With President Mondo Fucko no longer around to veto it, the Senate has "overwhelmingly approved legislation yesterday to provide health insurance to 11 million low-income children, a bill that would for the first time spend federal money to cover children and pregnant women who are legal immigrants. ... The House approved similar legislation on Jan. 14, and President Obama is expected to sign a final version as early as next week."
The bill is being paid for by "raising the cigarette tax from 39 cents a pack to $1." Back when I was still a smoker, I would have happily paid extra for my habit to provide healthcare to poor kids.
I'm guessing the (hugely Republican) tobacco industry does not share my enthusiasm.
Senate Passes SCHIP
Just Not "Manly" Enough
by Shaker BGK, who would like you to know that in addition to reading Shakesville, working as an engineer, and dreaming of David Boreanaz, he finds time to beat as many RPG villains as possible.
The world of the American trading floor is a privileged world of privileged manly men. Ryan Pacifico, a rich, heterosexual, white, able-bodied, cisgender man, fit in well in this privileged manly man's world—until the day his radical beliefs were revealed.
You see, Mr. Pacifico does not believe in eating animals, which led him to the extreme position of choosing for himself to not eat meat. As you can imagine, this drastic vegetarianism inevitably led to an utterly devastating occupational conflict: His manly boss wanted to eat at a steak house, dammit!
And because he is a manly man, his boss reacted to the untenable situation of being asked to accommodate a vegetarian employee not by suggesting going to a restaurant that would serve both steaks and a hearty portabella mushroom, nor by choosing to attend a spicy Indian Restaurant with epicurean delights to please even the most particular gourmet.
No, no, dear Shakers, his boss did the only logical thing to do in this situation. Allegedly, Robert Catalanello repeatedly referred to Mr. Pacifico as a 'homo', and trumped up charges for him to be fired.
Naturally, the strict vegetarian gave other warning signs of his flagrant homosexuality. When participating in a triathlon, Pacifico had the audacity to wear tight shorts. Everyone knows that baggy pants are the standard threads for this event. Clearly further evidence of his being a vegetarian homo!"It's his fault for being a vegetarian homo," Catalanello is accused of saying.
Here we see demonstrated the core tenets of this boss (and steak-eating manly men everywhere): If you are not the same as us, you are not our equal; you are less than.
The suit also charges that the boss crudely poked fun at Pacifico last March during a conversation about steakhouses.
"You don't even eat steak, dude," Catalanello is accused of saying. "At what point in time did you realize you were gay?"
In this case, less means "gay". Because it is not considered manly to decline to eat red meat, ergo the decliner is less manly, and is therefore gay. To go all Programming Brain on y'all:
#include = patriarchialstandards.h
If malehuman != Manly then
male human = Big Homo
do {'Humilitate'};
This falls back to the intersection of Sexism and Homophobia. The 'power' behind the queer insult derives from insinuating that the insultee is less than a man so therefore the guy must be a women. However since the insultee does have male genitalia, the insulter uses the queer insult. As with any intersection of gender and sexuality, people who are transgender are ignored and tacitly insulted as well.
But as we all know, and as the comment section of the Daily News is quick to point out, this is all just a joke. From the comment section:"People sue for everything now a days. Toughen up, it's the environment you are in. This guy probably is gay."
Because the lives of all the women, vegetarians, GLBTQI, and progressive heterosexual men of the world are just big jokes.
Buh-Bye, Blago
I've got a new piece up at CifA about Blago been dispatched to the political hereafter:
The 59-0 vote to remove Blago from office is ultimately less interesting than the 59-0 vote taken immediately thereafter, which bans him from ever holding public office in Illinois again. It's exceedingly unlikely – even in Illinois, even in a national political culture that loves a comeback, even in a country where Tom DeLay can still be invited to talk shop on cable TV news – that Blago's career would have been resurrected by the electorate, so the vote, while providing a tidy bit of insurance, was, perhaps, mostly symbolic.Read the whole thing here.
