The Demise of the GOP

I've been saying the same thing myself. There are many honorable conservatives/Republicans. Unfortunately for them (I'm not terribly unhappy) their party has been hijacked by the wackjobs like Limbaugh, Coulter, Dobson and a seemingly vast number of rude, uncouth and vulgar conservative commenters that you can read regularly on local blogs. This in its entirety from the Anonymous Liberal.

In his column in the New York Times today, David Brooks explains the collapse of the Republican brand this way:

To put it bluntly, over the past several years, the G.O.P. has made ideological choices that offend conservatism’s Burkean roots. This may seem like an airy-fairy thing that does nothing more than provoke a few dissenting columns from William F. Buckley, George F. Will and Andrew Sullivan. But suburban, Midwestern and many business voters are dispositional conservatives more than creedal conservatives. They care about order, prudence and balanced budgets more than transformational leadership and perpetual tax cuts. It is among these groups that G.O.P. support is collapsing.

John Cole, a Republican-voter as recently as 2004, strongly dissents and offers a different explanation:

Like me. It had nothing to do with Burke, and everything to do with what the party had become. A bunch of bedwetting, loudmouth, corrupt, hypocritical, and incompetent boobs with a mean streak a mile long and no sense of fair play or proportion. . . .

Screw them. I got out. They can have their party. I will vote for Democrats and little L libertarians and isolationists until the crazy people aren’t running the GOP. The threat of higher taxes in the short term isn’t enough to keep me from voting out crazy people and voting for sane people with whom I merely disagree regarding policy. Hillarycare doesn’t scare me as much as Frank Gaffney having a line to the person with the nuclear football or Dobson and company crafting domestic policy.

I think Cole is much closer to the truth here than Brooks. I think the reason the Republican brand has suffered so much of late is because many people have become embarrassed by and no longer want to be associated with the party's public representatives; its most visible television personalities, radio hosts, writers, bloggers, and activists, are by in large, obnoxious, crazy, and embarrassing. It's a clown show. Intelligent conservatives cringe when they see people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh on television spouting their toxic nonsense, but this toxic gasbag contingent has come to dominate the GOP. And while this stuff might be red meat to much of the Republican base, it's scaring away the more educated members of the party.

I know this because I know a number of people who, not so long ago, were very proud Republicans and were not at all embarrassed about saying so. And now they're all very disillusioned and quick to tell you that they're not that kind of Republican. The problem for the GOP is that it has allowed a bunch of rabid loons to take control of its messaging and they are tarnishing the brand with their relentless idiocy. As long as this continues, there will continue to be an exodus from the party of people like John Cole, who may not agree with the Democrats on everything, but are just sick and tired of the GOP clown show.

Don't Spare the Bombs

Jessica McBride and Ann Coulter have much in common. Both are women. Both conservative. And both wish the war in Iraq to continue, damn the consequences to the people of Iraq. More here from Coulter (from Tuesday "Hardball" edition), whom McBride has been defending of late.

"We need to be less concerned about civilian casualties...we bombed more people in Hamburg in two days ... I'd rather have their civilians die than our civilians... we should kill their people."

Cluck Cluck

Elizabeth Edwards called into MSNBC's "Hardball" on Tuesday to speak with Ann Coulter and ask her to discontinue her personal attacks on her husband, John Edwards ... and discontinue her personal attacks in general. Coulter's response was to belittle Edwards for calling and accused her of stopping her from speaking.

Typical of Coulter and conservatives in general. Asking for civility from them is akin, in their minds, to shutting them up. Following is an interesting part of the exchange between the two, with Chris Matthews moderating:

Edwards: I'm making this call as a mother. I'm the mother of that boy who died. My children participate -- these young people behind you are the age of my children. You're asking them to participate in a dialogue that's based on hatefulness and ugliness instead of on the issues and I don't think that's serving them or this country very well.

[Applause from the crowd]

Matthews: Thank you very much Elizabeth Edwards. (Turning to Coulter) Do you want to -- you have all the time in the world to respond.

Coulter: I think we heard all we need to hear. The wife of a presidential candidate is asking me to stop speaking. No.

That's the best Coulter could do. When confronted by someone, rather than enjoying the security of long distance attacks, Coulter is like our local former radio host, Jessica McBride ... a clucking chicken.

An Angry Lefty for One Day

I’m just angry today. Yep, I’m an angry person today and I am a liberal so … viola … I’m a member of the angry left … today.

My good friend and blogging buddy, James Wigderson, author of Wigderson Library and Pub (which is a very fine blog) annoyed me yesterday and today (perhaps it was his intention) with his rant about the right needing to reach for a higher standard … a standard higher than liberal offensive speech … and his off-handed defense of Newt Gingrich's indiscretions.

I was flabbergasted at both the audacity and sagaciousness of his posts. Flabbergasted at the audacity because, other than some punks out in blogger land who write some truly offensive things about the President, who say offensive things about the vice president … you know, ordinary citizens who admittedly have the IQs of mice … it’s conservatives who dominate the mean-spirited end of the free speech spectrum. I’ve documented the notorious members of this brigade of hate, so I will not repeat myself.

But, I’m also flabbergasted at his sagaciousness because … well, James would be a great speech writer. I can see the less informed members of the conservative coalition (most of them) nodding their heads in unison at his seemingly convincing words.

Tom Tomorrow covers the Coulter phenomenon well … and the fact that she does not get it. No matter how many times James and others decry Coulter, the fact is a vast majority of conservatives enjoy and support her filthy mouthings.

The mouth that roared

Coulter explains her harmless, inoffensive little joke:
Right and I suspect everyone listening to your show knows about that. I mean, I know — well, I guess Pat is out in America now; you’re primarily in New York City. I give a lot of speeches out in America, I frequently visit America, and Americans are pretty freaked out about somebody going to rehab for using a word, and that’s of course what I was referring to. And I don’t think there’s anything offensive about any variation of faggy, faggotry, faggot, fag. It’s a schoolyard taunt. It means — it means wussy. It means, you know, Hillary giving a speech in a fake Southern drawl — that’s faggy. A trial lawyer who weeps before juries is faggy. Lifetime-type TV, faggy. Everyone understood I was not literally calling — well, I was not calling — well, for one thing, I wasn’t calling John Edwards anything. That was the whole point. I couldn’t talk about him, his life’s work, his appeasement policies, his wimpiness on foreign policy, because that word is out of bounds. So, in point of fact, I called John Edwards nothing. I said I couldn’t even discuss him because using any variation of that totally excellent word would send me into rehab.

This is, of course, the woman who “jokes” about murdering New York Times reporters en masse and assassinating Supreme Court judges and Democratic Presidents. Nonetheless, I find this defense extraordinary. Up until last week, there wasn’t a person in this country who would have argued that “faggot” is just a harmless word, offensive to no one. To say that it’s just a “schoolyard taunt” — well, I spent my middle school years in the south at the height of the integration battles (America being the place where I grew up and live today, unlike Ann, who apparently views it as a foreign land she sometimes has to visit). There were plenty of “schoolyard taunts” in those days targeted toward race, far beyond the “n” word. By Ann’s logic, she should be free to use any of them in discussing Barack Obama, because they were nothing more than harmless “taunts.” Why, if she phrased the joke properly — “I can’t call Obama a —— because it would be sooooo politically incorrect, ha ha ha!” — she could even claim that she hadn’t called him anything at all.
I invite her to try.

… it’s also sad that Ann, allegedly a professional writer, can’t think of a single way to discuss her negative feelings toward a presidential candidate without using a term that is considered hateful and offensive by most rational people. Maybe she should consider another line of work.


