I will now try to unite this blog in hatred for the Republicans. There is a caucus going on in Iowa today, and I have no idea how they work. When should we have results? Anyone know?
Archives for January 2012
Some of My Best Friends are Like Child Rapers and Dog Fuckers
Elizabeth Santorum says that she has gay friends who support her Dad. Here’s a taste of Dan Savage’s epic response:
Who are these faggots?
Political reporters? When Elizabeth Santorum says, “I have gay friends and they support my dad because they agree with him about family issues,” i.e. her dad’s opposition to gay people having a families of their own, your immediate response should be a request for the names and phone numbers of some of these gay friends. Because that claim requires checking out before you put it in print or pixels. Reassure Elizabeth you’ll quote her friends anonymously to protect them from potty-mouthed gay bloggers, they can talk to you on background or whatever, but tell her that you’re going to need to verify the existence of these gay friends. Because you’re a journalist, not a stenographer. You’ll either catch Elizabeth Santorum in a revealing lie—what does it tell us about this moment in the struggle for LGBT equality that even homophobes like Elizabeth and her dad perceive a political risk in being perceived as homophobic?—or you’ll land a pretty fascinating interview.
The whole thing is worth a read.
Some of My Best Friends are Like Child Rapers and Dog FuckersPost + Comments (71)
Back To High School
This is my last say on this ridiculous matter. I have no idea why ABL has decided that this was all about her, because I have repeatedly stated that what Glenn said was dickish. I don’t think anyone actually thinks she would defend President Obama raping a nun.
This is when several idiots will then pop in and say “But Glenn said he was serious! She really would defend it.” Because no one on the planet has ever made statements like “I am so hungry I think I could seriously eat a horse” or “I am so sick of this I could seriously slit my wrists.” No one really has had to “wait forever” for someone. I don’t really need to point out that there isn’t that much horse eating going on, do I? Hyperbole, WTF IS THAT?
So Glenn repeated something dickish that someone else started. And you know what- I ignored it. Why? Because not sue if you follow twitter, but there is a relentless group of people who, at any given moment, are hurling insults at Glenn. ABL is most certainly one of the members of that group. Hell, she used, and I allowed her to use, this website as a launching point for some of the most scathing attacks on Glenn, some times even thinly sourced innuendo. She’s called him grifter, a liar, a fraud, and so on, and there is ongoing bad blood between the two. So as far as I was concerned, it was all in the game between those two, and I said nothing.
Then last night, after several days of crocodile tears about Glenn hating on rape victims, I lost it. This wasn’t about rape to these people- this was about using whatever they could as a cudgel against Glenn. It completely distorted what he said- he wasn’t minimizing rape, he was using rape as the ugliest example he could think of (and he later added child-killing and assassination), far from minimizing rape and far from making rape “jokes.” It was disgusting. What I saw wasn’t about rape, it was about a new blunt force weapon to be used in the GGihad against “Hamwald.” So I said as much.
And then spent the next three hours letting the Greenwald jihad turn their guns on me- I’m mocking rape victims, I’m attacking ABL, how dare I choose sides (when I didn’t do anything of the sort), this is typical “male behavior,” that I am a privileged white male so therefore don’t understand, I’m a hick libertarian, how could I do this to ABL, is this the hill I want to die on, etc. That’s how they roll- relentless, multiple, frantic, repeated tweets, each one with more umbrage and more outrage, feeding on each other, with each comment working valiantly to prove that the person is more outraged than the previous person. It’s manic.
My personal favorite tweet was from our own ABL, who informed the world that I was “laughing at rape survivors.” You sure can lob ’em, can’t you?
But back to the point, no, I didn’t “side” with Glenn over this juvenile bullshit (in the big scheme of things, if I sided with anyone, wouldn’t it be the person I gave access to the front page to lob grenades at GG?), I just merely pointed out that the people doing a two day “GLENN RAPE RAWR” tweetfest simply to attack Glenn had lost the plot. And I maintain that. What Glenn said to ABL was dickish, but in the scheme of things hurled between the two of them, pretty tame. So I’m sorry to see ABL go, but I’m not going to back down to a crowd of idiots on twitter. For those of you who love to point out I was a former Republican, you are right- and I saw this kind of behavior before, where the “enemy” is always wrong and must be destroyed. Hell, y’all wanna go old school, just drop the rape stuff and call Greenwald an anti-Semite. There’s lots of material already written for you on the internet out there. So maybe I’m a little touchy when I see these manic internet pile-ons when everyone is in shoot to kill mode. Objectively pro-Saddam, anyone? Fifth column, anyone? I watch people unironically invoke “OBAMA DERANGEMENT SYNDROME,” apparently unaware that BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) was something invented by diehard Bush loyalists to deflect any and all criticism of Bush.
So that is that. As far as I am concerned, ABL can write here whenever she wants. If she chooses not to, well, that is her decision.
Two Good Paul Items
Kay and ABL have been making similar points, but Alex Knapp’s piece on Ron Paul’s view of the Incorporation Doctrine of the 14th Amendment makes it even clearer that Paul puts states’ rights above civil liberties:
Historically speaking, and especially in the last 70 years, the biggest battles for civil liberties have been against infringements by state governments. And the Incorporation Doctrine has been key to that battle in stopping those infringements. But a Ron Paul Presidency would lead to a weakening, if not eventual outright reversal, of Incorporation. Leaving state governments once again able to attack civil liberties more vigorously.
Kevin Drum believes that Paul’s extreme crackpot positions on some issues poison what Paul says that is reasonable, and he ends with this point:
And remember: Ron Paul has never once done any of his causes any good. There’s a good reason for that.
Even if you think that it’s possible to set aside all the crazy shit that Paul has said over the years, Paul is at best a tarnished messenger, and it’s worth asking whether he can be an effective spokesman for those who are sympathetic to a less interventionist foreign policy and an end to the war on drugs.
Twitching the GOP Horses
… some part of the horse, anyway. Reporting from the salt-of-the-earth diner-demographic in Iowa, Mr. Pierce at Esquire elicits a brilliant analogy:
[My emphasis] This is not quite the “Look! a jackalope!” trope so beloved of internet trolls and Media Village courtiers, which is just intended to distract. Twitching, in the veterinary sense, allows a skillful 200-pound biped to compel obedience from a 1,200-pound quadruped — just as the tiny minority in charge of the Republican party has compelled the GOP rump to vote against its own best interests for the past forty years, and counting.POLK CITY, Iowa — So Dennis Wendle and Don Boone were hanging out together at home down around Liberty, Missouri (no kidding), and they decided that they were tired of living in a state that counted for so very little in the presidential nominating process, especially when compared to The Crucial Iowa Caucuses. So they packed themselves up for the drive north and, yesterday, they found themselves at a table in the Riesling Sun Cafe in downtown Polk City, which was jumping for nine in the morning, and waiting for the imminent arrival of Rick Santorum, whose campaign was said to be jumping as well, perhaps even as high as second place in TCIC. Dennis and Don were pretty much trapped over their breakfast, what with the fact that patrons of the Riesling Sun were outnumbered about 50-1 by journalists, camerapeople, and TV news haircuts from many lands. (Frank Luntz was haunting the ice-cream counter, possibly attempting to lie pistachio into thinking itself to be chocolate.) Don spoke, in succession, to Canadian TV, Japanese TV, German TV, and a local station from Boston.
__
“Hey,” Dennis said to me, showing some admirable entrepreneurial drive. “For fifty bucks, you can stand on my chair.”
__
Dennis is a retired TWA mechanic, and Don worked for Kansas City Power and Light for over 20 years, and also was an official in an IBEW local. They are shopping around for someone to get behind during this election year. They are not optimistic. “It’s big money and it’s big business, and it doesn’t reflect the views of working-class people like us,” Dennis said. “Corporations are not people. See what I mean? The people’s wishes. I don’t even follow Santorum, but I’ll bet, here’s what we’re gonna talk about. We’re gonna talk about the moral issues. We’re gonna talk about abortion. We’re gonna talk about all those things that are pretty much settled.
__
“There’s a trick in the horse industry that we learned before we had sedatives that, if you grab a horse by the lip, and squeeze it, he forgets about anything else. It’s called ‘twitching.’ That’s what they do to us. They twitch us with all that other stuff and pass over the important issues. Not gonna talk about jobs, either, because they’re not here, and they know where they went, but they’re not gonna do anything to bring them back.”…
(And speaking of “twitching demagogues”, Brett Smiley at NYMag‘s Daily Intel reports that Rupert Murdoch has “Sort of Endorsed” Santorum… via Twitter.)
Greenwald: A Bridge Too Far [Updated]
John, I’m stunned that you continue to think Greenwald was using the remark as a metaphor or hyperbole. He expressly stated that he was not:
And perhaps you were not “laughing” at rape survivors, but you were mocking them in a public forum where women (including asiangrrlMN) were revealing their experiences with rape and that they found the comments offensive. Moreover, that men were also expressing concern likely means they have a mother, sister, daughter, aunt, or niece who has been a victim of sexual violence. You chose to ignore all of that. You could have said nothing. You chose to insert yourself. It was and is wrong. I didn’t seek nor did I want your defense. Your silence would have been sufficient.
And to those who think I overreacted or have a fragile lady-psyche, I’ll be sure to remember not to be so goddamn sensitive about rape in the future.
I’ve removed myself from the masthead. The celebration can officially commence.
-ABL
I’ve put off writing this post for days, and I still don’t have the words to express my disgust about the “rape analogy heard ’round the Twitterverse.” In case you’re not up to speed, long story short, I had a Twitter discussion with Marcy Wheeler about the NDAA; a Greenwald supporter quipped that if I saw Obama raping a nun on live TV, I would defend him for it; another supporter quipped that I would fantasize about playing the role of the raped nun; and Greenwald piled on. When asked to account for the clumsy rape metaphor, Greenwald doubled down, claiming that it wasn’t a metaphor, and that he actually believed that I and other Obama supporters would defend Obama if we were to see him raping a nun.
Ricky don’t lose that number
He is not a representative of the corporate or financial wing of the party. Santorum certainly wants to reduce government spending (faster even than Representative Paul Ryan). He certainly wants tax reform. But he goes out of his way in his speeches to pick fights with the “supply-siders.” He scorns the Wall Street bailouts. His economic arguments are couched as values arguments: If you want to enhance long-term competitiveness, you need to strengthen families. If companies want productive workers, they need to be embedded in wholesome communities.
It’s hard to know how his campaign will fare after a late surge that he is experiencing in Iowa. These days, he is a happy and effective campaigner, but, in the past, there has been a dourness and rigidity to him. He’s been consumed by resentment over unfair media coverage. As his ally in the AIDS fight, Bono, once told a reporter, Santorum seems to have a Tourette’s syndrome that causes him to say the most unpopular thing imaginable.
But I suspect he will do better post-Iowa than most people think — before being buried under a wave of money and negative ads. And I do believe that he represents sensibility and a viewpoint that is being suppressed by the political system.
I wonder how quasi-endorsements like this — which probably doesn’t matter much but will certainly get a lot of play in Scarboughsphere — happen. Did someone in the Santorum campaign rub Bobo’s thigh under the table just so? Is this just clever attention-getting contrarianism, a centrist Hayekian counterpart to the Paultardism that is sweeping the internets?