Sullivan Gives Himself an Award »« False Prophet Criticizes False Prophets

Robert O’Brien Nominee: David Kupelian

David Kupelian is the #2 man at the Worldnutdaily and he’s every bit as ridiculous as Joseph Farah. In his latest column he cites a passage from a book he wrote called How Evil Works that is a perfect candidate for the Robert O’Brien award.

Haven’t you ever wondered why, when someone on the public stage radiates noble character, common sense and natural grace – like Ronald Reagan did, or more recently Sarah Palin – he or she is regarded by the “big media” with an inexplicable revulsion? Hatred is almost too soft a word. It’s because Reagan and Palin manifest the very qualities of character that the jaded media elite lost long ago, and since being thus reminded of their lost innocence is painful and unwelcome, they feel compelled to attack the “reminder.”

Sarah Palin radiates noble character? Only on Planet Wingnuttia.

Comments

  1. Aquaria says

    Unbelievable. He actually applied the word “noble” to a senile old bigot and a female box of rocks.

    Thanks, Dave for revealing that you’re not only stupid, but also shallower than my cat’s kibbles dish.

  2. says

    I doubt Reagan caused that much Revulsion in the “big media” as Kupelian claims.

    Also, while there may have been revulsion in repsponse to Sarah Palin, I’d hardly call it “inexplicable”. He could at least have tried to familiarize himself with the reasons people give for not liking here. After that he may still disagree with them, but he might at least have been less befuddled by it.

  3. MikeMa says

    I do not recall the media, as a monolithic unit, referring to Reagan with anything like revulsion. They made fun of his Bonzo connections. He was soundly criticized over policy in some cases, but by and large Reagan was a politician and received his share of lauds & lumps from the media. Palin on the other hand, is as Aquaria states, dumber than a box or rocks. I refer to Bachmann & Palin as the GOP twin stumps.

  4. Hercules Grytpype-Thynne says

    Forget the old question, “what color is the sky on your planet?” Kupelian’s universe is so obviously different from the one we know that one has to wonder whether the laws of physics there even allow the existence of skies and planets.

  5. Aquaria says

    Actually, several books in the 80s were written about how the majority of the media fawned over Reagan the Scumbag, and let him get away with things they didn’t with Carter. Reagan would lie–repeatedly–to their faces, and they’d smile and nod their heads and talk about how “charming” he was. The one I can remember off the top of my head is “There He Goes Again: Ronald Reagan’s Reign of Error”.

    Consider this: Al Gore was just about lynched by our incompetent media for a mangling of what he had to say about “inventing” the Internet. But what did they do when Reagan the Scumbag lied about liberating the concentration camps (and he did say he did this)?

    Consider this: Bill Clinton was blamed for things that didn’t even happen on his watch, to scumbag milita twerps. He was blamed for those genocidal religious twits in Waco–even though the plan to deal with them was done formulated during the GHW Bush administration.

    But the press all but ignored the El Mozote massacre in El Salvador committed by thugs Reagan had trained to murder uppity brown people. Worse, they did abso-fucking-lutely nothing when the journalists who did report on those stories were shuffled around and marginalized by their own papers.

  6. Chiroptera says

    Haven’t you ever wondered why, when someone on the public stage radiates noble character, common sense and natural grace – like Ronald Reagan did, or more recently Sarah Palin – he or she is regarded by the “big media” with an inexplicable revulsion?

    Well, without getting into whether or not “big media” already does this (other commenters are already on top of this), I would add that some of us find merely “radiating noble character, common sense and natural grace on the public stage” to be not so important if the person doesn’t actually have “noble character, common sense or natural grace” in real life when it comes to taking actually positions on social issues and government policy.

  7. DaveL says

    Some people use a sheen of sophistication and intellectualism to mask an underlying lack of character or substance. Those who fall for such a ploy are called rubes.

    Then there are those who foolishly believe that, in light of the foregoing, a lack of sophistication or intellect is an indication of good character. This is rubism squared.

    Then there are those who fall for snake-oil salesmen who merely affect a folksy ingenuousness but who are in fact managed by slick political veterans, no matter what their own intellectual chops may be. This phenomenon can only be described as Rubism’s Cube.

  8. Michael Heath says

    someone on the public stage radiates noble character, common sense and natural grace

    Right now the current politicians who I immediately thought of when reading this was Barack Obama and Jon Huntsman, though the latter can also sometimes be a bit quirky rather than graceful (e.g., his Nirvana reference out of nowhere in a recent debate or claiming a Perry position on immigration was treasonous). In my adult life I’d argue 1984 Democratic presidential candidate Robert Mondale best exemplified these traits, which did him no good when it came to his race against President Reagan where he was crushed.

    Aquaria, your continual misrepresentation of Ronald Reagan, using standards you don’t apply to non-conservatives, continues to appear every bit as biased and ridiculous as conservative bomb-throwers and wingnuts. It appears to me to you have some sort of uncontrollable psychological problem that forces you to emotionally react when President Reagan’s name is raised rather than thoughtfully present a case.

    Certainly we should respect and consider arguments from people who disagree with the mainstream assessment of a politician’s legacy; however I find your arguments reveal a lot about you where the quality of your arguments regarding Reagan can not be trusted. Exactly like we see from those who hate Presidents Clinton and Obama.

    For the record I don’t equate Ronald Reagan with the afore-mentioned qualities; I perceive him having different qualities, some appealing, like his optimism and confidence at a time when the country badly needed it or his character to champion liberal causes even when it risked conservative support for his reelection in ’84. That behavior and demonstrated character is equivalent to Obama’s relentless attitude exuding the same. Other attributes by Reagan were repugnant. One example would be President Reagan’s frequent reliance on shallow talking points on some very important issues like his rhetoric and taxes and spending. Unfortunately the latter defect reminds me of every politically successful politician I’ve encountered on the national stage when it comes to certain topics, including the current president when it comes to 4th & 5th Amendment issues or when he’s making a case for taxing higher earners where I agree with some of his positions, individual income tax rates, while cringing at his rhetoric.

  9. Pierce R. Butler says

    Reagan could smile, lie, and okay massacres all at the same time – and walk and chew jelly beans too. Wotta guy!

    Amazing how a person of such accomplishments could simultaneously invent and perfect the I-was-too-goddamn-stupid-to-know-what-was-going-on criminal alibi now a reliable staple of DC discourse.

  10. naturalcynic says

    Michael Heath: Check your memory circuits. Your memory of the Democratic candidate in ’84 seems to show your perception of the Gipper might be just as faulty. BTW, it was Robert’s evil twin, Walter, that ran against the Great Prevaricator.

  11. somerville says

    Maybe it was the result of living outside the US during much of Reagan’s time in office but I simply never saw him as a great orator or a convincing speaker. Maybe it was the filtration of those evil non-american media but St Ronnie just came across as a grade C or D actor reading his lines, most of the time rather poorly.

  12. slc1 says

    I believe it was a Rethuglican commentator who said that, as a communicator, President Reagan was a rank amateur compared to President Clinton.

  13. Robert B. says

    Hah. Since her attention-greedy and deceptive pseudo-campaign has been revealed as a money-greedy and deceptive campaign-contribution scam, I guess “noble character” is a bit of a stretcher. But I was more surprised to hear that Palin radiated common sense. Unless what Farah meant by the phrase was that folks commonly don’t have much sense.

Leave a Reply