It's nonetheless a sweet bit of lemon juice poured into the wound of the oxygen-sucking Blago, whose love of attention sent him running to every plugged-in microphone and camera in a three-state radius and found him accepting the bizarrest of chat show invites, oft with amusing results, like tucked in amongst the women of The View with the jaunty demeanor of an Ocean's Eleven cast member with a new film to promote. For a man whose most fervent desire is to be seen, to be heard, to be important, the cruelest cut of all is not being asked to leave, but being relegated to oblivion.
And while you're over there, take a moment and read Katha Pollitt's piece about the removal of family planning funding from the stimulus bill.
Blog Note: Comment Ordering Weirdness
Recently, there have been some comment time stamping issues where comments would be displayed out of order (e.g., a reply would be showing up as older than the original quoted comment).
I've gotten word from the Disqus team that it was an issue with the clock on one of their servers being slightly off. Everything should be properly synchronized now, and this issue should now be resolved.
Thanks for being patient while they worked it out.
Carry on.
Question of the Day
What part of your body is most beautiful/handsome?
"None" is not an acceptable answer. Go on and be radical and publicly love at least one part of your body!
I will be utterly boring and say my eyes, the shape of which I got from my mom and the color of which I got from my dad:
I also got my dad's brows, and if I did not spend egregious amounts of time in front of a mirror tweezing, I would have the best unibrow in all the land!
A close second is my excessively lined hands, which I find beautiful because they are unique.
Blago: Out
The Illinois state senate on Thursday convicted Governor Rod Blagojevich of abuse of power, removing him from office amid charges that he tried to sell the U.S. Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama.Good riddance.
More than two-thirds of the 59 senators, acting as a jury following the two-term Democrat's impeachment on January 9, voted to find him guilty, effectively ousting him from office.
The vote was televised live from the state capitol building in Springfield, Illinois. Blagojevich is the first governor in Illinois history to be impeached and removed from office.
Tool Academics and Their Plaintive Cry for Feminism (Even If They Don't Know It)
So there's this show on VH1 called Tool Academy:
Transcript: A bunch of tools engaging in wanton megatoolery, to the quiet sounds of their beleaguered girlfriends' sobbing.Now, here's the thing about Tool Academy: It makes what is quite possibly the best case for feminism in broadcast history. And not in the way you might think…
First, let me just say that the show is entertaining for all the reasons it was designed to be. The pretense upon which the guys were lured onto the show is hilarious: They thought they were competing for the title of Mr. Awesome. The chutzpah of showing up to compete as Mr. Awesome is priceless all its own; the reveal that they'd really been enrolled by their girlfriends in a boot camp for assholes called the Tool Academy was nothing short of brilliant—in no small part because, as Deeky said to me in an email after I encouraged him to watch the show: "I can't fathom how anyone, gay, straight, man, woman, would not only be in a relationship with one of these clowns, but actively fight for its continued survival." Indeed.
And there's no shortage of other jawdropping whatthefuckery to contemplate, eliciting laugh after laugh of utter disbelief. Their living quarters are called the Tool Shed. Each is identified onscreen during interviews with a nick like "Power Tool," "Tiny Tool," or "Loud-Mouth Tool." And none of it is remotely as embarrassing as the way they behave—as when "Slacker Tool" Tommy, during a challenge in which the men had to read assembly instructions to the women, who were tasked with putting together a bed frame, got pissed when his girlfriend got frustrated with him so he threw a recliner across a field.
She was trying to emasculate me—and you're not gonna show me up! I'm gonna break something and I'm gonna pick this heavy [bleep]ing chair up and I'm gonna throw it. And you're gonna like it, too!Oy.
But here's the thing: Aside from the show being totally entertaining because of the finest collection of douchebags ever assembled on one reality show (which is really saying something), it's also one of the most amazing exposés evah on how the patriarchy is just as bad for average straight men as it is for everyone else. (The Patriarchy: Bad for everyone who isn't a patriarch!)
The first thing you discover is that, emotionally, every one of those guys is a hot mess. They don't know what normal emotions are, repeatedly expressing shock that other people feel the same way they do—and they're constantly confused because the behaviors and coping strategies that work among men, at least men like them, (competitiveness, braggadocio, aggression, dishonesty, emotional suppression) don't work at all with women within the intimacy of a one-on-one relationship.
