While today the ad hominem attack is de riguer, democrats have long sought power by any means necessary. For examples we need only turn to LBJ and FDR. The outstanding book by Robert Caro, 'Means of Ascent' tells the story how LBJ stole a senate seat in a rigged election. FDR and the New Deal were ruled unconstitutional. The reason dems must resort to these tactics is they fail so miserably at debating issues of the day. Not that they are bad debaters, but they just cannot make any sense.
The current craze is to destroy political opponents by any means necessary, especially charismatic and attractive ones. Sarah Palin in Liberal's clothing would be deified by the press a la Obama, instead of vilified. Review the coarse SNL portrayal? The so-called MSM and hollywood stars and starlets all refer to whats-her-name's DEAD ON portrayal... here's a quote from SNL: "I believe global warming is God just hugging us closer" Huh? I mean when did Sarah Palin say anything even remotely bizarre as that? SNL and the so-called MSM's job is to portray her as a 'wacko' which she clearly is anything but a wacko...and now, Letterman piles it on calling her a slut, a slutty stewardess look-alike, and there is nothing off limits. If I were Todd her husband and this were 1809, there would be a duel. (I hope Todd at least rabbit punches Letterman at some cocktail party.)
Now Dave is saying it was 'just a joke' and makes further attacks -- how angry and upset the Palin family is over just one of many jokes. He turns the tables on Palin -- points his finger and now Dave is somehow the victim in this? R U Serious? Sorry Dave, you are not the victim and no, it isn't "just a joke". It is Letterman perpetuating a left-wing myth that conservatives are wacko promiscuous weirdos. Then, he crosses the line to take on her children. There is no excuse for that, but it is Dave's job to continue the big lie. When she calls him on it, he makes himself out to be the victim.
He says he wasn't harassing the 14 year old, the one actually at the stadium. Mr. Letterman, it doesn't matter if you didn't realize she was with her minor child -- it is unacceptable to attack a defenseless child. You have had a TV show much longer than she has been alive. How is it appropriate for you to attack a child under any circumstances? How about take on someone your own size? CBS should fire him over it.
Remember the outrage when Reagan joked about "outlawing Russia forever" and starting bombing in five minutes? There was no end to the media hype over that--there still isn't. But it was just a joke. The only truth to it was that Russia was our sworn and bitter enemy at that time. Kind of like how Sarah Palin and her family are enemies of all things Letterman.
Sorry Dave, your so-called jokes are intended to further the lie that Palin is unfit for public office. It is to further your personal political ends, even at the cost of making jokes about her children, which most of them don't even understand and certainly cannot defend themselves against. And that is why David Letterman should be fired. The Fire David Letterman movement has some real support -- see Cyntia Yockey:
CBS is still playing the “This will all blow over” card. No. It. Won’t.
Persistent, consistent effort on our part will persuade sponsors to drop Letterman’s show and CBS to fire David Letterman.
If we don’t take out this bully, we’ll be swarmed by the millions who will follow his example.
I enjoyed Letterman's humor when he was tossing watermelons off an eight story building. Now, he just crossed the line one time too many.
Update: CBS (where Letterman's show airs) isn't about to fire him, as long as they are publishing this drivel.
Update II: Suek in the comments:
Saul Alinsky...
"Rules for Radicals"
"Identify the enemy, personalize it, freeze it (as a target), destroy it."
"Ridicule is the unanswerable destroyer"
19 comments:
Saul Alinsky...
"Rules for Radicals"
"Identify the enemy, personalize it, freeze it (as a target), destroy it."
"Ridicule is the unanswerable destroyer"
(that one may not be exact, but the sense is there)
If anyone is not familiar with "Rules for Radicals", they need to inform themselves. The tactics are the ones being used against conservatives today.
They failed with Rush, then went on to Newt, who ably defended himself, then moved on to Cheney again. Cheney was silenced by the Bush administration, I think. He won't be silent now.
For the record, I was utterly disgusted at both of Letterman's jokes. The children should be utterly off limits, and Sarah Palin has never looked slutty in any picture or video I've seen. (Which is too bad, in a way....)
And ditto Wanda Sykes at the correspondent's dinner. Way beyond any concept of decency *and* not funny.
This stuff is vile.
It has been a mark of liberalism since my youth (and perhaps before) to put their energy into making the remark clever rather than true.
Both our dear leaders and our dear comedians are acting like there are no term limits. How much does anyone want to bet the dems offer serious consideration to repealing the 22nd amendment in the next few years?
> to put their energy into making the remark clever rather than true.
Yeah, but in the last 20-odd years, nasty and clever have become the bywords, with the latter taking a distant second place.
Political overkill has been around for longer than the country, mind you:
"Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will openly be taught and practiced, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes," said an 1800 Connetticut 'Courant' editorial opposing the election of Thomas Jefferson as president. Now the 'Hartford Courant', the paper marked the 250th anniversary of Jefferson's birth with an apology. Said the 'Courant': "It's never too late to admit a mistake".
