Prop 8 Backers File for En Banc Rehearing »« Allen West Fills Up His Hummer

Badass Quote of the Day

From Garry Wills:

“Rick Santorum is a nice smiley fanatic. He does not believe in evolution or global warming or women in the workplace. He equates gay sex with bestiality (Rick ‘Man on Dog’ Santorum). He equates contraception with the guillotine. Only a brain-dead party could think him a worthy presidential candidate. Yet he is praised by television pundits, night and day, for being ‘sincere’ and ‘standing by what he believes.’ He is the principled alternative to the evil Moderation of Mitt Romney and the evil Evil of Newt Gingrich. He is presented as a model Catholic. Torquemada was, in that sense, a model Catholic.”

Comments

  1. Chiroptera says

    Only a brain-dead party could think him a worthy presidential candidate. Yet he is praised by television pundits, night and day, for being ‘sincere’ and ‘standing by what he believes.’

    This is what I don’t understand about the US media. I mean, how do TV news anchors keep from saying, “Holy fucking shit!” on national TV? Is there a special class in journalism school for that?

  2. colinkingsley says

    No, it’s called “objectivity.”

    The scare quotes are important to clarify that they aren’t actually being objective.

  3. Chiroptera says

    colinkingsley, #4:

    Exactly. Presenting one side to explain why the naked emperor really isn’t naked isn’t objectivity in any meaningful sense.

    There has to be a point when you cease just presenting any insanity as if it were a well-reasoned point of view. If we are going to clog up the national debate by discussing nonsense and stupidity as if it were a legitimate side, then we won’t have the time to actually discuss the real issues in the proper depth they need to be discussed.

    Which is kind of what is happening here.

  4. d cwilson says

    Re Chiroptera @ #2

    The longer answer is that if any pundit said that, they’ve be savaged on Fox for being part of “lamestream madia”. I don’t know why that terrifies them so, since Fox will find a reason to savage anyone who doesn’t work for Roger Ailes eventually. Maybe they’re afraid that they won’t get invited to sit at the cool kids table if they said the blindingly obvious thing to say.

  5. D. C. Sessions says

    There’s a lot to be said for Santorum’s being ‘sincere’ and ‘standing by what he believes.’

    In particular, it makes for something rare in the USA: an election where the electorate actually hears what someone is really about in the course of deciding who to vote for. I mean, really: for longer than my adult children have been alive, Republicans have been running as the party of small government, of fiscal responsibility, of (lately) jobs.

    Then they get in office.

    In 2010 they ran as the party that was going to focus, laser-like, on jobs and nothing but jobs. Anyone notice what actually got on the House agenda? Yeah, like that.

    So let’s have a little (very, but no clod without a silver crucifix) appreciation for Sanctimonium. He’s popular with the base because he actually says things that the Party of God actually wants without euphemisms. And it’s about time that rest of the country and especially head-in-the-sand Republicans like my mother got slapped across the face with what the “Grand Old Party” stands for today.

  6. D. C. Sessions says

    Standing by what you believe is not a virtue when what you believe is barbaric and batshit insane.

    Sure beats being barbaric and batshit insane, but hiding it until you’re in a position to act.

  7. Michael Heath says

    While Rick Santorum might be more authentically sincere in his arguments than his competitors, I happen to think he is – including Ron Paul, every argument I’ve heard from Mr. Santorum to date is still predominately supported by factually false premises. That should remain a primary focal point by the media and anyone analyzing the state of American conservatism.

    From this perspective Mr. Santorum’s no different than any other conservative politician operating at the national level. And that includes people like Jeb Bush who are trying to distance themselves from the current set of 2012 GOP presidential candidates, as if they operated a higher level of character.

    From my perspective, when your arguments begin with false premises which would prove catastrophic if employed – e.g., energy policy based on the denial of AGW, effective promotion of contractionary economic policies; how bad you stack up compared to your competitors on other matters is a rather trivial exercise given your dishonesty coupled to the promotion of catastrophic policies should immediately disqualify you from consideration.

  8. D. C. Sessions says

    Mr. Santorum to date is still predominately supported by factually false premises. That should remain a primary focal point by the media and anyone analyzing the state of American conservatism.

    You argue from inconvenient facts and I’ll argue from attractive conclusions. Come election time, you’ll get slaughtered. Facts, alas, are easily altered to suit the prejudices of the electorate.

  9. Phillip IV says

    Only a brain-dead party could think him a worthy presidential candidate. Yet he is praised by television pundits, night and day, for being ‘sincere’ and ‘standing by what he believes.’

    Well, in a country where a third of the populace is brain-dead, you can’t run a profitable TV business if you don’t do you utmost to avoid pissing them off. So they swallow their pride, ignore their conscience, praise him for what they can praise him (“standing by what he believes” is a pretty double-edged compliment, after all) and cash their payroll checks.

  10. janine says

    Santorum-For-Brains is being called “sincere” in his beliefs but he is willing to lie about the Netherlands. Being sincere and being truthful are not the same things.

  11. jaranath says

    Yeah…  I don’t know what to think of “objectivity” in the media. We’ve all see the bogus forced false equivalence crap, of course.  But of course I don’t want news to be nothing but Stewart and Colbert, either, and while they do get some things right, I’m not deluded enough to think they’re serious journalists, as they regularly warn us.

    The thing I think I like about the comedy shows is not specifically that they are willing to say “holy fucking shit!” (though that’s fun too), but rather that they call attention to The Crazy.  The thing I don’t like about mainstream media is that they generally don’t call attention to The Crazy, on the apparent premise that doing so would be uncivil and unobjective.

    The recent “aspirin method” video was a great example.  Mitchell splutters a bit, offers a relatively lame expression of shock, and then says “let’s change the subject”.  I wanted to scream at the screen, NO!  NO, let’s NOT move on, Andrea.  This smug grinning SOB just dropped a big steaming turd on your desk and what do you do?  Why, after choking down your vomit, you sweep Grandpa Crazy’s turd under the rug, and toss a blanket over Grandpa Crazy’s exposed bum and danglies, asking him in a too-loud, too-cheerful voice to tell us about fiscal policy while silently praying the Chinese don’t come up.

    Is that objective?  Is that civil?  I know Friess embarrassed himself, but you contributed, by example, to an environment where we’re just supposed to look the other way.  That enables crazy Grandpas.  It’s a disservice to the rest of us who DON’T poop on desks.  Is it objective to consistently reinforce a standard of looking away to the detriment of the potty-trained?  I don’t think so.

    Now, the uncivil (and maybe unobjective) thing to do is to point to the turd on your desk and say “Holy Fucking Shit!” ala Stewart.  But I think the civil, objective thing to do is to point to the turd on your desk and directly ask, “what is this?  Is this a turd?  What’s it doing on my desk?  Who put it here?  Did you put it here?  Why did you put it here?  Do you think it belongs here?”

    Make Grandpa Crazy own that turd.

  12. raven says

    Yet he is praised by television pundits, night and day, for being ‘sincere’ and ‘standing by what he believes.’

    You could say the same thing about Osama Bin Laden. A martyr to his god.

    Or the 9/11 jet hijackers who destroyed the World Trade Center. They gave their lives for what they believed in.

    Or Joseph Stalin, Cho Seung, the suicide and car bombers, or countless murderers and mass murderers throughout history.

    Sorry, I’m not impressed with sincere believers. Hell (if it existed) would be full of sincere believers.

  13. says

    “The thing I don’t like about mainstream media is that they generally don’t call attention to The Crazy, on the apparent premise that doing so would be uncivil and unobjective.’

    Not true, I think. They don’t call attention to anything that is liable to make their indignorant and rage-filled viewers turn the station and drive down their ad rates. It’s just that simple. If there were enough militant, Huegenot, vegetarian, nudist martial arts poets out there to form a larger group than the 26% Batshit KKKrazzees, FuckTheNew’sCorpse would turn around so fast that their viewers and presenters would get whiplash.

  14. Chiroptera says

    jaranath, #16: But of course I don’t want news to be nothing but Stewart and Colbert, either, and while they do get some things right, I’m not deluded enough to think they’re serious journalists, as they regularly warn us.

    Heh. I remember a Russian language instructor telling us that at that time (during the Brezhnev era) there was a pretty famous puppet theater in Moscow.

    If you wanted to see some biting political satire and social commentary (although subtle, of course), that was where you went.

    -

    I also remember an article Gore Vidal once wrote dissecting a New York Times article where you told the story of a Soviet Russian friend of his. When Vidal remarked how well informed he was about current events despite living in a country with extreme censorship of the press, his friend replied, “You just have to know how to read Pravda.”

  15. jaranath says

    Democommie: Yeah, you’re right, I think that’s part of it. I do think there are people who prefer looking away for it’s own sake, but an awful lot of those squealing about mean, nasty, rude reporters are just squealing about being held up to the light for once. Had Mitchell done the right thing with Friess, she’d have been blasted by a lot of conservative pundits. Also: I’m TOTALLY stealing “indignorant”.

    Sastra: (blush)

  16. M Groesbeck says

    But of course I don’t want news to be nothing but Stewart and Colbert, either, and while they do get some things right, I’m not deluded enough to think they’re serious journalists, as they regularly warn us.

    They’re slightly more serious journalists than most of the cast of Faux News. So we have, more or less, a right-wing fake news network that pretends it’s real, and a centrist to center-left fake news show that admits that it’s fake. To get an actual leftist equivalent, I have to go to radio (usually Pacifica, when they’re not doing another marathon of new-age or “wellness” B.S. or yet another conspiracy-theory special).

  17. says

    There are hundreds — thousands? — of people around the world who sincerely believe they have been abducted and anally probed by aliens who look like Goofy or a lizard, or something. Twenty percent of Americans sincerely believe the earth is larger than the sun.
    Just because someone is seeking presidential office for one of the major parties does not make his crazy beliefs any less crazy. It did not make Michele Bachmann any less stupid and dangerous and confused about, well, everything.

  18. Aquaria says

    No, it’s called “objectivity.”

    The scare quotes are important to clarify that they aren’t actually being objective.

    I think journalists or editors technically call it “balanced” journalism.

    You’d think they’d stop practicing it after Paul Krugman so perfectly skewered them over it, all the way back in 2000:

    One of the great jokes of American politics is the insistence by conservatives that the media have a liberal bias. The truth is that reporters have failed to call Mr. Bush to account on even the most outrageous misstatements, presumably for fear that they might be accused of partisanship. If a presidential candidate were to declare that the earth is flat, you would be sure to see a news analysis under the headline ”Shape of the Planet: Both Sides Have a Point.” After all, the earth isn’t perfectly spherical.

    Leftist circles started describing our worthless media’s fanaticism for ‘balanced’ journalism with the more succinct, “Earth Round; Opinions Differ”.

    Krugman has tapped the well several times since. Worthless idiots that our press is, they don’t learn. Because their masters don’t want them to learn. It serves them not to report the truth.

  19. Aquaria says

    That should remain a primary focal point by the media and anyone analyzing the state of American conservatism.

    The media haven’t done that for over 30 years now. Why do you expect them to do it now?

  20. Harry Organs says

    Torquemada did certainly “stand by what he believed” – you couldn’t torq em ada anything.

Leave a Reply