(Not that it would work with other men, either. And, as I'm going to guess is evident, every last one of these tools is ragingly homophobic.)
In the Tool Shed, they rate and talk shit about "their girls," brag about other alleged conquests during their relationships, and engage in other peacockishness, videos of which the women are shown in therapy sessions. Even after the tools know the women will be shown this stuff (and, hello, they're on a TV show, so they'd see it eventually someday anyway), they continue to do it. It's like a compulsion; it's the only way they know how to interact with one another. And when confronted by the women in therapy sessions, they get all defensive and bombastic and chest-beatery, which, of course, is the worst thing you can do in a relationship.
During the partnered challenges (as the bed assembly, above), the guys are endlessly vacillating between: 1.) trying to look cool and impress the other guys; and 2.) trying to focus on their female partners and give them what they need. Needless to say, their divergent attention results in failures of varying degree. But they can't publicly give or accept love/trust/affection, as long as there are other men around who might call them a pussy for it.
Basically, they haven't been taught or socialized in even the most rudimentary way how to have a functional relationship. And their lives are a total fuckjumble because of it.
It's actually quite compelling to see the tools trying desperately to reconcile what they're supposed to do around men with what they're supposed to do around women. They have no idea how to navigate between the two disparate spheres—and it's for the same reason they're huge tools in the first place: They have been thoroughly indoctrinated into the hyper-masculine role of the Alpha Male as defined by the Patriarchy, where manhood and masculinity is defined almost exclusively in contradistinction to womanhood and femininity.
Anything stereotypically female is eschewed for what is stereotypically male, meaning that all the qualities necessary for a successful and mutually fulfilling relationship—kindness, gentleness, generosity, nurturing, empathy, communicativeness, self-sacrifice, compromise—were long ago rejected out of hand as being unmanly. Tenderness and decency are for girls and queers!
…For whom, of course, the tools have nothing but contempt. And how is it possible to truly love someone you disdain?
It isn't.
The path to true (het) love leads straight through feminism. Which I always knew, but it's nice to have it so conspicuously confirmed. Even by a bunch of tools.
I'm certain that the show was not conceived for the purpose of making the case for feminism: Even many of the show's scenarios are crazy-makingly anti-feminist, e.g. when a couple wins a challenge, the tool wins a conjugal visit—although, in fairness to the women on the show, none of them have yet ended with sex, despite the tools' best attempts. And I'm fairly certain that the show's resolution will not be described by anyone as a feminist victory.
But my point isn't that the show itself is feminist; it's that the show pulls back the curtain on the damage that the patriarchal system does even to straight men, who are ostensibly its greatest beneficiaries—and, in doing so, exposes the desperate need for an alternative philosophy of sex and gender. It shows quite pointedly the very void we need to fill.
Maybe it's just the cultural anthropologist in me, but, at the moment, it's my favorite show to watch while I'm polishing my teaspoon.
Actual Headline
Jessica Simpson Steps Out Amidst Weight Controversy. Seriously. Because, as everyone knows, once someone deems you a fatty, you're supposed to shamefully hide your disgusting body away from public view, preferably in an attic or dungeon. If you're fat, you're not only meant to be unhappy, but deeply ashamed of yourself, projecting at all times an apologetic nature, indicative of your everlasting remorse for having wrought your monstrous self upon the world.
In solidarity with Jessica Simpson, I'm giving myself this headline for today: DAY 12,683 Fatwatch—Melissa McEwan Continues to Live Life as a Big Fat Fatty Boom Balatty!!!11!eleventy!!
Step out, Jessica. Fat, thin, whatever. Just keep on steppin', girl.
-----------------------
If you're not familiar with Jessica Simpson's "weight controversy," Bill Wolfrum will bring you up to speed here. Meanwhile, Page Six offers this helpful contribution: "In light of the mild hysteria surrounding recent pictures of 'Jumbo' Jessica Simpson, we felt it was important to the public discourse to provide photos of 50 fat celebrities." Their list includes, I shit you not, Clay Aiken. Sob.
More Matthews
My Cif piece on Mr. Misogybag Hardballz has been reprinted over at RH Reality Check. And, in case you missed it, there's a follow-up here.
