Liberal Hypocrisy

| | Comments (13) | TrackBacks (0)

In another example of classic left wing hypocrisy, Ann Coulter is cited in the NYT, the SF Chronicler, and the Washington Post (WP) for her remarks regarding Edwards. Personally, I don't like the remarks. Comparing Edwards to gays via the old term 'faggot' is cruel to gays. The word 'faggot' was always used as a pejorative and the Edwards comparison is itself really nasty. Edwards is an opportunistic money grubbing, girlie-man, shyster-lawyer who claims to commune with the dead. The left wing mob (Dean, Kos, the DU) one and all denounce Coulter and demand that she apologize. If you go the the Kos, the DU or to any Democrat convention you will hear far more nasty things said about Republicans but MSM will simply not report it. How typical.

Note however the Bill Maher's remarks wishing that the vice president had died in the bomb blast has not received any attention from the NYT, or the WP. The SF Chronicler also has decided that Maher's murderous (and treasonous) death-wish is not news worthy. Nope, wishing the VP of the US to be killed by someone who is at war with the US is just a normal everyday occurrence. ABC understandably did not make a big deal out of this event and NBC did notice. Ann made the news on the three networks, but not Bill. UPI and Rueters carried the Coulter story, but not Mahers. No left wing bias here; its just what is news worthy. Nothing to see move along.

Our resident moon-bat, Zimzo, came out of his cave to denounce Coulter. We all were entertained by his usual spew. He is shocked and appalled that Ann could say such a thing; poor dear, hope he does not blow a gasket. I was worried he had 'movedOn'. But did Maher's wishing the enemy could score a victory in this war against us cause zimmzo any outrage? Nope.

Conservatives are a bigger threat in Zimzo's eyes than Al Qaeda. More tellingly the conservatives are a bigger threat in the eyes of the liberal press than is Al Qaeda. The enemies of this country are always given the benefit of the doubt. Note the interviews CBS had with Hussein, or with the Iranian President. On the other hand, the interviews Dan Rather had with either Bush, were hit jobs. No such clean slate for conservatives, their actions are always impugned with negative intentions.

Hypocrisy is on display. Bill Maher is given a pass, Ann Coulter is pilloried. She may need it. But some public scorn for Maher is way overdue. Will it happen? Don't hold your breath.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Liberal Hypocrisy.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/955

13 Comments

Ted said:

Is anyone surprised by this? Look, we all know that well known conservatives are under the microscope and that anything they write, say, or do will be jumped on immediately to show what a bunch of racist, homophobic, misogynists we all are. The Left's excuse will be that Maher is only an comedian (and a very bad one at that) who made the comments on a TV show whereas Coulter is a well-known spokesman for the Right who was speaking in front of a national meeting. Coulter should have known there would be a firestorm and she probably just got herself uninvited from a number of speeching engagements on college campuses just at the time when her point of view desperately needs to be heard.
She is damaged goods now. Very poor judgement on her part.

zimzo said:

That's really disappointing, Joe. I expected a much better response. The joke about using the word "faggot" being used to describe John Edwards being unfair to gays was already used by Coulter herself in her response to the New York Times. It wasn't any funnier then.

The Bill Maher head-fake has also already been tried by a number of conservative blogs and Fox News, and, by the way, it was covered by CNN last night in their story on Coulter. Here are some of the problems with that argument:

1) Maher didn't say he wished Cheney dead. Here's the actual exchange:

"MAHER: [overlapping] But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow. [applause]

RIDLEY: Okay, but—[voices overlap under applause]

SCARBOROUGH: But, let’s talk – let’s talk about your show for a second, very quickly. If somebody on this panel said they wished that Dick Cheney had been blown up, and you didn’t say—

FRANK: I think he did. [laughter]

SCARBOROUGH: Okay, did you say--?

MAHER: No. No, I quoted that.

FRANK: You don’t? Oh, you don’t believe that?

MAHER: No, I’m just saying that if he did die—

SCARBOROUGH: [laughter] Okay, but if – oh, let’s just say—

MAHER: [overlapping]—other people – more people would live. That’s a fact."

He specifically says that he does not wish Cheney dead and denied saying that he did. He was saying only that he believes that Cheney is responsible for people dying (meaning Iraq) and that if he weren't around people wouldn't be dying. You can disagree with that and find it offensive, but at least get what he said correct. I personally think it's factually incorrect and a stupid thing to say, like a lot of what Bill Maher says.

