« Will the GOP apologize now to Sec Napolitano? | mk3872's Blog | The DC Villagers Have a Hissy Fit! »
Republican Conservatives Can't Take It
They can dish it, but they can't take it!
Prodded on by super-sensitive drama queen Sarah Palin, conservatives are gunning for Dave Letterman.
That's right. They'll defend their leading cheerleader, Rush Limbaugh, oracle of conservative ideals.
And whenever he make mysognistic comments or hateful rhetoric (basically, any day of the week), then he is excused as being an "entertainer".
But when the jokes are pointed at them ... UH-OH! They can't take a joke!
John McCain is not out defending his buddy Dave and, as well, where were the right-wing joke police when Lettermen had a segment about Sonia Sotamayor where he played on Latino stereotypes?
Ohh.... right ... the faux outrage is ALWAYS with a political purpose for Republicans ...
Advertisement
I think there was a wall that was hardly ever breached. Letterman is certainly a democrat and Leno is a republican (although moderate).
Pols did not comment on jokes aired on late nite tv.
This is no longer going to be the case after this. The wall is now down.
You can bet that CBS and Letterman received mail, email, twitter,etc for what was said of Judge Sotomayor. None of this backlash was given time on cable news or network news for that matter.
I think we just witnessed the end of an era.
June 12, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are they using squirt guns?
The Very Important Question: Is their gunning increasing his market share and income?
"Letterman starts making tasteless jokes about kids"
The tasteless joke was about Sarah Palin's poor mothering skills, and it WAS funny, esp. coming with the "slutty flight attendant look" line which targets Palin hypocrisy.
June 12, 2009 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some crazy calisthenics to bend-over backwards justifying Letterman. Did you do the same for Imus? Some things are beyond the bounds of good taste, as liberals have been chanting for years. So, it is only now that anything goes? Bunch of hypocrites who can't live up to their stated ideals.
June 13, 2009 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a matter of whether it was in good taste or not. And nobody is saying "anything goes" here, the original allegedly tasteless joke is not the point of discussion, it's only one part of the background here.
Your repeated preference for partisan ankle-biting tactics belies your earlier position in favor of more civil discussion, jason. Did someone hijack your handle then or now??
I don't know the Imus joke offhand. But again, it's not relevant to the point.
June 13, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes hypocrisy has to be called for what it is, though it wasn't meant as a partisan attack more an observation of fact. I have long pointed out this sort of hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. In this case, it happens to be democratic hypocrisy and I am not the only person who thinks so. I also agree with CVille Dem that Palin, of course, took it too far into the exploitative.
I still think it does the progressive cause no good for liberals, either actual or perceived, to take any sort of specific glee in the incident or seek to shield Letterman from critics. No matter Palin's failure as a mother, jumping on the stomp a defenseless girl for who her mother is does no one any good.
June 13, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes I cannot begin to parse your text:
"jumping on the stomp a defenseless girl for who her mother is does no one any good"
What?? That has so many problems I won't even try.
I was simply surprised at your polemics, weak as they were. If you want to call for sanity and fair-mindedness in discussion, please set a better example yourself.
"Some crazy calisthenics to bend-over backwards justifying Letterman."
No, that's not what I was doing above. I pointed out a VIQ, and I offered
"The tasteless joke was about Sarah Palin's poor mothering skills, and it WAS funny"
The joke makes perfect sense in that theory, and I did that with both legs shackled to my computer and one hand behind my back.
June 14, 2009 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, eds. You knew exactly what I was saying and pretending a few typos makes it illegible is more intellectual dishonesty. Stomping on Bristol or Willow because of who their mother is doesn't help the progressive cause. It makes liberals look as weak and unhinged as the people they have been fighting all these years.
The "joke" wasn't funny. The "joke" was sexist and took some supposedly great comedy writer all of about thirteen seconds to think up. If they wanted to comment on Palin's poor parenting skills, then letting her 14-year-old daughter get statutorily raped by a professional baseball player and a disgraced former governor isn't the best way to go about it. It is the lazy way. It is the way that requires zero skill as writers.
The best "joke" is the one that doesn't leave a good portion of your audience shaking their heads in disgust wondering if you have lost your mind.
June 14, 2009 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
No doubt that many have made hay out of the arguably tasteless joke, but your theory that Letterman "stomped" on Mrs. Palin's daughter(s) there is at best an outlier to any rational analysis and otherwise just another rude and hypocritically polemical invention.
And L. was funny, I grinned when I heard it the first time. It certainly wasn't great humor, but this discussion doesn't presume great humor, it's about how people took the humor and what they did with it. You're merely demonstrating the "faux outrage" the OP mentions.
June 14, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not outraged Never said I was. I don't get outraged about this sort of stuff.
