Tuesday, September 28, 2010
A Few Brief Notes to Ann Coulter, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Rachel Maddow
1) Ms. Coulter, that same "joke" that Stephen Colbert tends do "night after night after night" - it's a little something we call....a character. You know, like Carol O'Connor was Archie Bunker....for almost 20 years, like Kelsey Grammer was Frasier Crane....for almost 20 years. I mean, yeah, I certainly understand why somebody like YOU wouldn't find him funny; the fact that he's eviscerating/lampooning people on your side of the political divide, etc.. But to say that he's basically telling the same joke night after night is basically buffoonish. You really might want to reconsider this one.......2) Mr. Netanyahu, please, I'm begging you, put a stop to these settlements. The only things that you're even remotely accomplishing here are a) ruining whatever small chance there might have been for a peace settlement and b) making your country (which I have generally supported and defended) look even more like a piranha. And, besides, when and if there ever is peace settlement, do you really want another scene the likes of which you had in Gaza (the ugly uprooting of the settlers there)? Of course, if you're actually thinking that these settlements could be permanent, then, no, I really don't know what else to tell you here.......3) Ms. Maddow, once again you have mischaracterized the position of a person whom you disagree with. Senator Bunning (earlier this year) was not opposing an extension of unemployment benefits. He certainly wasn't "waging a war on the unemployed" (gee, ever use hyperbole much?). He was simply advocating (strongly, admittedly) that these benefits be paid for (via the unspent stimulus money, reductions in other government spending, etc.). Now, certainly, one could legitimately argue with him on this. But to constantly make the guy out to be a monster is patently sleazy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Will, you're three for three tonight!
1)Good analogies with Colbert and other role-players.
2)Very valid comments (IMO) regarding Netanyahu and..
3)Also good point about Maddow.Both Dems and Republicans engage in hyperbole to make their case, and both sides point their finger at the other as being the guilty party.
While I despise McConnell and my biases cause me to enjoy Maddow slamming him, I must admit it is my biases preventing me from seeing it as being a partisan move and your point is well taken.
Go BSU!
The sad thing about Maddow, Oso, is that she could probably win a lot of her arguments WITHOUT resorting to this. And, yes, it really hurts her credibility when she LEGITIMATELY criticizes bozos like Breitbart. It's best to keep the higher ground if possible, I'm thinking.
For Maddow and Coulter tt's all about ratings and keeping your base loyal, scared, and pissed off. Frankly I've heard rumors that Ann is somewhat "confused" and wonder if someone should fix those two up for a blind date?
While I wouldn't necessarily call it my dream hook-up, the fact that it does involve 2 women basically mandates that I approve. What do you say we work on it, double b?
Nope, only 2 out of three. Will is dead wrong regarding Rachel Maddow. Bunning WAS "waging a war on the unemployed". There were numerous other bills where he could have drawn his line in the sand regarding spending on credit. He chose THIS issue because...???
From the Huffington Post: ...when Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) begged him to drop his objection ... Bunning replied: Tough shit. ...at one point during the debate, which dragged on till nearly midnight, Bunning complained of missing a basketball game.
Rachel Maddow's reporting on the story isn't "patently sleazy". It was entirely accurate. 1.2 million people are going to suffer due to this monster's vanity.
Bunning is, like a lot of Republicans, completely out of touch with the people he is representing. He also comes across is not mentally stable.
The Republicans are constantly attempting to divert stimulus money for other purposes. How about we spent the stimulus money on what the stimulus bill says it can be spent on?
You're right. This indeed was arbitrary and he never acted like this during the Bush spending spree. But Maddow kept on saying that he was "against the extension", period. She didn't even mention the part about him simply wanting it to be paid for. And, yes, because of that, it was extremely sleazy.
From the transcript of the 3/2/2010 broadcast of the Rachel Maddow Show... MADDOW: Mr. Bunning claims that he is standing on principle right now. That he won't support anything that wasn't paid for, that he won't support anything that would add to the national debt.
Except for all of the things that Jim Bunning has voted for in just the last few years, that have heaped billions of dollars on to the national debt... the 2008 war supplemental bill that he voted for, which wasn't paid for, and which -- like this legislation -- extended unemployment benefits for out-of-work Americans.
Or the 2003 extension of unemployment benefits that weren't paid for, but which Senator Bunning voted for anyway. Mr. Bunning was actually quite proud of that vote. He put out this press release the next day that said, "Bunning Touts Extended Benefits for Kentucky‘s Unemployed".
Rachel Maddow most certainly DID "mention the part about him simply wanting it to be paid for". Even though it wasn't "simple" at all. HE WAS LYING. It was just an excuse. He didn't give a shit if it was paid for or not. So NO, Rachel Maddow's reporting on this story was NOT "extremely sleazy".
Because Bunning isn't seeking re-election it isn't a big deal if he throws himself on his sword to gum up the works in the Democratically controlled Congress. This was not a principled stand, it was part of the ongoing Republican campaign to make the Democrats and the Obama Administration look bad.
Bunning doesn't give a damn if 1.2 million people are harmed. He was for paying for unemployment benefits on credit when it benefited him (because it made him look good to his constituency) and against them now because the Democrats are in charge and he has nothing to lose.
Alright, so somewhere in that long "expose" Ms. Maddow snarkily says that Bunning "CLAIMS that he is standing on principle" (and, yes, I apologize to Ms. Maddow for that mistake). And I also admitted in the previous comment (perhaps you missed it) that Mr. Bunning's actions were arbitrary and inconsistent (that he didn't act like this during the Bush years). I just think that it was way over the top for Maddow to say that he's "waging a war on the unemployed" just because he's decided now (finally) that a little fiscal discipline might be in order (are you telling me that there isn't 30 billion on that 1.3 trillion dollar budget that couldn't be shifted?). I mean, how would she like it if I said that Rachel Maddow was waging a war on the economy via her constantly using the U.S. Treasury and tax payer funds for her own personal playground/social experiment? She probably wouldn't like me, huh, impugning her motivation like that.
If it was part of an "ongoing Republican campaign", then why was he basically standing alone?.....And, besides, a lot of the time when a person isn't seeking re-election, that's when the DO act on principle; Senators Bond and Voinovich siding with Obama on small business tax cuts, Senator Gregg voting for Elena Kagan, just to name a few. I mean, I know that Ms. Maddow thinks that she's omniscient and all but, really, to claim to so intimately know another person's motivation is utterly ballsy.
Post a Comment