2) Coulter made her remarks at the leading conference of conservatives in the U.S., preceded on the stage by two presidential candidates and was cheered by the audience of conservative activists. Maher made his comment on his television show (which used to be called "Politically Incorrect") and was cheered by his studio audience. The chances of Maher being invited to speak at a similar liberal or Democratic conference or getting anywhere near a Democratic campaign event are nil.

3) The so-called liberal media ignored Coulter's remarks until liberal and conservative blogs publicized it. Adam Nagourney's first piece in the New York Times and Dana Milbank's in the Washington Post didn't mention. None of the networks mentioned it until after the blogs were on it. I learned about it from Captain's Quarters and then came here to see what you said about it since I know you love her so much. Then I listened to the audio you put up.

Next, your characterization of John Edwards as "an opportunistic money grubbing, girlie-man, shyster-lawyer who claims to commune with the dead" is the kind of rhetoric that people are tired of. It's not illuminating and it makes you look small. I'm not sure what the crack about his communing with the dead means. Maybe you are confusing him with John Edward the psychic who hosted the TV show Crossing Over. Maybe you know it's not the same person and you are making an attempt at a joke. Maybe you are referring to the death of Edwards 16-year-old son in a car accident. In other words, its hard to know if you are just being stupid or cruel (as it often is with your mentor Ann Coulter). And it negates your point about left-wing bloggers trafficking in harsh rhetoric when you do as well.

As far as your attacks on me: Of course, you have to use the hoary right-wing phrase for liberals, which Michelle Malkin drops all the time, "Moonbat." I don't really know how it makes your point to call people who disagree with you names. I have never used the word "Wingnut" to refer to cnservatives because I think it's stupid. Your characterization of my reaction to Coulter's remark was way off base. I was not surprised at all by what she said nor by the reaction. She has said stupid and provocative things on many occasions as I have already pointed out. Some of those things were said at previous CPAC gatherings. I was more surprised by your reaction. I would have thought you would immediately see the damage this does to your cause. I would have thought you would have been a little more politically savvy especially after you so clearly misjudged George Allen's Macaca comment and I turned out to be right on that. I also thought you might be a little appalled and disgusted to hear a homophobic epithet so casually hurled considering your protestations of being not in the least anti-gay (except for some gays) but it didn't seem to bother you at all.

Then there's your comment "Conservatives are a bigger threat in Zimzo's eyes than Al Qaeda." What? Not only do I not believe that, I never said anything that would lead you to believe I thought that. That's a feverish projection of your paranoid mind. The fact that I even try to engage conservatives in discussion rather than just call them names should be evidence of that. I have said before that having been an eyewitness to 9/11 I understand very well the threat of Al Qaeda. I probably know a lot more liberals and have read a lot more liberal blogs and columns than you have and I don't know anyone who believes that, although there are peobably extremists out there who do just as there are those on the right who believe liberals are more dangerous than Al Qaeda. One of them, Dinesh D'Souza, just published a book saying as much.

Your attack on CBS is just silly. Dan Rather's interviews with the Bush's were more than 6 years ago. The interviews with Hussein by Rather on the eve of the Iraq War and of Ahmadinejad (I guess you couldn't spell it) by Mike Wallace were hardly softball interviews, like the kind Fox News does with Bush and Cheney. I don't know if you've ever interviewed a very prominent person (as I've done many times--I know, you'll think I'm lying again. So be it) but the point of an interview is to get the interviewee to say something interesting and revealing without walking out of the interview. No professional would interview President Bush and Hussein the same way so the camparison is specious. I'm not sure what it is supposed to prove. Do you honestly believe that CBS was pro-Hussein and Ahmadinejad?

And what is it with this Conservative victimology? Don't you feel a little silly feeling sorry for yourself all the time. Doesn't saying "No such clean slate for conservatives, their actions are always impugned with negative intentions" sound more than a little whiny and paranoid to you? Maybe you should tape yourself saying that and play it back and see how it sounds. To me it sounds pretty pathetic.

Finally, your only defense of Coulter seems to be that someone else said something just as offensive and to attack liberals. You haven't really made a case for Coulter being an "angel" as you called her (maybe you're a little embarrassed by that now), or why you believe she is so intelligent or why her remark added anything to the political discourse. You haven't really defended her at all, I guess because you can't.

zimzo said:

My apologies at attributing this post to Joe and not Jacob (which David at Equality Loudoun pointed out to me). I now await Joe's promised post with eager anticipation. I hope he can do better.

jacob said:

Zimmy,
OK. First lets up back the conversation a little bit, get it into context.

Maher: What about the people who got onto the Huffington Post – and these weren’t even the bloggers, t these were just the comments section - who said they, they expressed regret that the attack on Dick Cheney failed.

Joe Scarborough: Right.

Maher: Now ...

John Ridley: More than regret.

Maher: Well, what did they say?

Ridley: They said "We wish he would die." I mean, it was (?) hate language.

Barney Frank: They said the bomb was wasted. (laughter and applause)

Maher: That's a funny joke. But, seriously, if this isn't China, shouldn't you be able to say that? Why did Arianna Huffington, my girlfriend, I love her, but why did she take that off right away?

After some discussion about why Huffington should or shouldn't have taken these comments down, the following occurred:

Ridley: It's one thing to say you hate Dick Cheney, which applies to his politics. It's another thing to say, "I'm sorry he didn't die in an explosion." And I think, you know ...

Maher: But you should be able to say it. And by the way...

Frank: Excuse me, Bill, but can I ask you a question? Do you decide what the topics are for this show?

Maher: Yeah, I decide the topics, they don't go there.

Frank: But you exercise control over the show the way that she does over her blog.

Maher: But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn't be dying needlessly tomorrow. (applause)

Scarborough: If someone on this panel said that they wished that Dick Cheney had been blown up, and you didn't say ...

Frank: I think he did.

Scarborough: Okay. Did you say ...

Maher: No, no. I quoted that.

Frank: You don't believe that?

Maher: I'm just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That's a fact.

Now, lets pull Maher's comments out ...

That's a funny joke. But, seriously, if this isn't China, shouldn't you be able to say that? Why did Arianna Huffington, my girlfriend, I love her, but why did she take that off right away? But you should be able to say it. I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn't be dying needlessly tomorrow. I'm just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That's a fact.

Maher’s points is loud and clear:
1. He supports the liberal who commented on the Huffington post who where sorry that the attempt failed.
2. You should be able to say the bomb was wasted and if Cheney was dead the world would be a better place.

What is real interesting is Barney Frank and Scarborough’s exchange in the midst of Maher's flub ...

Scarborough: If someone on this panel said that they wished that Dick Cheney had been blown up, and you didn't say ...

Frank: I think he did.

Barney Frank is no conservative Zimmy, and he even thought that Maher was advocating Cheney’s death. I know, the world of moveOn.org has an excuse for all this, “It’s Bushes fault.”

Your 'head fake' comment is also more liberal telepathy. I pointed out that Coulter's comment were wrong. This does not detract from my main point the media is biased. You once again, as usual, attribute a darker motive to my post, which is getting the heat off of Coulter.

There are only two possible explanations for your behavior:
1. Stop trying to read my mind, you are terrible at it.
2. Stop trying to change the subject, which in this case is media bias, not the sins of the two loud mouths that I used to point out the media bias and most importantly the liberal hypocrisy.

jacob said:

Zimzo,
You sound cogent. Are you sure it is really you? I will be answering your massive comment point by point. If anything I write below is not making sense. Point it oiut, and I will try again.

"Next, your characterization of John Edwards as "an opportunistic money grubbing, girlie-man, shyster-lawyer who claims to commune with the dead" is the kind of rhetoric that people are tired of. It's not illuminating and it makes you look small. I'm not sure what the crack about his communing with the dead means."

In the middle of a courtroom Edwards "communed" with the soul of a dead child (not his own even) to win some lawsuit. No kidding. As for "looking small" perhaps you have a point there, but I am on a tear right now, and frankly in the past you have done similar. I am not saying your past behavior in anyway excuses my current, its just surprising to hear something like this from you.

"And it negates your point about left-wing bloggers trafficking in harsh rhetoric when you do as well." A point you made previously, and still surprising. Touche?

"Your characterization of my reaction to Coulter's remark was way off base." Why? I am not surprised by her comment she has been making fun of Edwards' hair for years now calling him a pretty boy. Your comments come off as surprised, personally hurt and outraged. It looked like an act. If it is not, sorry, but you are also responcible for our impression of you, and it is not a good one.

"I was more surprised by your reaction. I would have thought you would immediately see the damage this does to your cause. I would have thought you would have been a little more politically savvy especially after you so clearly misjudged George Allen's Macaca comment and I turned out to be right on that. I also thought you might be a little appalled and disgusted to hear a homophobic epithet so casually hurled considering your protestations of being not in the least anti-gay" Hello, did you not read the post? I said right up front, I did not agree with her. I actually pointed out the term "faggot" is not acceptable. Do you want something else? Are expecting the entire conservative community to shun her for this forever? What amazes me is you can look past everything she says that is correct and use this one comment as an excuse to utterly destroy her. And that is fair? In fact I was critical of Coulter in the beginning and end of my post. Don't you read what you comment about?