But the sort of personal-level nastiness that is getting embodied in this stuff is shameful.
If you had people burning Obama in effigy and hanging an obvious stand-in manikin from a tree, there would be no end to the libtard caterwauling. But hey, it's perfectly ok to do that to a conservative!!
This may be of interest:
Barack Obama and Alinsky's Rules for Psychopaths
I haven't heard the jokes. Certainly children should be off limits.
But the sort of hyperventilating here comes across as powerless people trying to generate some hand by working up a frothy outrage. Playing the victim as a path to power.
One, David Letterman is not 'the left.' The guy's a comedian. He has busted Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton with vulgar jokes for over a decade.
Second, I sure can come up with examples of John McCain and Rush Limbaugh and others making vulgar jokes about Chelsea Clinton. They're still employed.
More on Alinsky tactics...
http://www.plumbbobblog.com/?p=4744
copithorne -- When Letterman busts on the Dems -- he has them in a headlock, yes. He has Clinton in a headlock and he is giving him a noogie. The difference is when he has Palin or Bush in a headlock, he is giving her, not a noogie, but a black eye.
That is the difference between how the press treats the Left and the Right.
> Second, I sure can come up with examples of John McCain and Rush Limbaugh and others making vulgar jokes about Chelsea Clinton.
...And yet, you still can't be bothered to do so...
Go ahead, copi, link us to anything which is even vaguely as inappropriate as Letterman's comments. Preferably one for each, since you have claimed both did so.
Or STFU, you're a jackass.
Either "follow the rules" when it comes to rhetoric -- if you're making an opposing claim, cite an actual, verifiable example to make your point, if it's not soooo widely known that everyone is familiar with it -- or go away, and stop wasting everyone's time.
Because I know for the most part that you make this sh** up on the fly.
====
P.S. -- bobla: While I agree that what you say is true of the Press, too, Letterman is clearly not a member of the Press. And copi is sure to jump you on that.
I concur that he is part of a "vast left-wing smear machine" of which the Press is a substantial part, but that's a much larger organization than merely "the Press".
Rhetorical back and forth requires some precision in terminology. If one is going to jump on copi for that (and I will if he plays fast and loose with terms) intellectual honesty requires we adhere to it, too.
;-)
Here you go, Bloody Hell. The stuff is pretty common knowledge and I didn't want to traffic in ugliness if I didn't have to.
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000930.htm
One difference now is that Letterman has apologized. John McCain apologized to Bill Clinton, but not to Chelsea. Rush Limbaugh? Apologize? Not in his repertoire.
To me the entire sum of Sarah Palin's message is that she and her audience are victims of fancy East Coast people. So all this is right in her wheelhouse.
And if someone is shooting methamphetamines in front of me and telling me 'methamphetamines rule!!!!!" I will tell them that they are damaging their health.
Likewise if someone is indulging in vitriol and telling me "vitriol rules!!!!!" I will tell them they are damaging their health.
Just because I care about you.
Where do I say that Letterman is a member of the press? Kindly do not put words in my mouth.
As you point out -- both Letterman and the press treat the right pretty much the same.
However, take note, when I worked inside the beltway, some strange people claimed to be 'members of the press' in order to further a political position. Both DirecTV and Echostar claimed to be 'members of the press' in filings to the FCC. Neither of them owns a news show newspaper etc.
And yes, I do say that Letterman is part of the MSM policial machine, even if he doesn't self-identify with being a 'member of the press'.
Now I'm going to post a quote someone just sent me:
"Remember that when you lose your temper, you are out of control. And when you are out of control, you have lost control. That means that someone else now has control, and you are under their control. Think before you cede control. Think before you lose your temper. Think before you lash out in anger."
Now let us talk about the difference between Rushbo and Letterman -- Rushbo is self-described as a right winger, he is expected to make ad-hominem attacks on the left.
Copithorne
No I do not think calling 13 y.o. Chelsea a dog is any worse than that photo montage comparing Bush to a Monkey. I'm preparing a revision of that montage substituting Obama's face for Bush's. Neither is acceptable. But that montage sure made the rounds didn't it? Went viral huh? Why is that? Who thought it was funny?
On the other hand, Letterman is a member of the main-stream media -- he makes sub-rosa arguments and attacks on the right claiming to be a member of the center. Huge difference with Rushbo.
The McCain joke is not about Chelsea, per se, it is about the whole family. Asserting that Chelsea is the bastard child of Janet Reno and someone else besmirches everyone in that family, including the minor child. No I do not condone it, but again... McCain is Not a member of the main-stream media. McCain is expected to attack the left.
Still a huge difference holding yourself up to be 'disinterested' or 'center' or 'impartial' while stabbing your target in the back-- a huge difference between that and standing on the right or left and tossing eggs.
> http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000930.htm
You know, copi, I'm not going to defend what was said about Chelsea -- it was, indeed, mean, and I'll even agree should not have been said.
However. Limbaugh said Chelsea was ugly.
Insulting, rude, and, indeed, mean to say to/about a 13yo in a public venue.
THAT, however, is not your description, I quote, from above (emphasis mine):
Rush Limbaugh and others making vulgar jokes about Chelsea Clinton.
1) This is the sort of insane, imbecilic equivalence I expect from you and other patently stupid libtards -- calling Chelsea "ugly" hardly qualifies as making "vulgar" comments about her. It is neither crude, nor obscene, nor indecent (in the sexual sense).
2) This is hardly the same type of personal attack as suggesting EITHER of Palin's daughters is a "slut".
slut, n.
1a. A person, especially a woman, considered sexually promiscuous.
1b. A woman prostitute.
2. A slovenly woman; a slattern.
I believe it's safe to assume that by this we mean "1a"?
Yeah, the older one got knocked up at 17. Stupid? Yeah. Hardly atypical in the modern cultural climate, however. And I suspect that if you DARE to make a public comment that "anyone who gets pregnant at 17 is a slut", then you're going to get your head ripped off by every female within earshot. Do that at work and you won't have a job for long. There is NO evidence that Bristol has had sex with anyone but her boyfriend, whom she subsequently married.
And there is no basis whatsoever for making such a claim about the younger daughter.
> Where do I say that Letterman is a member of the press?
You don't but it's certainly not inappropriate for a comedian, which Letterman is, to make jokes about public people, and, by showing off her family in a particularly public manner (such as at the nomination, but multiple times in fact), they've been shifted slightly into that mode.
This makes them -- any of them -- somewhat of a target, though I concur minor children should certainly be limited in that regard.
Further, Bristol is now eighteen, so she can certainly be expected to take care of herself/"deal with it" within some limits as a subject for a comedian.
> No I do not think calling 13 y.o. Chelsea a dog is any worse than that photo montage comparing Bush to a Monkey.
I'll disagree with you mildly here. She's 13, she's got personality adjustments, and so on, to deal with. It's hardly decent to publicly call her "ugly" at that age.
As revolting and disgusting as the over-the-top aspects of comparing Bush to a monkey are, if it were a one-time thing, then it would be in bad taste and that's it.
The difference with regards to the public displays of vitriol towards Bush and Palin, isn't that it's a one-time-went-too-far thing.
The libtards literally don't grasp that they've gone too far.
And therein lies the real problem -- they think this crap is A-OK.
They make the same kind of asinine equivalence that copi made above, between an inappropriate one-shot against Chelsea and this never-ending tirade of utterly vitriolic comments against literally anyone even vaguely on The Right.
> Who thought it was funny?
I'm sure copi laughed his ass off.
Unfortunately, it was on its usual place on his shoulders...
> On the other hand, Letterman is a member of the main-stream media
I disagree with you here, too. Letterman, in most ways, is about the same as Rush, he's got more exposure on TV in some ways, but Rush is taken more seriously as a political commentator, since that's all he does.
I just don't believe that comments made by Rush, or any right-leaning figure of note, match the level of sheer brutality and open rudeness that any number of lefty pundits make on a regular basis, including many who ARE members of the press and ARE supposed to have a measure of impartiality.
It is not the occasional over-the-top that's a problem, it's things that, were the Right to make the exact same comment about a member of the Left, there would be literally NO end to the caterwauling and Queen of Heart demands.
====
I don't think there's much chance of success in ousting Letterman over this. I think he deserves it for much the same reasons that Imus "deserved" it. If one is in favor of/against one, one should be in favor of/against the same result for the other.
I do think we need to start attacking back on the rhetorical front when it goes to the excessive vitriol. If that means taking down Letterman, then I'm for it... but on the basis of this one comment, no. More on the basis of a lot more that he's done as well.
>>...her boyfriend, whom she subsequently married>>
Correction - no they didn't get married. They said they were going to, but they didn't.
Whether that's good or not, I don't know. In another time, there might have been a shotgun involved, and the young man might have matured and lived up to his responsibilities. In this day and age, it might have turned out to be a good thing, or it might have turned out to be another failed marriage. While we might prefer them to have married, only time will tell if the decision not to do so was the best one for all concerned.
I must admit, I find the Left's demand for a woman's right to sexual intercourse as a primary right, including abortion of the fetus that might result from it and then makes slurs against a woman if she avails herself of that right to be very confusing. Not that the Left is commonly logical, but sometimes it's even beyond illogical.
The thing that gets me about dems is they shoot flaming arrows. If the target retaliates they then hide behind the race or gender card.
Letterman can't do that.
Here's a good one on the topic...
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2009/06/obamaworld-apostasy-malignant.html
> >>...her boyfriend, whom she subsequently married>>
> Correction - no they didn't get married. They said they were going to, but they didn't.
I was unaware of this, but it's irrelevant to the point. She/they screwed up, sure, but by modern standards (by standards of the fifties, sure -- but that's hardly the ones the libtards want to return to, is it?) she does not qualify by any evidence available to the public as a "slut".
.
Post a Comment