I think liberals are once again shown to be hypocrites, because if the situation were reversed and it was a conservative comedian making fun or alluding to a democrats teenage daughters and this place would be lit up with indignation from horizon to horizon. That is what is wrong here and what I am commenting on despite your effort to paint me as hysterical when nothing I have written even approaches hysteria.
Go right on ahead with your situational ethics and sublime sublimation for all things left-leaning.
June 14, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I am not outraged Never said I was."
Right. You're practicing your faux outrage, not expressing true or real outrage, as I said. And while some typos are trivial, you could practice proofreading a bit more, imho. Or just lighten up a bit!
June 14, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
More hypocrisy and ridicule from eds? What a surprise.
I could go back to commenting on nothing but your typos. I could then tell you to be more careful in your proofreading as well, professor, but since I am neither petty nor that big of a dick, I guess I will let your numerous mistakes slide unless they make understanding difficult. Then I will simply ask for clarification.
Just because you perceive outrage none exists doesn't make it faux outrage. It is simply your opinion. In case you missed it, your opinion doesn't automatically make you right. I don't care what Letterman said. I don't care what Leno says or Maher or any number of comedians. What I care about, since you missed it once again, is the hypocrisy of liberals defending "their guy" on this one, yet they were all so outraged over Imus last year when he used language that was offensive to them.
Ideals are only worthwhile when you uphold them on behalf of an opponent you can't stand. I don't think this is a free speech issue as Letterman is free to say whatever crude thing comes to mind or pen under the guise of satire or humor. This is a matter of liberals being as quick defend Palin's kid against this sort of "humor" as they would be to defend someone on their said against the same. Again, much like they were during the Imus fervor last year.
But, yeah, I suppose it is simply a matter of me lightening up and getting a better sense of humor.
June 15, 2009 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is that your idea of how to show that you have lightened up a bit? Well, maybe you have by the end.
As for ideals, isn't it best to start housecleaning at home, and practice what you preach? Since you still didn't evidence the Imus particulars which apparently mean so much to you re hypocrisy, I cannot debate you directly on your point. I'm inclined to think that you're comparing apples with petunias while pretending to be comparing Golden Delicious with Gala, and also mistaking political comedy on a comedy show for rude remarks in general.
BTW, on Imus, I have to guess you mean the "nappy-headed hos" remark from about two years ago. Or maybe you mean something more recent, his "sarcasm" point.
June 15, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously it was the nappy-headed hoes comment and evidence of liberals getting up in arms over one thing, because a "conservative" said it, and being OK with something in similar bad taste because it is about someone they dislike. It isn't apples and oranges. It is two distinct reactions by political partisans. I have called out conservatives for being overly offended by the Palin remarks but willing to let O'Reilly slide for the part he played in the Tiller murder.
It's called hypocrisy no matter which side of the political spectrum we are talking about.
Your pretend confusion as to my real point - which has nothing to do with whether or not I have "lightened up" or even thought the "joke" was funny and everything to do with the reaction to the comments by both side - is just more of your irrational debate style. If you want to talk about substantive issues or even substantive tangents off the main issue, I am more than happy to do so, but I am done with the constant splitting of hairs and parsing of each syllable that simply leads to downward spirals of increasing invective.
You Boomers can officially play that game of sophistry, silliness and semantics by yourselves. We don't really have time for that sort of shit with you or the counter-clowns on the right. It has been singularly ineffective as a way of practicing politics in this country for a number of years now and is something we better get past quickly because I am afraid we are just about out of time.
June 16, 2009 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
You evidently have plenty of time for whatever game you're playing here!
Hypocrisy can be a valid point, but only if you make the argument for it. You'd barely even offered innuendo much less argument, before.
I'd like to see you make a good argument 'sans' innuendo, re the alleged hypocrisy in this matter. And no, your mere sayso is not sufficient in general as well as in particular in re apples and oranges or petunias.
I have the impression that you castigate both Letterman and Imus, but that you also castigate the reactors to the trigger remarks.
June 16, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, I have not castigated anyone (and stated more than once that I personally had no problem with anyone saying anything) and have been very clear in what I consider hypocrisy.
That you continue to pretend I am being ambiguous or disengenuous is more of your transparent MO that you somehow think no one around here see through.
I don't play games and have no time for yours.
June 17, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes you have (castigated).
No you haven't (hypocrisy).
Yes you do (play games here).
No I don't (pretend).
That's 4 strikes for you.
June 17, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
If any of the above is true, then you are not nearly as smart as you think you are.
June 18, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given that I don't think I'm all that smart, you're merely continuing your parade of lousy sophistry and other distortions. Maybe you're not as smart as you think you are, jason, in that you cannot understand how those four are each and all true enough in context.
Whatever.
June 18, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
June 19, 2009 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Letterman doesn't have the war hero elder statesman gravitas of John McCain, when McCain said at a public meeting of Republicans in 1998:
Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."
McCain, in prepared remarks when Chelsea was 18.