"Then there's your comment "Conservatives are a bigger threat in Zimzo's eyes than Al Qaeda." What? Not only do I not believe that, I never said anything that would lead you to believe I thought that." When I go to places like the DU, moveOn, and Kos and read what is there, I see I have noting to retract. "Christo-fascists", "Right Wing Fascists", "The conservatives will take over ..." Talk about paranoid.

Furthermore, if I recall you were for exposing the NSA program. Considering the kind of war we are fighting here, that is akin to sinking a few flattops in WWII. In that skirmish people cited the big bad Bush "regime" as trying to take away our rights. If I recall all of the monitored calls either started or ended in Afghanistan, or Pakistan. So who do you think we were monitoring, Whistler's mother?

"The fact that I even try to engage conservatives in discussion rather than just call them names should be evidence of that." Actually Zimzo, take a better look at yourself. SPMM and Kevin come in, and answer questions, give and take. That is engagement. Our collective impression of you is far different. I usually see you as performing the blog equivalent of a drive by.

The only reason I used "Moonbat" is because of your behavior, not your beliefs. Jack has asked you innumerable questions over the months and you side step them, or ignore them. You have done the same to me, and Joe. You dug that hole all by yourself.

"I have said before that having been an eyewitness to 9/11 I understand very well the threat of Al Qaeda." Very well, but you have fellow travelers who sound just like you who believe otherwise. If I recall many of them espouse a certain theory that the Bush administration, not Al Qaeda, commited the 9/11 atrocity. Hmmm, is that not just a bit paranoid. Huh, just a little, maybe?

"Your attack on CBS is just silly. Dan Rather's interviews with the Bush's were more than 6 years ago." Why is time an issue here? Rather is the most famous example of having made up your mind before you start asking questions. He is not atypical either, just famous and busted. It is actually silly to think that 6 years means anything.

"The interviews with Hussein by Rather on the eve of the Iraq War and of Ahmadinejad (I guess you couldn't spell it) by Mike Wallace were hardly softball interviews," I saw the same interview, I was repelled, it was soft soap. Wallace has been far tougher on any given Republican than we was on Ahmadinejad, as for the spelling, I can spell his name correctly, but I usually cannot help myself and I instead write/type "Imaheadjob" Since I am on a tear, I figured I would just avoid the whole problem and call him the "Iranian President". As for the tear, I have a feeling I need to send SPMM flowers.

As for softball interviews "like the kind Fox News does with Bush and Cheney." Or the kind Barb Walter did with either Clinton? Her gushy "How do you do it!?" left me in stiches. Lets put this into context. Bush gets asked on the eve of his reelection if he has made mistakes in the war. You want to tell me with a straight face that this was not carrying water for the Kerry campaign?

"Do you honestly believe that CBS was pro-Hussein and Ahmadinejad?" No, they are anti-Bush. Make the Iranian appear reasonable when Bush is drawing a link between the bombs in Iraq to bomb makers in Iran is classic. Anything to discredit Bush (or any other Republican in the White house) is fair game.

"And what is it with this Conservative victimology? Don't you feel a little silly feeling sorry for yourself all the time." I don't feel sorry for myself. The people of this country deserve better than a press that claims objectivity and then openly supports one side of the debate. That is the point of the "Liberal Hypocrisy" article.

"Finally, your only defense of Coulter seems to be that someone else said something just as offensive and to attack liberals. You haven't really made a case for Coulter being an "angel" as you called her (maybe you're a little embarrassed by that now)," I never called her an angle. Go read the post (see what I mean).

zimzo said:

First of all, when I replied to your post I thought Joe had written it so that determined in part what I said. I don't particularly like engaging you or Jack. Jack I have no respect for whatsoever because he is hateful and mean. I refuse to respond to anything he says. You are smarter than Jack but almost as angry. Because I did respond and you have responded to me, I will in this case reply.

You can parse what Bill Maher said all day for all I care. He doesn't represent me or any political movement other than himself. He didn't say he wished Cheney dead as you said he did. That was my only point. You can do whatever rhetorical twists your heart desires to try to prove that he meant that but the fact remains he didn't say it.

The subject is not Bill Maher or media bias. The subject of Joe's post and my reply to it was Ann Coulter. You can either defend her remarks or not. Changing the subject isn't going to change what she did.

On John Edwards I found a reference to what you were talking about. He won a malpractice case for a little girl who suffered brain damage and quadraplegia during birth. In his summation he said, referring to the girl, who was alive, "I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her, I feel her presence. She's inside me and she's talking to you ... And this is what she says to you. She says, 'I don't ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don't ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage." Hardly communing with the dead. Not only does your rhetoric make you look small, but it has absolutely no factual basis.

