First they came for the aging, racist shock-jocks, and I said nothing …

by John Holbo on April 15, 2007

For I was not an aging, racist shock-jock.

Then they came for the ones who had ‘lost’ all that email, and I said nothing. For I had not ‘lost’ all that email.

It seems to me this has been a weak week for Republican push-back.

And now, back to your previously scheduled comics blogging.



Flippanter 04.15.07 at 1:50 pm

Come on, people, we can do worse than that! Let’s take the moral hubris to the next level:

I will have no right to participate in the reconstruction of Republican life in the United States after the war if I do not share the trials of this time with my people.


Jonathan Adler 04.15.07 at 2:25 pm

Why is defense of Don Imus “Republican” push-back? Politically, Imus is a liberal, who tends to support and promote Democratic political candidates and regularly features liberal commentators as guests.

For myself, I’m surprised Imus has lasted on the air this long. Imus has crossed the line of acceptable discourse many times before. Now if only Cleveland radio stations would replace drive-time shock jocks with actual music . . .



John Holbo 04.15.07 at 2:30 pm

I have never listened to Imus, jonathan. But Republican pundits certainly seem to be treating this as something they need to be pushing-back against.


P O'Neill 04.15.07 at 2:52 pm

It’s tough to parody the wingers now. The Wall Street Journal put the headline First They Came for the Jews on a defence of AIPAC lobbyists about to be prosecuted for receiving classified information.


Jonathan Adler 04.15.07 at 3:05 pm

John —

Lots of folks are pushing back here (wrongly in my view), including Rosie O’Donnell and the sex-crazed shock jocks that populate FM drive-time radio. Meanwhile, Republican pundits like Bill Kristol are sitting back with bemusement about the controversy. This is hardly a partisan issue.



Antti Nannimus 04.15.07 at 4:25 pm


The meanness and viciousness of our entertainment media will survive intact. This is only a momentary setback. Soon the degradation and humiliation of countless others who are unable to defend themselves will resume as usual.

Have a nice day,



dearieme 04.15.07 at 4:27 pm

We’re all aging,sonny boy, but some of us proportionately more slowly than others.


pushy 04.15.07 at 5:35 pm

Republican pundits are just sitting back with bemusement? Hey, look, there’s Tom Delay: just look at him sitting back with bemusement.


fred lapides 04.15.07 at 6:09 pm

here is but yet another unkind blow for the Bushies
Top ex-military leaders call global warming major security risk

I can forgive Imus for just about anything but that dumb cowboy hat worn in New York. Beware of all people wearing funny hats.


Uncle Kvetch 04.15.07 at 6:31 pm

Imus’ political endorsements, in and of themselves, don’t tell you much; he endorsed Bob Dole in 1996.

I don’t think he’s really partisan; his “politics” essentially amounts to an endless wail of straight-white-male entitlement, resentment, and self-pity. Given that the overwhelming majority of other media figures who trade in that kind of rhetoric are emphatically, unapologetically right-wing, you can see where people might get the idea that he isn’t exactly a “liberal” (whatever the hell that means anymore, anyway).


Jim Harrison 04.15.07 at 7:53 pm

These days calling somebody a liberal doesn’t tell you much about their politics. Heck, the Washington Post is supposed to be liberal despite its consistent support for Neocon foreign policies. The New York Times is supposed to be liberal, but no paper spent more effort creating and promoting the Whitewater scandal. The supposedly liberal Imus hates Gore and the Clintons. Which is probably why many Republicans put in a word for him.


Greg 04.16.07 at 5:25 am

Imus hated Clinton, which is why he supported Dole. He was a Kerry supporter, Liberal or conservative.
Everyone who has ever tried to be funny has put their foot in their mouth.


Katherine 04.16.07 at 10:10 am

At least on this side of the pond, our comparable controversy (a couple of years ago) was from a perma-tanned, racist right winger whom most people couldn’t stand. Made the whole debate a bit easier.


"Q" the Enchanter 04.16.07 at 3:26 pm

“Why is defense of Don Imus “Republican” push-back? Politically, Imus is a liberal….”

So “liberal” was he, in fact, that he supported Bush in 2000.


Shelby 04.16.07 at 5:17 pm

If Tom DeLay and Rosie O’Donnell are on the same side of an issue, it’s safe to say it doesn’t fit into “liberal” or “conservative” in any way meaningful to American politics.


Stephen Downes 04.16.07 at 10:46 pm

So… what you’re defending is the right to be racist and sexist on public radio.

Why is that again?

Comments on this entry are closed.