Skip to content

I didn’t think he had it in him

Saturday, March 3, 2012

The non-apology apology is an American art form. I don’t know if it exists in other cultures, but my guess is that if there are analogs, they reflect the various cultures in which those foreign non-apologies are delivered. Here in the U.S.A., where hypocrisy is itself an art form, the non-apology apology usually consists of some variation of the “I’m sorry if anyone was offended by what really was a perfectly reasonable statement” pronouncement. A well framed non-apology apology is crafted so that the speaker can claim to have apologized, while having in reality attacked the person to whom the apology is directed yet again, and in a manner that shields the “apologist” from further recriminations.

Well, if this form of apology is an art form, then Rush Limbaugh may just be the Leonardo da Vinci of the form. I read it here, but it’s all over the internet:

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

Now if Rush actually wrote this, it’s a masterpiece for which he must be congratulated. I suspect, however, that it was a member of my own profession that penned this monument to hypocrisy. What a gem! It may never be equaled, it cannot be surpassed. A heaping, reeking pile of mendacity from first to last, it will still quiet the mainstream media, which is all that counts, because it uses the words “sincerely apologize” and that’s all they need to see. It matters not that his profession that he never meant to personally attack Ms. Fluke, a lie so brazen that it leaves you breathless, is followed by an entire paragraph attacking her yet again. Note how he artfully incorporates the standard Republican technique that has worked so well in the past: repeat a lie or justification incessantly until the faithful come to believe it and everyone else grows weary. In this case, he takes shelter in the terminology already proffered by Santorum. This technique has been on full display in this birth control debate from the very beginning, as the Republicans try with might and main to cast their war on women as a fight for religious freedom. Finally, Rush (or his lawyer) has invented a new riff on the “I’m sorry if I offended anyone..” theme, for in the end, he’s not apologizing for what he said, but for the words with which he said it. Had he simply, for instance, replaced “slut” with “woman of easy virtue”, all would have been well.

But you know, we all make mistakes, so maybe I’m being harsh and should cut Rush some slack. For instance, the other day I referred to Rush Limbaugh as a steaming pile of dog shit. In my attempt to be humorous, I went too far. I did not mean it to be a personal attack and I want to sincerely apologize to dog shit everywhere.

Filed in Hypocrisy, Republicans | | Comments (1)

Friday Night Music

Friday, March 2, 2012

A anthem ready made for the Obama campaign, if they have the smarts to use it, and if Bruce lets them.

This, from an Obama speech to some union workers, seems to echo Bruce:

Because I’ve got to admit, it’s been funny to watch some of these politicians completely rewrite history now that you’re back on your feet. These are the folks who said if we went forward with our plan to rescue Detroit, “you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye.” Now they’re saying they were right all along. Or worse, they’re saying that the problem is that you, the workers, made out like bandits in all of this; that saving the American auto industry was just about paying back unions. Really? Even by the standards of this town, that’s a load of you-know-what. About 700,000 retirees saw a reduction in the health care benefits they had earned. Many of you saw hours reduced, or pay and wages scaled back. You gave up some of your rights as workers. Promises were made to you over the years that you gave up for the sake and survival of this industry, its workers, and their families. You want to talk about values? Hard work – that’s a value. Looking out for one another – that’s a value. The idea that we’re all in it together – that I am my brother’s keeper; I am my sister’s keeper – that is a value.

More of that. It contrasts well with a guy who says he likes to fire people.

Filed in Music | | Comments (0)

Yet another modest proposal

Friday, March 2, 2012

Back in 2007 both the Democratically controlled House and Senate passed Republican pushed resolutions condemning Moveon for hurting David Patreaus’s feefees. It was, pure and simple, a stunt designed to alienate the Democrats from their base, and the Democrats fell for it hook, line and sinker. There was, in fact, no national revulsion at what Moveon had done. It was a ginned up controversy.

In 2009 a Democratic controlled Congress, again at the instigation of Republicans, destroyed Acorn without even the benefit of a kangaroo court, on trumped up charges orchestrated by the thankfully late and totally unlamented Andrew Breitbart. I can’t recall that a voice was raised in defense of Acorn. No hearing that would have exposed the frame was ever held.

Rush Limbaugh is now hurling vile sexually charged insults at a young woman who has done nothing but exercise her right to speak. (This, by the way, from a man whose own sex life will not bear scrutiny.)

So why won’t the Democrats use the Republicans’ tactics against them? Why not make them vote on whether to condemn Limbaugh? Whatever way they might vote, they lose.

Of course, I have no hope that anyone will actually propose such a resolution, or that the Democrats as a group will force a vote like the minority Republicans were able to do in the instances I’ve cited. It might destroy civility in Washington.

Filed in Democrats | | Comments (0)

Need he ask?

Friday, March 2, 2012

Paul Krugman ends this morning column with a question:

Put it this way: Are you worried about a “Greek-style collapse”? Well, these plans would slash spending in the near term, emulating Europe’s catastrophic austerity, even while locking in budget-busting tax cuts for the future.

The question now is whether someone offering this toxic combination of irresponsibility, class warfare, and hypocrisy can actually be elected president.

Answer: Yes, see e.g., Reagan, Ronald, and Bush, George W.

Filed in History | | Comments (0)

God makes his views known

Friday, March 2, 2012

No other conclusion can be drawn:

St. Joseph’s Catholic Church is left in ruins Thursday in Ridgway, Ill.

 

Filed in Religion | | Comments (0)

More false equivalency from the New York Times

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Yet another exercise in the arts of false equivalencies in this morning’s Times, which bemoans the fate of Olympia Snowe, who didn’t want to face the wrath of the right in this year’s election. But, in true modern media fashion, it was absolutely necessary for the Times to make it clear that the center is being hollowed out by identical processes in both parties.

It would take a lot of time to deal with the examples of the Democrats supposedly victimized by the thought police on the left, so I’ll restrict myself to a few observations.

First, where is the Club for Growth of the left. Identify, please, the organization on the left that targets insufficiently liberal Democrats for destruction.

To get to some specifics. Joe Manchin, Democrat of West Virginia, complains about the fact that while he is anti-abortion, he is taking heat for not being anti-abortion enough. This is not an example of pressure from the left and is in no way similar to Snowe’s experience.

Also, it doesn’t count if someone decides for whatever reason not to seek re-election unless that reason has something to do with the kinds of pressures Snowe was experiencing. Evan Bayh called himself a centrist, which in this day and age means he was an intellectually dishonest corporate shill, but let us put that to the side. There was no concerted effort among Indiana Democrats to defeat Bayh. In fact, the way he went about retiring was a stab in the back to the Democrats, since they had very little time to find another candidate. Ben Nelson is in the same category. No one was attacking him from the left. Plenty of us didn’t like him, but he wasn’t facing any opposition to his renomination. If he thought he was going to lose the general election it was because he felt that even he wasn’t bat shit crazy enough to satisfy the right wingers in his state.

More fundamentally, it simply isn’t true that the two parties have gravitated toward the extremes. The Republicans surely have, but the Democrats have not. In fact, the Democrats have, in many respects, become more “centrist” as the Republicans have succeeded in redefining the center as they pull the “respectable” right end of the spectrum ever more into tinfoil hat land. As one small example, twenty years ago you would not have found Democrats looking to make “grand bargains” about Social Security or Medicare. The Democratic party is far more dominated by corporate influence than at any time since before FDR. That is not left wing. As yet another small example the Democrats just passed a health care bill that was essentially the Republican plan from just a few years ago. Last but not least, the issue that finally drove Snowe to the breaking point, the issue of insurance coverage for contraceptives, is not one in which the Democrats have taken an extreme position. Their position is consistent with the law in 27 states and entirely consistent with the Constitution the right wing claims to own. It is the Republicans that have staked out an extreme position that makes a mockery of the First Amendment principles that they claim to be upholding.

A left wing Senator as far to the right as the average Senate Republican would be advocating, among other things that never enter the public conversation, confiscatory taxes on the rich, say in the 85% area (you know, where it was in the communist ‘50s), truly universal health care, orderly destruction of our empire, taxation of the churches, withdrawal of accreditation from religious schools that teach creationism, and oddly enough because it’s not really a left-right issue, meaningful action on climate change. And they wouldn’t just believe in these things in the darkest recesses of their hearts; they’d be screaming about them and calling anyone who opposed them threats to America. When that blessed day comes the Times can write with some justification about a polarized Senate. Right now, there’s only one party at the pole; the other one is just slightly removed from the equator.

Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

A great Democrat

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

A few days ago I put up a post that included this paragraph about our hapless Democrats:

Today a poll was released showing that 47% of the people in this country want the health care law repealed. And why not? All they hear is a steady drumbeat of criticism from the right and a deafening silence from the Democrats. Would people want it repealed if they knew what was in it? Unlikely. Will the Democrats make a concerted effort to let them know what’s in it, to be as aggressively in favor of the law as Republicans are against it? Need I ask?”

Well, the operative word in that paragraph is “concerted”, so I stand by my main point, but good friend Jason Gross, from Joe Courtney’s office emailed to remind me that Joe Courtney is an honorable exception. He hasn’t run away from the health care bill, and he deserves credit for it. From an article from the Connecticut Mirror:

The third-term congressman from Vernon hasn’t missed many chances to tout the upsides of a law that many of his fellow Democrats have not gone out of their way to promote. Courtney brought a primary care doctor to town hall meetings last year to talk about patients whose cancers were discovered because of free wellness visits that Medicare now covers because of health reform. He’s delivered floor speeches to point out what he considers positive developments from the law, about which Americans remain divided, according to national surveys.

We here in Eastern Connecticut can be justly proud of our current Congressman. Not only does he vote right (well, almost all the time-no one’s perfect), not only is he a real Democrat, but he is a truly nice guy, something you can’t say about many politicians, even those with whom you might agree.

Filed in Joe Courtney | | Comments (0)

Big surprise: Catholics don’t like Saint Ricky

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

This really should come as no surprise:

Despite Santorum’s devout Catholicism, Romney beat Santorum, 44% to 37%, among Michigan Catholics, who comprised 30% of the state’s electorate. In Ohio, by contrast, Catholics were just one-quarter of the vote in 2008. Meanwhile, Santorum trounced Romney among Michigan’s Evangelicals by sixteen points. Such voters amounted to 39% of the vote in the Wolverine State. Four years ago, evangelicals made up 44% of the Ohio electorate.

Catholics are not, on the whole, particularly rabid about their religion, and were probably more turned off by Santorum saying he vomits at the thought of JFK, who many of those Catholics still hold dear (even the Republicans), than they are entranced by his birth control stance, with which they disagree. Santorum may think JFK should have danced to the Pope’s tune, but most Catholics would disagree, especially when it comes to anything involving sex. Nor should it come as any surprise that Santorum does so well with the fundamentalists; he is more of them than he is of the Catholics.

The quote above illustrates a peculiar phenomenon in our discourse. Santorum is a “devout” Catholic because he wants to outlaw birth control and abortion (i.e., keep those females in subjection), in line with Catholic teaching. Liberal Catholics, on the other hand, don’t earn that adjective, despite the fact that they agree with the Church on such issues as the death penalty, not to mention feeding the poor, healing the sick and all that other old fashioned stuff. The Bishops, twisted individuals that they are, would probably go along with this categorization; the hierarchy has become sex-obsessed. There may have been a time when they had some influence on the voting behavior of their “flock”, but lately, for the Bishops, it’s been like herding cats rather than sheep.

Filed in Republicans | | Comments (0)

Where’s Colbert?

Monday, February 27, 2012

If you’re a Colbert fan, you know he’s currently in a deadly rivalry with his former best friend Jimmy Fallon. Well lately Jimmy has been hanging out with Michelle Obama, seen here in a potato sack race against Fallon at the White House.

So, inquiring minds want to know. Is Colbert going to take this lying down?

Filed in American Life | | Comments (0)

When will they ever learn

Monday, February 27, 2012

In an apparent attempt to please the beltway punditocracy, Steny Hoyer has announced that he’ll soon be announcing a deficit reduction program, which, whatever its merits will be rejected by the Republicans. Apparently Hoyer believes that the American people will reward the Democrats for attempting to address the most critical issue facing the country, as that term is defined by the usual gang of idiots on the news channels and the newspaper columns. In this Hoyer will fail in twofold fashion. First, one can never satisfy the Pete Petersons and Tom Friedmans of the world, particularly if one is a Democrat. But the truly astonishing thing about this is Hoyer’s apparent tone deaf belief that this is an issue that really matters to the American people. Of course, if you ask most people they’ll tell you that they care about the deficit; but they really don’t. They know they should care about the deficit, because the need for such concern is constantly drummed into them, but when push comes to shove it’s a minor issue for most real people. What they really care about is jobs for their kids and sometimes for themselves, and social security and Medicare. These are issues ready made for the Democrats, but to speak up on them is to risk the wrath of the very serious people in Washington who feel that one proves ones seriousness by screwing everyone, except for them, of course. The fact that there solutions never work is beside the point.

Hoyer’s announcement tells us much about the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans use the punditocracy, but they never kowtow to it. How many of them, for instance, are making any effort to appear reasonable when it comes to taxing the rich?

This is of a piece with the Democrats total inability to craft a message. Their electoral strategy consists of passively reaping the benefits of Republican stupidity. See, e.g., the war on birth control. But that is not a winning long term strategy. Today a poll was released showing that 47% of the people in this country want the health care law repealed. And why not? All they hear is a steady drumbeat of criticism from the right and a deafening silence from the Democrats. Would people want it repealed if they knew what was in it? Unlikely. Will the Democrats make a concerted effort to let them know what’s in it, to be as aggressively in favor of the law as Republicans are against it? Need I ask?

 

Filed in Democrats | | Comments (0)