June 13, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
You left out the "heh, heh, heh..." at the end.
Let's see...did Hillary and Bill then go on every channel they could find to keep the joke alive and get all the camera time they possibly could so that they could exploit their daughter like Sarah? No? Could that be because a) they actually are good parents, and b) they are the kind of leaders who deserve to be in charge of things.
No, Palin is just another "Bring 'Em On republican hack -- she's even dumber than Dubya. Her disingenuous comment about Obama as "The candidate who must be obeyed" because the press didn't bring Sasha and Malia into the campaign, was laughable. The Obama children actually stayed in school. They were not dragged out as props throughout the election. And they didn't give interviews to Greta about abstinence, etc -- oh, it is so ridiculous -- why are we still talking about it, and look at me, I'm doing it too!
June 13, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palin is a "fight back" type. Definitely unChristian.
June 16, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palin has made a career out of being offended and being offensive. It's all in the eyes of the beholder...
June 13, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Based on your comments around here, you seem to think you are smarter than anyone else. Sure is rich to have a sophist accuse me of sophistry. Perhaps it is time you looked in the mirror for once instead of casting aspersions.
June 19, 2009 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, hello.
"you seem to think" fails on all of "you", "seem", and "think" unless your goal is to engage in cheap trash talk in lieu of topical discussion.
Evidently you're demoing the topical point that Repos, or RINOs in your case, can dish it out but cannot take it nor can they deal with the truth except by distorting it terribly.
Speaking of distortions I just finished Levin's awful but popular book, Liberty and Tyranny.
June 19, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blah, blah, blah. More Boomer bullshit. My political affiliation has nothing to do with your sophistry and illogical debating style.
June 20, 2009 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not that I'm being illogical, it is that I am challenging your illogical comments which you seem to think pass for honest debate.
You're right that this isn't mainly about you. But as it happens you have promoted yourself as a symbolic Republican, so you should read my comment in that regard with that in mind.
June 20, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pointing out the hypocritical nature of the liberal stance on this issue is not illogical.
That you disagree is not the problem. Everyone is free to come to their own conclusions. That you judge anything you don't agree with as illogical most certainly is. That my political label elicits Pavlovian responses is clear, but that doesn't mean I am a symbolic republican. I am an old school republican. One who thinks the ideals held in the earliest days of the party could perhaps help the country engage in the "progressive" transition we must make in a number of areas. These are conceptually different positions that those you apply to me.
If you want a symbolic republican, perhaps you should look up MCB, though even he's been chilling out here and there with regards to certain subjects.
June 20, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
--Pointing out the hypocritical nature of the liberal stance on this issue is not illogical.
The problem is that you have used only handwaving and unrational approaches to "pointing out". And then when challenged you have retreated into further trash instead of attempting to provide reasoned reasonable proof. It's your style, I get that, but I will still challenge it from time to time, whether you show progress or progression or progressive behavior, or not.
--That you disagree is not the problem. Everyone is free to come to their own conclusions.
Then where is the alleged hypocrisy you alleged?? Even given Imus and the current, it still looks like you're comparing apples with petunias or worse. Prove your point, don't just assume your strawman is clearly visible to all.
--That you judge anything you don't agree with as illogical most certainly is.
That's not my MO. But nice ambiguity there, jason. And judging what one doesn't agree with to be illogical... is not necessarily hypocrisy, and is even sometimes itself quite logical!
--That my political label elicits Pavlovian responses is clear, but that doesn't mean I am a symbolic republican. I am an old school republican.
You may be both at once, but I believe you had said that you decided to join the Party last year to see if you could help make progress in the larger sense from within their ranks. Did I get that wrong? Thus "symbolic" in at least two ways.
--These are conceptually different positions that those you apply to me.
Another stress typo? But I don't apply positions to you in the first place, so again you're demonstrating illogical thinking, or maybe just alogical writing.
I hope that helps.
June 20, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of words justifying irrational behavior that I am hardly the first to point out. Again, using typos as a means of making murky statements about what I have no idea.
You use this combative "debate" method all over the place. You split hairs until there is nothing left that resembles the person's original point. You have yet to actually quote my supposed irrational points. You just make the statement as if it were true and then continue to hammer on it long past my objection to your caricature of my opinion. I already made my point perfectly clear - that giving Letterman a pass because most liberals hate the object of his joke is hypocritical.
It doesn't need clarification unless you are an idiot. Are you an idiot, eds? I didn't think so before this exchange, but now I am not sure.
The whole part about my joining the republican party to change it from within is another of your logical fallacies. My long-term strategy is not symbolic at all. Becoming a republican was an actual tactical step I took to initiate the change I would see happen in this country. You simply stand on the sidelines and cast aspersions as if they were wisdom.
You also keep disowning your methods which leads me to believe that you lack even the most basic self-awareness and will never actually change.
June 21, 2009 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink