Fantasy And Victimhood : The Right Wing Way Of Life

Each and every time a prominent female voice within the modern American Right is even lightly pressed to explain her stance on any topic, the hue and cry of "sexism" is surely to be leveled within the following hour.

And this is a rather peculiar procedure of operation, considering how the Right Wing view American women and their individual liberties.

So, it comes as no surprise that one of the stepford wives from the Fox caliphate would pull out the "no, it's the liberals that hate women" meme - again.

Just this week, notorious camera hog Sen. Chuck Schumer said perhaps the dumbest thing I have ever heard a politician say.

In attempting to make a point about how the organs of power on Capitol Hill need to work together to prevent a government shutdown, Schumer reconfigured the three branches of government. "You know," he said, "we have three branches of government. We have a House. We have a Senate. We have a President." It should be noted that this isn't the model described in most civics textbooks, which list the three branches as legislative, executive and judiciary.

Now imagine if a Republican had said that. Better yet, a Republican woman.

Two things here.....

First: this was a dumb move by a Senator that really doesn't serve any greater purpose than to say incredibly dumb shit like this on a regular basis in order to give fodder to the reactionary Right.

Second: A Republican DIDN'T say this, and a Republican woman DIDN'T say this.

The former is hopefully something that will be remedied soon and the later is something that most within the American media aren't quite willing to talk about - save maybe Maddow or Cenk Uygur.

This is how the modern American Right operates - if it's not there, formulate the narrative that if "X" happened, then "Y" is the eventual conclusion. The problem is that in a majority of instances, "X" is never part of the equation.

While this laughable tirade is meant to bolster the Right's base that actually believe that people like Palin and Bachmann are serious contenders for the Presidency, this rationale does nothing but reveal the modern America Right to embrace what they have claimed to be against since Obama's candidacy was announced - favoring inexperience and ignorance over forward thinking and a passion for the domestic agenda.

Granted, there are likely some within the socio-political landscape that would be more than happy to see Palin, Bachmann, or any Republican or even Democratic woman as far from the Resolute Desk as possible because they happen to be of the female form, these voices do not make up even a plurality of the voting public - at least I would hope not.

But more to the point - questioning a woman does NOT make one sexist. That is, unless you happen to believe like Andrea Tantaros or just about anyone that votes Republican does.

Let The Bulk Buying Begin

With all this time spent on her Twitter-machine, going over what is ghost-written on her Facebook page, and doodling more notes on her palm in order to make some semi-clever point about politics and message, Palin has managed to bring another person into the fold to help her conjour another tome of nonsensical drivel. But there's a different angle to this book.

The former Alaska governor and potential 2012 GOP presidential candidate will release a new book -- "America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith and Flag" -- in November.

HarperCollins, Palin's publisher, released a photo of the book cover with Palin, hair down, clad in a gray sweater wearing a sparkly American flag pin and bracelet.

The 224-page book, her second, features selections from people who have inspired Palin's "deep love of country," and its includes excerpts of her favorite songs, speeches and poems.

So, it will be like a conservative mixtape in book form? This ought to be good.

I'm guessing her inspirational excerpt will likely include country/pop lyrics from Toby Keith and speeches by Thomas Jefferson - the later will likely have all formal context removed from it in order to make some vague reference to how America was formed from the very brow of God. And as far as poetry is concerned, I'm fairly certain we aren't going to see anything on par with say Emerson or Langston Hughes. There's no telling what we're going to see in that department.

But the title itself does make one wonder what the parts that she* writes are going to reveal about her that we didn't already know. In terms of family, are we going to be treated to a reflection on what happens when you use your children as theatrical props in order to gain sympathy? And what about faith? Will there be grand revelations about what it's like to hang with a witch doctor or attend one of those seminars where people get "de-gayed"? Then there's the flag - a conservatives favorite tool. Is Sarah going to show us the best way to accessorize with Old Glory that won't violate US Flag Code - even though she's been guilty of that several times.

I'm sure that the book will get plenty of attention from conservative bloggers that are more than willing to hype this as one of the centuries greatest pieces of non-fiction. Not only that, but I can already sense The Heritage Foundation writing out a check to Harper Collins for 2 million copies. Got to pad those numbers, you know.


------ * are we really still supposed to believe that she write all this stuff on her own?

Pushing The Envelope

Family guy apparently takes a jab at the Palin family during last night's episode.

...one of the show's characters dates a woman who apparently suffers from Down syndrome. The woman makes comparisons to Palin's 22-month-old son, Trig.

"My dad's an accountant, and my mom's the former governor of Alaska," the mentally disabled character said, without mentioning any names.

Family Guy is noted for being not only irreverent, but excruciatingly controversial on a variety of issues ranging from race-relations to abortion. So it's not surprising that the show would take this topic on.

And while the NY Daily News writer thinks that this episode was tasteless and beyond-the-pale, one has to look at Palin's own statements regarding satire and the use of the word "retard". While not once in the episode was the word "retard" used, the entire series is known for it's satirical standpoint on virtually everything imaginable.

The question now stands - is THIS brand of satire unacceptable? We're waiting Sarah.

Praying For Death?

Fresh off the stint that appears to have bankrupted Pajamas Media, Joe "The Gimmick" Wurzelbacher, is being tapped to "advise" the GOP.

What?!?!

Yep, that's just what happened last Tuesday:

When GOP congressional aides gather Tuesday morning for a meeting of the Conservative Working Group, Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher – more commonly known as Joe the Plumber — will be their featured guest. This group is an organization of conservative Capitol Hill staffers who meet regularly to chart GOP strategy for the week.

Wurzelbacher, who became a household name during the presidential election, will be focusing his talk on the proposed stimulus package. He's apparently not a fan of the economic rescue package, according to members of the group.

Source

So, Joe is giving GOP members advice on economics.

I mean, would anyone expect these people to actually consult with an economist?

---------------------------------------------------

But there's more.

In a piece in the NY Daily News, Joe pushes back against rumors that he would run for political office:

I don’t know if the American public deserve me.....but my son definitely deserves my time now.

Aside from his son, who really does need Joe?

As gimmicks and political theatre go, Joe has been a cumbersome stage-prop since day one. However, the Right seems ever eager to lug him around the world as a distraction whenever it suits their needs.

And why shouldn't Joe run?

I mean, if Sarah Palin is actually considering a run for the Presidency in 2012, why not let Joe be part of the Republican parties continued embarassment.

The Man Who Should Be There

Richard Clarke, the man that knew and continues to know more about terrorism than anyone the Bush administration has ever paraded in front of a flank of press members and network news cameras, has a new piece in the New York Daily News that sheds some light on the "Bush has kept us safe because we haven't been attacked since 9/11" meme:

George Bush, still President, is engaging in a legacy tour of media outlets. This comes despite his earlier having said he did not know how history would judge the Iraq war "because we'll all be dead."

Actually, many people are already dead because of Bush, and that is the point to keep in mind when he talks about his legacy.

Among the themes Bush is striking are that through action at home and fighting "them" over there, not over here, his administration stopped terrorist attacks and prevented another 9/11. There is a surface plausibility to those claims, as there has often been with the messaging served up by the Karl Rove spin machine. But let's look beneath the surface of the assertions.

Bush stopped terrorist attacks? Yes, some of the many alleged plots cited by the White House probably would have matured into attacks had not the U.S. intelligence community acted. Many were more aspirational than operational, and others were the pure inventions of FBI informants. (In the Miami Liberty City case, an FBI informant apparently bribed people who previously had no interest in Al Qaeda. When they swore the oath to Osama Bin Laden, they were then arrested for doing so.)

To hear a mouth-agape conservative spout that pathetic line of "we haven't been attacked since...." is something truly telling of the conservative-republican movement.

Whereas certain moments in a person's life can be seen in a realistic, linear fashion ( ie: I didn't screw that guy after the senior prom, and my best friend did and she got crabs that would have surely infested me ). To use this logic in relation to terrorism is utterly laughable.

To say that Bush has protected us is like saying that if you wear purple socks for a month straight and you aren't diagnosed with cancer, then purple socks obviously prevent cancer.

Probably Not Even Worth Stealing

I have read quite a few far-right conservative books over the past few years.

From Sean Hannity's "goose-steppy" inflections in 'Let Freedom Ring' to Bill O'Reilly's "We'll Do It Live Cause I Fucking Said So" rants in 'Culture Warrior', It has become more and more apparent that the stereotypes of far-right conservatives aren't really stereotypes.

Then, we have (m)Ann Coulter's latest ream of nonsense, 'Guilty'.



From The NY Daily Nes

In her latest screed, titled "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and their Assault on America," Coulter accuses the liberal left of playing the victim when in fact, she argues, they are the victimizers.

As usual, Coulter throws plenty of bombs herself.

Lashing out at the President-elect's wife, Coulter wrote, "Her obvious imitation of Jackie O's style - the flipped-under hair, the sleeveless A-line dresses, the short strands of fake pearls - would have been laughable if done by anyone other than a media-designated saint."

There she goes again with the "if" line.

For anyone that hasn't read anything by Coulter, you aren't missing much. Take the blue humor of Howard Stern, the rabid, Reagan-diefication rants of Sean Hannity, and blend it with the latest she-male video to hit PornHub and you've got a pretty good idea of how Coulter operates.

Not content with tackling an issue with any sort of credibility, (m)Ann Coulter prefers style over substance. Well, as much as a chimp flinging poo at a wall is style, I suppose I can afford the same compliment to Coulter.

If you're curious as to how anyone like (m)Ann Coulter could be a best selling author, all you have to do is realize that conservative think tanks and blogs like Townhall.com buy up bulk quantities of the book prior to publication to give out at speaking engagements and as "gifts" for subscribers.

One of the sad parts about Coulter and her books are the television networks that actually help her sell them.

As someone that has actively been trying to have his work published, I've been asked by people "why don't you write something about politics, like all these conservatives do?" To that, I respond that I actually prefer something that is a challenge to complete, not something that a 7th grader could accomplish.