Lastly, James posts that the media still doesn’t get it about the Clinton impeachment. I’ve already commented at James’ site … the problem is James doesn’t get it. It really is about hypocrisy … James, and Gingrich, once again use that tried and true argument called equivalency in an attempt to sway the meager minds of their audience, however, the fact is Gingrich had an affair. For him to claim to be an authority on what is moral and a value is a travesty. For him to sit in judgment of Bill Clinton is ridiculous. For James to ignore it and to twist it in a different direction is a travesty, too.

Coulter is the Sub Conscious Right

Here’s another reason why Patrick McIlheran is irrelevant, and why the Milwaukee Wisconsin Midwest United States Western Hemisphere Planet Earth JournalSentinel should be ashamed to pay him.

He says in a blog post titled “Go Take a Nap, Ms. Coulter,” that he too has a problem with her use of the word “faggot” recently during a convention of conservative activists … of course only after seeing that others had made negative comments about her.

He hastens to add that he has found her to be a good writer, “… is often hilarious and can express a political argument incisively.” She can also be mean at times, he’s winked, but mostly she’s brilliant he’s opined, too.

I suppose these accounts, taken from a Slate Magazine article, are brilliant examples of her wittiness.

"[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks."—Rivera Live, Aug. 2, 1999

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.' "—Hannity & Colmes, June 20, 2001

The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient"—syndicated column, Oct. 29, 1999

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."—MSNBC, Oct. 11, 1997

"Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down. Let's just call it for what it is. They're whores."—Salon.com, Nov. 16, 2000

"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."—Hannity & Colmes, Aug. 17, 1999

"My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism."—MSNBC, Feb. 8, 1997

McIlheran provides two examples of left-wing hilarity, as though that’s enough to make up for the army of talk radio, television, and blogger numskulls employed by the Rovian autocracy. His continued employment is another reason that, despite repeated calls for me to renew my subscription, I refuse to do so, relying instead on the free version on-line.

Though truth be told, I won’t be troubled if that version becomes pay-per-view. There’s are better places to receive movie time information (though I do like their baseball coverage ... Drew Olsen and Tom Haudricourt are top-notch).

Not a Composition

The macabre fixation on the woman who had no talent, Anna Nicole Smith, continues unabated. Now, the wrangling resulting in continued delay of burial is affecting her remains.

Since it is a bit much to want to watch Anna wither away, follow the link below to a site that will provide more information than you care on the process of decomposition.

Decomposition of a corpse is a continual process that can take from weeks to years, depending on the environment. In this website we have divided the process into stages, which are characterised by particular physical conditions of the corpse and the presence of particular animals. To illustrate the process of decomposition, we use the piglet as the model corpse.

Why piglets?

A 40 kg pig resembles a human body in its fat distribution, cover of hair and ability to attract insects. These factors make pigs the next best things to humans when it comes to understanding the process of decay of the human body.

The pigs in this website are newborn piglets (weighing about 1.5 kg) that have been accidentally crushed by their mothers - a key cause of death of piglets. Their bodies have been donated to science.

A Putz Again

Paddy Mac doesn’t like Jay Bullock. The Macmeister’s blog post titled: So, Folkbum, is 'mother...' how you want your religion referred to?, is so waggish and drips of so much pathos that I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Basically, Mac-the-dull-knife attempts to take folkbum to task for supporting John Edward’s blogger, Amanda Marcotte. He says this about her: “She is not about being colorful and outspoken in support of some view. She is about insulting Catholicism in gutter terms.” Fine. Edward's choice (sorry, not a very bright choice, though). But, this from the same guy who said Ann Coulter could be “mean.” MEAN.

A little perspective, please.

Of course, the Macman, who is a quiver short of being a full arrow, leaves himself open to this thought … what about the pious Muslims in the world who might not like having their faith dragged through the gutter, or does pathos only work one way?

Piss off, Putzmeister. And, your prose is still too gooey.

Beneath Contempt

A commenter at Media Matters said this about Ann Coulter:

The only difference between Ann Coulter and a streetwalker is the streetwalker's honest about being a whore.

Remember that our own local brilliant mudwrestler, Pat McIlheran, has referred to Ann Coulter as genius. Snicker.