I said I was not surprised by Ann Coulter's remarks (as you claim), I was surprised by Joe's reaction and lack of reaction. Again, I thought I was addressing Joe.

You said: "Do you want something else? Are expecting the entire conservative community to shun her for this forever? What amazes me is you can look past everything she says that is correct and use this one comment as an excuse to utterly destroy her. And that is fair?"

My response: I don't think she should be shunned for this one remark. I think she should have been shunned long ago for a long series of disgusting remarks as I have said previously the last time the subject of Coulter came up. I even read one of her books, which was poorly argued and riddled with errors. But I think there is a reason she is so popular among conservatives. I think she exposes a nasty streak of racism and homophobia behind modern conservativism. I think Ed Morrissey was right when he said conservatives must come to term with their animosity toward gays. If conservatives don't come to terms with their homophobia or the racism that fuels such issues as immigration then they are dooming themselves to the fringes of American politics.

Next you make the mistake of assuming I agree with what people say on Kos or DU and seem to think I should be held responsible for everything they say because I am a "liberal." I don't believe "conservatives are more dangerous than Al Qaeda." Period. End of discussion.

Then you mistake my reluctance to engage you in discussion and my outright refusal to engage Jack in discussion for something more than simple personal taste. I don't like to be called names or called a liar. I only came here at all because of my respect for Joe and when he engages in similar rhetorical tactics I also lose respect for him as well. You have repeatedly called me a liar without actually proving I have lied about anything, which is reprehensible.

"Fellow travelers" is a term from the 1950s used to smear liberals as Communists. Please update your cheap rhetoric.

Barbara Walters is an idiot. One Mike Wallace interview or even the entire career of Dan Rather does not prove that the media is liberal. The fact that it took so long for the media to call the Bush Administration on the lies it told to get us into the War in Iraq should kill this myth for good.

You can blame the press until you are blue in the face for everything that has gone wrong in the last six years. The press didn't send too few troops to Iraq and underestimate the insurgency. The press is not responsible for the incompetent response to Katrina. The press is not responsible for the horrific conditions at Walter Reed. The press just exposed them.

And the press did not call a presidential candidate a "faggot" or laugh and cheer the remark. Ann Coulter and your fellow conservatives did that. In fact, the press didn't even report on it until bloggers--both conservative and liberal--forced them to cover it.

So instead of lashing out at me or liberals or the press maybe you conservatives should take some personal responsibility for your own actions for a change. Maybe it's time for a little self-reflection.

stay puft marshmallow man said:

conservative self-reflection!?! Good one!

Jacob, did you hear about Edwards talking to the dead in another one of Coulter's stand up routines?

Kevin said:

When I read the response from Cheney to the bombing I was proud of our VP (maybe even for the first time).

Wishing the VP was killed is hateful. To the VP. It would be a stretch to say hateful to the US but if you belabored the point I would agree that you or someone else had the propensity to perceive it as such.

The VP, however, is not oppressed. At least, not that I know of (there may be plenty of ways, i.e. inability to travel freely without bodyguards, just pick up and go on a road trip to the mountains whenever he feels like it, inability to go see Paul Cebar and the Milwaukeeans without the threat of being killed, etc).

The real argument is not about the hate of one person, here. If Maher hates the VP and promotes hate of the VP, however despicable that may or may not be, it is not the same as calling him what amounts to a slur on a group of people who are actively oppressed.

If you trade (and I'm positive Jack will disagree with this) the word "faggot" with "nigger", "kike", "pollock", or any other derogatory word for a group of already oppressed people as a means to demean them or reduce their humanity or keep them oppressed. . .

Therein lies the difference in your argument. It's apples and oranges.

Now, it would be reprehensible to wish that our President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, etc. were killed. If they were dictators, I might feel differently. But these fools will be out of the game soon enough, that's one of the great things about this country. There's NO need to wish the leaders of our country, some of whom were elected, dead, particularly by the enemy.

And there is no reason for anyone to support Queen Anne's remarks either.

Jack said:

Considering that homosexuals have the highest income of any minority, one can hardly consider them oppressed.

Kevin said:

I thought that currently the Repubs had the highest income of any minority?

jacob said:

SPMM,
Actually I saw Edwards doing his thing that on network news. Dont ask me where.

Jack said:

That's what you get for thinking, Kevin.

Kevin said:

Well, Jack, that's why I try not to do it too often. We're a lot alike that way!

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM