Comments on: Not in our name

By: nobody

nobody — Fri, 04 Jun 2004 05:21:24 +0000

“When Rush Limbaugh referred to Chelsea Clinton as the “White House dog”…” No, didnt happen this way. Transcript from lexis-nexis (Rush was doing a segment on In/Out lists) Copyright 1992 Multimedia Entertainment, Inc. RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW: RUSH LIMBAUGH (9:00 PM ET) November 6, 1992, Friday 11:15 AM LIMBAUGH: Thank you. This show’s era of dominant influence is just beginning. We are now the sole voice of sanity, the sole voice of reason. We are the sole voice of opposition on all television. This is the only place you can tune to to get the truth of the opposition of the one-party dictatorial government that now will soon run America. Oh, I mean, we are only beginning to enjoy dominance and prosperity. Most of these things on the in-out list are not even funny, but a couple of them—one of them in particular is. David Hinckley of—of the New York Daily News wrote this, and what he has—he’s got—it’s very strange. He says, In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.’ Could—could we see the cute kid? Let’s take a look at—see who is the cute kid in the White House. (A picture is shown of Millie the dog) LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) No, no, no. That’s not the kid. (Picture shown of Chelsea Clinton) LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) That’s—that’s the kid. We’re trying to… _____________________ Yes, it was a mistake, and yes, he profusely apologized.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Sat, 29 May 2004 07:26:27 +0000

Thorley, did you just write that to embarrass Ted? Your advice on Democratic political strategy is highly suspect. If you or any other Republican/ conservative would put the same energy into policing your own side’s creepiness, I guess I’d take Ted’s attempts more seriously. Republican operatives (plausibly-deniable surrogates) even slimed Republican Sen. McCain’s family during the 2000 primaries, and I do expect Kerry’s family to get hit soon enough. I just think that the whole issue of civility in American politics is a lost cause and has been for more than a decade, except (so far) in the limited but extremely important sense that civility consists of not using violence and threats of violence. There might be some point when calls for civility might make sense, but the issue mostly seems to get raised when Democrats start matching the Republicans.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Sat, 29 May 2004 04:37:59 +0000

On the other hand, if anything in this world can be offensive, it is a damn Republican deigning to give Democrats advice on matters of restraint in discourse. Hell should freeze utterly before you give a flying f*** what Repubs think about what you say about them.

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Sat, 29 May 2004 02:39:02 +0000

Ted Barlowe wrote:

My cold-hearted calculus for the “leave them alone position: is this, Zizka:
- No one is going to be more likely to vote against Bush because of a left-wing takedown of one of his daughters.
- Some people might be more likely to vote for Bush, out of disgust for what is perceived, accurately or not, as the cruelty and pettiness of his opponents.
- If I’m right, there’s nothing to be gained and a lot to be lost by attacking them.
My soft, fuzzy-headed argument is that attacks on family members of politicians bug the shit out of me. I find them embarassing and impossible to defend, and I’d rather not be associated with them.

Quite correct on all points.

By: Maddy

Maddy — Fri, 28 May 2004 23:42:19 +0000

“Left-of-center bloggers, could I have a quick word with you, before this becomes a problem?” Left-of-center does not necessarily mean pro-Kerry anti-Bush.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Fri, 28 May 2004 23:22:57 +0000

Ted, the Democratic Party is an extraordinarily big tent. There are going to be lots of people under that tent whom you don’t like, doing things you don’t like, sometimes even related to the campaign. I don’t see any urgency here (besides the fact that I’m just a much more malicious person than you.) If the abuse of the Bush girls is a factor in the election, it will be because the Republican publicity machine has decided to publicize it the way they did the Wellstone memorial. I doubt extremely that this will happen, because Bush’s campaign doesn’t want the core constituency to know much about the actual Bush family lifestyle.

