”
Yes, spot on. Like eager puppies they will bring him bits and pieces to run – and life will be good for him. Gah.
Yeah. It packs as much real punch as the “Can God make a burrito so large that even He can’t lift it?”-type question.
What a difference 5 months makes.
Only if he’s a bigger idiot that whoever asked the fucking idiotic question.
I’ve come to think that only Rick Perry can save us from Romney.
Bachmann can’t win (I don’t think, but not that I’ll obstruct her) the republican nomination. Screw the general.
These are the people who nominated McCain you know.
To the extent that this dubious proposition is a problem for pro-life conservatives, (and if it is, it’d be nice to see an example of it causing a conservative pol problems) I imagine that it’s the support for capital punishment that trips up “pro-lifers” (in quotes to show that this is a media generated faux-problem); and then only if they’re Catholic pols more poorly catechized than this non-Catholic.
The correct answer is the pro-death penalty Catholics are right for the reasons the anti-life Catholics wrongly use to justify their support for abortion.
I mean seriously, why not turn this around? How is it that murderous scum have more protection than the unborn? Maybe sometime, somebody could ask a pro-abortion, anti death-penalty pol to explain how that works.
I think Romney will run into the same problem he ran into last time, namely that all the other candidates hate Romney.
A slightly difference take would be that this build up is to convince Bachmann that the hiring of Ed Rollins is working miracles and that he should be given the green light to go after Palin. Hard.
This would provide many more column inches of the type that sell papers and eyeballs. Especially if Palin does run, but even if she doesn’t and they can provoke a real, or not but reported as real, cat-fight. Liberal reporters are crying out for some hot girl-on-girl action. Just think of the possibilities.
Related items:
It was BS about Lady Thatcher snubbing Palin:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100092054/margaret-thatcher-did-not-%E2%80%98snub%E2%80%99-sarah-palin-the-truth-about-the-iron-lady-and-the-former-governor-of-alaska/
And Frum spins. http://www.frumforum.com/pawlenty-debate-biggest-loser Now I thought Pawlenty did not help himself last night (and so did Barone), but do you think Frum has his own agenda (beyond fair reporting)?
Ernst, well yes. I see that. But it’s an example of a genus of marvelously hacky questions that like the older, hackier “What’s the price of a gallon of milk?” that always trip pols up and “shows” them to be out of touch. There is probably a similar one you could ask a liberal to get them to stammer about affirmative action or higher taxes.
They are rallying behind Bachman for the same reason they rallied behind McCain in 08: they figure her to be the easiest to campaign against in the general election.
I like Palin for a multitude of reasons, but far and away the biggest one is this: my “betters” tell me I shouldn’t like her. That tells me that all the right sort (that is, the wrong sort) of people fear her.
I’ve come to think that only Rick Perry can save us from Romney.
this thought keeps crossing my mind as well
Perry/Rubio would be a nifty little ticket I guess, inasmuch as beggars can’t be choosers.
The idea that Michelle Bachmann crowds Palin out of the race is so unbelievably laughable that I can barely stand it.
Completely preposterous and ridiculous. Palin could get in the race in January and seriously threaten to take the nomination and frankly I don’t think Bachmann would even register on the needle of vote totals against Palin.
Which is not to say I don’t like Bachmann – I do. But if she continues in the race and Palin does NOT enter the race, the media will turn on Bachmann so fast it will make your neck break. And then we’ll see just how well SHE does under the media scrutiny that Palin has been subjected to.
I really don’t want to join Club Happyfeet, but aside from the odd predilection to suddenly heap praise on Bachmann, what are they saying that isn’t true? She is smarter than Palin. She’s more quick-witted than Palin. She’s a better speaker than Palin. She has less goofy baggage than Palin. And she has essentially the same base. Absent other developments, I see an odd blend of what passes for sober analysis – given how little lefties understand conservatives – and a hatey Palin obsession, but this fear of her getting into the race isn’t readily apparent to me.
Were it “readily apparent,” it wouldn’t work.
Did you watch the debate? I did. No sober analysis would consist of singling out Bachmann for her stellar performance. I like her, and she did well — nearly all the candidates did — but to pretend that the media doesn’t know of, or isn’t trying to exploit, or even to invent, a rift between Palin and Bachmann and the TEA Party, is to avoid the obvious so as to protect an article of your faith, namely, that the same left who invited its minions to help pore over Palin’s emails in the hope of killing her off once and for all, doesn’t in any way fear her getting to put to lie everything they’ve ever said about her by appealing directly to the American people as a presidential candidate.
They loved good old Huck even more for the same reason.
I agree about all that. All I’m saying is that it’s still explainable by obsessive hatred, whereas attributing it to genuine fear of her electability requires a leap of faith that runs counter to my daily observations of these people. Perhaps it would be easier for me to buy into it if I could even imagine why they’d fear her when everyone they know thinks she’s an incompetent moron – including the stray Republican or two that the co-op board somehow allowed in their buildings.
That’s nothing that any number of shining lights of the conservative movement haven’t likewise encountered, but the mockery I encounter is persistently gleeful with regard to her, – like grown ups giggling at fart jokes – and that more than anything is what makes it altogether difficult for me to buy into this.
As disgusting as the Demunist media apparatchiks are, might they have a point? Too many cooks, spoiled broth and all that.
Yes, they are elevating Michele Bachmann to try to take down Sarah Palin. But unless Sarah Palin wants to be the Ferd Thompson of 2012, it is probably time for her to make a decision.
Which people? The people who’ve been told Palin is a doltish, Bible-thumping chillbilly with no chance of gaining national traction? Or the people who’ve been desperate to try to make that characterization stick.
The former might not fear Palin, useful idiots that they are. It’s the latter that I see showing signs of fear.
That’s a good point. I am pretty much conflating the B-level chattering class of my sorry life with the Journalistas for whom their sole raison d’etre is to mold the world in their putrid image.
What do you suppose is the cause or the source of that obsessive hatred?
if people are afraid of Palin I think it might be cause they’ve convinced themselves she could avoid for reals interviews all the way to the white house
I don’t think we’re there yet to where she could do that. But I wouldn’t put it past her to try.
for reals interviews.
I saw that one. That wasn’t an interview of Sarah Palin, presidential candidate. It just wasn’t. That was just an interview of Sarah Palin.
Abe, you know only too well how easy it is to get a stilted view of reality around here (NYC) given that in most discussions it’s easy to be outnumbered 5 or 6 to one by talking point repeaters.
But, you know, I really like that quip about, “the B-level chattering class of my life”, and plan to employ it on the summer barbeque circuit to create a moment of shock-and-awe induced silence when the shreiking reaches fever pitch levels.
The Kos parrots in little social circle already try and use Palin as some kind of litmus test for intellect. Personally, I love it; and go on to mention “57 states”, and many more of the Obama hit parade of gaffes, as well as ask them how they think the war is going and how hope-n-change is working out for them.
Because many are attorneys, they alternate between adulation of hizzoner, and teeth grinding anxiety over being among “the rich!” who’ll have to cough it up if the won gets his way…
oh.
I don’t know happyfeet,
The MBM is so desperate to prove to the now-skeptical independents they can actually do their job and provide information on the candidates that no one will get away with an Obama walk in the park in 2012.
Except, you know, Obama hisself; because why revisit the past…
More like, because of the hypocrisy!
What do you suppose is the cause or the source of that obsessive hatred?
I think their very insular cultural snobbery combined with their bizarrely euphoric worship of Obama sent them over the edge when she was made VP and she came out swinging at the chocolate fuckstick. They just haven’t let go, even though they’d have to be uncommonly stupid to hold Obama in the same insanely high regard at this point.
Wait a minite happyfeet, don’t tell me you’ve joined the “FAUX NEWZ! haters club?
How is that not a legitimate interview, whether Palin’s a candidate of not? I mean, they talked about issues, no?
cable news generally is sorta not something I’m very fond of Mr. Bob.
I think that was an interview devoid of any expectations for Sarah to show why she’s a better qualified candidate for the presidency than a multitude of smarter more experienced candidates. Why her plan for x is better than candidate monkeybutt’s plan for x. When those sorts of expectations are attendant, Sarah tends to not do very well.
Historically.
Wait a minite happyfeet, don’t tell me you’ve joined the “FAUX NEWZ! haters club?
He’s an immigration romantic already, and he will push teh ghey agenda at the expense of freedom. That’s just the next step.
immigration is one of the keys to restoring for reals sustainable prosperity Mr. curmudgeon
and Team R is just starting to look weird and twitchy whenever the subject of gay people comes up I think
I thought it was interesting in the debate though that Pawlenty flip-flopped on his vow to reinstate the don’t ask don’t tell. I think it’s a meaningful flippy flop.
They only look weird and twitchy because they’re plugging the holes in a boat with their dicks, and not because they’re necessarily wrong or don’t believe in their position.
Truthfully I don’t think she is running happyfeet.
My personal opinion is that she’s just doing the Reagan-esque “rah-rah-America” thing to draw contrasts between herself and her beliefs and Obama’s and the left’s vision of America as a nation of exploiters and h8ters that owes the rest of the world an apology, and some of what they consider to be our ill gotten gains in payback; reparations for colonialism/imperialism…
She’s just underscoring America’s past greatness and our continuuum of exceptionalism; something that is inherent in the nation regardless of the failshit politicians in charge. She’s talking it up, like Ronnie did, instead of being scold in chief, apologist in chief, and telling us to put on sweaters, get used to smaller cars, and stop eating all that food and generally consuming more than our “fair share”.
She’s saying tomorrow can be as great as yesterday was, if we get back to the core principles that made it that way; he’s telling us to get used to “the new normal.
I see her latest moves as more of a public service than laying the ground work for a campaign.
this is true Mr. Froman and plus also I think every last R on that stage even Rick knew very well that the vagaries of how American society should best manage the gay problem are not something they want anywhere near the top of their policy agenda while our little country is beset by so many other more bigger problems
immigration is one of the keys to restoring for reals sustainable prosperity Mr. curmudgeon
How does making the underclass larger do that exactly?
Meanwhile, it is also one of the keys to balkanizing the nation and pushing the Left’s Cultural Communism.
this is true Mr. Froman and plus also I think every last R on that stage even Rick knew very well that the vagaries of how American society should best manage the gay problem are not something they want anywhere near the top of their policy agenda while our little country is beset by so many other more bigger problems.
When teh gheys are teh commeis, you can’t really take on one without the other. Sadly, J. Edgar Hoover and Roy Cohn are dead.
Reagan-esque rah-rah is a formula Mr. Bob. But for the presidency I want someone what can articulate an understanding that declining faily failed broke-ass America is not lying face down in the gutter for a lack of gumption and getting government off our backs.
Grok that Team R just pussied out on farm subsidies.
This is corruption on a level Reagan never dreamed of I don’t think.
It’s apples and oranges, and when people invoke Reagan it makes me think either they have no idea what a pickle we’re in, or they think I don’t.
Well, not everyone pussed out on the farm subsidies, If I recall correctly. And you’re right, the rah-rah is only part of the “Reagan formula”, it has to be backed with substance, to be sure.
If you’re running, that is. But if you’re just trying to draw the media fire, and draw a stark contrast between your America lovin’ self and the socialist in chief, well, then rah-rah might be an acceptable note to be hitting.
Seriously, she’s doing what Obama’s supposed to be doing; part of the President’s job is to reassure folks in times of trouble. Not reassure them that governments the answer, or any such fail-shittery, but that they’re going to make it just fine; that the situation has come to pass, and not to stay.
And certainly not to tell them, “suck it! this is the new normal”.
At least I don’t remember FDR, Reagan, Lincoln, Jefferson, or Washington saying such things…
Me, I think the “gay problem” is something for the gays to manage. My ideal candidate doesn’t give a shit one way or another because the job doesn’t include managing the issues of grievance groups.
“Team R is just starting to look weird and twitchy whenever the subject of gay people comes up I think”
It’s ‘cuz the gay people keep getting in everyones face all the time. Team R is looking weird and twitchy like someone that’s around a dude with Tourettes syndrome. Kinda sets your nerves on end.
Amen.
Right and Mr. Bob Sarah Palin, when she’s taken out of the context of a presidential bid – she can probably be helpful to some extent. But I still think our presidency and our politics were needlessly trivialized and fluffernuttered by the election of Obama, and I think Sarah’s presidential flirtations are the flip-side of that same coin.
But I have to get moving.
Me, I think the “gay problem” is something for the gays to manage. My ideal candidate doesn’t give a shit one way or another because the job doesn’t include managing the issues of grievance groups.
Ah, but that’s just it–we are evil hatey haters if we don’t manage the issues of the Commiecrats.
So let us embrace our hateyness, and tell the leftists to go (butt)fuck themselves.
“Wow, all of the debate candidates openly racist and homophobic. And that’s being generous; I think they’re all a bunch of sexists as well. Said it before, and I’ll say it again: if you vote for one of these people, how do you look your gay, Muslim, and female friends in the eye? Do you tell them sorry, my armchair economic theory is more impotant than your civil rights?”
-From a friend in facebook; I’ll post the rest of the thread just because of the comparison of the “oppression” of gays to slavery
afs, all those candidates were openly racist and homophobic before they said anything at all. That’s the narrative.
I dunno, Joe. I’m disappointed with the lack of a counterargument. I say these guys are homophobes, John tries to turn it into a states rights issue, I counter that states aren’t allowed to discriminate, and John eaves the discussion (presumably without having changed his stance). Can states make Black people sit at the back of the bus? Or make women cover their faces? Or outlaw a religion? So, why should they be allowed to prevent gays from getting married? It’s ridiculous and backwards and obscene, and frankly, I’m really not cool with anyone who supports this shit. If you want to support the GOPs agenda on healthcare, taxes, foreign policy, etc. that’s fine. I may disagree, but that’s actually open for discussion. But what kind of rational person doesn’t openly denounce the gay-bashing? Hell, I cal out Democrats for it all the time.
“I’m with you man. Most of the time I don’t disagree with Republicans or their “common sense” and rational ways of making society work. I I just hate and disagree with Republicans who are not forgiving of their blatant racism/sexism/n arrowmindedness/homophobia and ifelong denial that the way they have grown up can change. They stick to old means of thinking without adapting That’s why I hate Republican politicians. I’m sure there are Democrats who stick to status quo ways of doing, but you and I both know that liberals are inherently open minded about change and don’t ive life to indoctrinate others or tell other people that their way of living is wrong.” Commenter 2
Said it before, and I’ll say it again: if you vote for one of these people, how do you look your gay, Muslim, and female friends in the eye?
Your friend is a fucking moron.
“This state’s rights stance sounds a little like the view that the Civi War was about states rights (to have slaves). The other thing you have to remember Sammy is that they are not trying to get your vote right now they are trying to please conservatives by taking more right wing viewpoints. Historically this has been a problem for both parties at different times because to win the nomination you have to stake out positions that make you unelectable in the general election.”
Commenter 3
afs —
Ask them what they think of conservative woman, gay Republicans, black conservatives, and Muslims who are openly distrustful of groups like CAIR.
Also, ask them if they know what “inherently” means. Because if liberals were “inherently open mind to change,” they wouldn’t keep pressing the same failed economic and social policies that are dragging this country down.
Then, congratulate them for being open minded non haters who’ve just spent a good portion of their time suggesting that liberals, by some biological imperative, are better than conservatives, whom they’ve described as uniformly racist, homophobic, misogynistic, etc.
Follow that up by asking them to define irony and give examples.
“ood point, Pete, about these guys just trying to woo the extreme right. However, I don’t find that acceptable. Would we be tolerant of a Presidential hopeful legitimizing, say, the KKK by going after their vote? Look, for example, at how quickly Obama had to distance himself from Jeremiah Wright. So, why are we okay with these candidates courting the homophobic and anti-Muslim nuts in our country? And furthermore, why is it so hard for Republican voters to openly dismiss such candidates? There are other, centrist candidates to choose from. Not to change the topic, but I pick a similar fight with my Catholic friends in regards to the Pope. How can they not denounce someone who enabled child molesters? If you wanna believe in the bible and all that, fine. We can debate the merits of that civilly, like adults, and I’ll even buy the first round. But if the conversation doesn’t begin with the other guy saying, “Look, I didn’t elect the Pope and, frankly, I think he’s a scumbag piece of shit who has no business being a spiritual guide, I just can’t respect much else that they have to say.”
Original commenter
Tell them “this state’s rights stance” sounds a little like the 10th Amendment, then ask them why they hate the Constitution.
Also, apologize to them for both math and reality being “right wing,” and invite them to retire to their make-believe land, because the cross pollination is filling our lawns with bindweed.
Jeff, these 3 are beyond hope. I tried, for just a minute, to engage the first poster but was met with shrieking irrationality instead of actual engagement, so I decided to enjoy my afternoon instead.
Remind them that Byrd, a former majority leader, was a fucking Kleagle. And that Bull Connor was a Democrat.
And have them define their terms. This really causes them no end in troubles. Specifically, ask how they are defining “racist” or “homophobic” or even “nuts”. You’ll quickly be able to point out that their definitions seem magically to align with their policy positions, making their argument essentially “anyone who doesn’t agree with me is x” — hardly a very “inherently” open-minded position, and one that you might want to point out is rather transparently self-serving.
Just post my responses. Attribute them to a right wing hater you know who is taking time out to answer them when he could be off keeping the working man down. Or stoning a woman for suggesting she was raped without having the proper number of eyewitnesses. Or throwing a fag off a roof because he’s gay.
I can hardly look him in the eye, I’m so ashamed.
I thought about asking what part of the Constitution authorizes the federal government to butt into marriage at all, but I didn’t want to confuse the poor dears.
And, sorry, didn’t mean to hijack the thread with dumb facebook friends (again) but I thought that you (and the commentariat) would be interested to know how quickly the narrative had taken hold.
That narrative won’t sell this time around.
Nobody really believes it. Boy who cried RACIST.
Taking afs’s examples as merely human things — as opposed to the particular political views they (poorly) express — and looked at as a sort of phenomenological matter, does it strike you all as hard as it does me how theory bound human beings can appear to be, no matter the lack of depth the theory may have? I mean, the commenters afs exhibits aren’t working their brains on subjects that live outside their brains in any significant sense. And yet, for all that, they seem in addition to be thoroughly unconcerned at the shallowness of the “theories” they espouse.
Very true, sdferr. I find it especially amusing how they can ascribe all manner of mental defects to holding positions which were more or less consensus not that long ago.
“Look, for example, at how quickly Obama had to distance himself from Jeremiah Wright.”
Except that he was given a pass. Wow, these Commiecrats can’t admit the Obamunist was Wright’s disciple, can they?
And it wasn’t all that quickly. Does “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother.” ring a bell? Wright didn’t go under the bus until he took his Racial Radioactivity Tour to the National Press Club.
I thought the eagerness to write-off Pawlenty was way more telling and of more consequence than the eagerness to boost Michelle
I’m not like Ann Coulter I can’t bestir myself to vote for ickle Romneykins