By: Ted Barlow

Ted Barlow — Fri, 28 May 2004 21:51:49 +0000

My cold-hearted calculus for the “leave them alone position: is this, Zizka: – No one is going to be more likely to vote against Bush because of a left-wing takedown of one of his daughters. – Some people might be more likely to vote for Bush, out of disgust for what is perceived, accurately or not, as the cruelty and pettiness of his opponents. – If I’m right, there’s nothing to be gained and a lot to be lost by attacking them. My soft, fuzzy-headed argument is that attacks on family members of politicians bug the shit out of me. I find them embarassing and impossible to defend, and I’d rather not be associated with them.

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Fri, 28 May 2004 21:48:53 +0000

Zizka frothed out:

Note that this attempt to claim the even-higher ground by pushing polemical “age of consent” eight years higher has made it easy for our friend thorley to counterattack.

“Age of consent”? Oh that’s right, I forgot that about the same time Limbaugh made his “family dog” joke (which he later apologized for), SNL was running sketches about a lesbian love affair between Chelsea Clinton and Madonna. I suppose that would be an example of left going after a president’s child that might actually relate to the “age of consent.”

To him the thirteenness of Chelsea is irrelevant

It’s also not a word.

and anything liberals do is always wrong anyway, and there should of course be a strict statute of limitations on conservative (but not liberal) offenses.

No but I do think it’s silly to continue to harp on something so insignificant that happened over eight years ago.

The Republican goons don’t need a pretext.

Somebody’s bucking for a job as an ad writer for MoveOn.org.

They were outraged by the Wellstone funeral.

No, I got over it when their little political rally blew up in their face on election day. My father, who was planning on voting for Wellstone for a third time, was with me the day his plane crashed and was outraged when my reaction was “how will the DFL exploit this for sympathy to keep the seat.” He called me the evening of the rally/memorial service and agreed that my prediction was right. No one (on the Right) s really “outraged” about it anymore since it was such an obvious and clumsy ploy on their part and it backfired, big time.

They will continue be outraged by something or another from here on out. They are outraged by events that didn’t take place and by deliberate misquotations. For them, outrage is fun, and it works.

Nice projection.

The idea that a concordat on civility within the genteel cohort of the left blogosphere is going to be a practical factor in the election is laughable. The idea that “We should be better then them” in order to get the Miss Congeniality loser award offends me, frankly.

Oh I don’t think that whether the blogosphere is more or less civil is going to make a scintilla of difference in this general election (although it does provide a useful alternative to the gate keeping of the mainstream media) as most people don’t read blogs (yet). By all means get angry, thump your chests, and make whatever cheap nasty remarks you want. It’s worked so far.

The election will neither be won nor lost on this issue. It’s a null. Fun-loving little rich rightwing bitches have their differences with the Taliban wing of the Republican party, but a small amount of experience with the twenty-some party circuit teaches you that they really don’t have problems with eliminationism, preemptive nuclear war against ragheads, or other forms of right-wing nastiness. Ann Coulter is a Deadhead, you know.

It’s starting to become clear that Zizka is really just upset because he never got over being turned down by one of the women he now professes to hate. Good for her. ;)

By: the Navigator

the Navigator — Fri, 28 May 2004 21:37:08 +0000

Thorley, I see, so Rush:GOP::Flynt:Dems? Not quite. Not by a mile. When the GOP took over Congress in Jan. 95, they invited Limbaugh to address the freshman representatives. (He told them to beware of Cokie Roberts.) Have the Dems ever deliberately associated themselves with Larry Flynt? Has he addressed their party conclaves at their invitation? I’m confident we can get some smart-ass in here to make some sarcastic remark about how the Dems are all deviant pornographers, etc. etc., but I think you know that my point stands. Now, then, has Limbaugh ever apologized for that remark? Perhaps he has, I can’t say for sure – but I rather doubt it.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Fri, 28 May 2004 21:08:13 +0000

Hang on a minute now. I didn’t say they weren’t cute; indeed, I expressed concern that Maxim readers might vote for GW just because the liked the idea of doing Jenna. Or maybe Barb, though that’s less likely. There’s even a site I love Jenna Bush confirming my fear. The site owner, if not a parodist, seems to be a slightly-mentally-ill right-wing New Age wanker. ilovejennabush.blogspot.com/ No, a university degree is not a mark of intellectual distinction, and no one left or right thinks it is. Key words: “dumbing down” and “grade inflation”. I am not confident that the twins share my beliefs about anything. Under the right circumstances, I too am strongly in favor of drunkenness, but that doesn’t mean that I feel a bond with every other drunk on the face of the earth. As the updated saying goes, with your moral and intellectual solvency plus $2.85 you can buy a tall double latte. I’ll limp along without them. I find this whole thread ludicrous, though I’ve enjoyed contributing to the stupidity. Nothing that anyone here does or doesn’t do relating to the Bush twins will have any effect whatever either on the twins or on the election.

By: JAM

JAM — Fri, 28 May 2004 20:08:20 +0000

What I find amusing is the disconnect between those who think it is just fine to attack “the little drunken moron sluts” and those who note that the girls political opinions do not align with those of their father. They’re really not good-looking. They look like every other stupid, drunk, slightly-overweight sorority girl on my campus. I dunno – I guess I prefer a girl to have a little more substance (between the ears, not around the waist). And don’t tell me Barb is “smart” because she went to yale. If my experience at Harvard was any indication, people who come from money and pick the right major (e.g. “humanities”) can be dumb as a bag of bricks and still finish with a B+ average. So now suddenly a university degree isn’t a mark of intellectual achievement. Or is it only a distinction if the individual in question is a card carrying liberal? But wait: Recently, a source asked the 21-year-old Barbara if she was a Republican. “She made a funny face and rolled her eyes,” reports our snitch. “She said, ‘I really wouldn’t label myself that.’” Texas records show that Barbara and her twin, Jenna, voted as Republicans in the 2000 presidential primary. But one source contends the good-time gals “don’t buy into the conservative movement. They don’t agree with their father’s position on environment and other issues.” So are you taking the position that they are stupid, though they share your beliefs? The girls may not be incredible supermodel hotties, but they aren’t unattractive. I’d bet none of you would kick them out of bed for eating crackers. And to hold a couple of overzealous youthful party moments against them the way many of you seem to is just pathetic. They couldn’t possibly have matured during the last couple of years? Never mind. You reveal yourselves for what you are. Both intellectually and morally bankrupt.

By: rvman

rvman — Fri, 28 May 2004 16:51:08 +0000

Deadhead, brain-dead. Close enough.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Fri, 28 May 2004 16:33:07 +0000

Note that this attempt to claim the even-higher ground by pushing polemical “age of consent” eight years higher has made it easy for our friend thorley to counterattack. To him the thirteenness of Chelsea is irrelevant, and anything liberals do is always wrong anyway, and there should of course be a strict statute of limitations on conservative (but not liberal) offenses. The Republican goons don’t need a pretext. They were outraged by the Wellstone funeral. They will continue be outraged by something or another from here on out. They are outraged by events that didn’t take place and by deliberate misquotations. For them, outrage is fun, and it works. The idea that a concordat on civility within the genteel cohort of the left blogosphere is going to be a practical factor in the election is laughable. The idea that “We should be better then them” in order to get the Miss Congeniality loser award offends me, frankly. The election will neither be won nor lost on this issue. It’s a null. Fun-loving little rich rightwing bitches have their differences with the Taliban wing of the Republican party, but a small amount of experience with the twenty-some party circuit teaches you that they really don’t have problems with eliminationism, preemptive nuclear war against ragheads, or other forms of right-wing nastiness. Ann Coulter is a Deadhead, you know.

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Fri, 28 May 2004 14:51:27 +0000

Anthony wrote:

After all the Bush=Hitler nonsense and use of the word regime instead of administration, you seriously think that you will be able to prevent this sort of attack? I doubt it.

Not bloody likely, but it is sort of amusing to watch them pretend that they even have a chance to claim any sort of high ground on any issue. Also rather pathetic to see them still drag up the “Limbaugh called Chelsea a dog” line (are they still trying to get mileage out of that?) while ignoring Larry Flynt putting a bounty on Jenna Bush.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Fri, 28 May 2004 10:21:12 +0000

You can’t even get a party line on not suggesting there was a conspiracy theory on 911!