I really don't think I can emphasize enough how important it is to talk about how misogynist framing pollutes our discourse, and to name the most unapologetic purveyors of misogynist rhetoric in the mainstream media.
It is not acceptable. And, more importantly, it is not inevitable.
Contact MSNBC and let them know you object to Chris Matthews' misogynist framing on family planning.
MSNBC
letters@msnbc.com
MSNBC/Microsoft-NBC
212-664-4444
Hardball
hardball@msnbc.com
The Chris Matthews Show
thechrismatthewsshow@nbc.com
[Contact info c/o Media Matters.]
Bill Kristol Is Not F@#king Matt Damon (But He Wants To Be)
After being called "an idiot" by Matt Damon, conservative warmonger Bill Kristol has agreed to debate the actor on said subject. Conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart has even offered up $100k to the charity of Damon's choice should he agree to participate. I assume Breitbart is looking to humiliate Damon: If Damon doesn't accept the offer, he's denying some worthy cause a big fat check. And if he does accept, then Breitbart presumes Kristol will debate circles around the actor. Breitbart of course forgets that Kristol has been wrong about... well... everything he's ever said.
Personally, I think Damon should take the offer, force Breitbart to donate the $100k to the ACLU or the Matthew Shepard Foundation or someplace, and give Kristol the spanking he so rightly deserves.
Save the Chickens; Objectify the Women
So there's this animal rights group (whose name I'm not even going to use in this post because I refuse to give them the publicity, but suffice it to say if you can name one animal rights group, it's probably them), and they really, really, really want you to stop eating meat—which is a fair enough goal, except for their habit of treating women like meat in their campaigns.
Their latest stunt just about beats all: They created an ad (which I will not embed), ostensibly to be shown during the Superbowl, featuring women clad in revealing boudoir apparel getting sexy with vegetables.
[Below image may be NSFW.]
There is no narration to the ad—just video of the women in compromising positions with various veggies, set to a metal porn soundtrack, and interspersed with three message cards reading, in all caps: "Studies show…vegetarians have better sex…go veg."
AlterNet's Isaac Fitzgerald, who's got the embedded ad in his piece about it if you really want to see it, notes that the studies on which the group is relying to make the claim that "vegetarians have better sex" actually just "link meat consumption to impotence"—which means that there is no relevance for women even in the research underlying this advert; in concept, imagery, and ultimately in message, women are nothing more than the promised reward for men who don't eat meat.
Dangling women as the cookie for meat-eschewing men, I don't guess I need to point out, is not merely misogynist, but heterocentrist, too.
Isaac, who succinctly notes, "Bottom line: [This group] has no business stepping on women's rights in the name of animal rights," also deftly deals with the probability that this group never intended nor expected, despite their protestations to the contrary, this ad to be accepted by the Superbowl advertising committee. Now they're relying on its totally predictable rejection of the ad to generate controversy and garner attention for their cause.Despite being rejected by NBC for a Super Bowl ad slot, "Veggie Love" is being talked about by everyone from Whoopi Goldberg on "The View" to the New York Times (Whoopi actually went as far as to re-enact the ad with a lettuce head because ABC refused to let "The View" air "Veggie Love").
Where, finally, the original message will be completely eclipsed by feverish dissection of "the controversy."
This type of buzz is, of course, what [the group] set out to accomplish with its risqué ad. Thanks to the Internet, a new type of marketing is quickly becoming popular. Called by some "parasite" or "leech-media tactics," the concept is simple: Create buzz for your product or message by creating a video that is controversial or provocative, release it online, watch it scream across the intertubes, and soon thereafter the corporate media.
All of which, naturally, makes patently absurd the group's claim that the women in the videos are "choosing to stick up for animals who never get a choice when they are abused on factory farms and then brutally slaughtered, and we applaud our models, as well as all our activists, for exercising their freedom by speaking up for those who have no voice."
Would that the women in the video really were sticking up for animals and giving voice to the voiceless. But they're just players in a game in which their objectification serves no higher purpose.
And, even if it did, the rest of us didn't consent to the compromise on behalf of their crusade.
Not Helping
Sam Adams is the openly gay mayor of Portland, Oregon. He's considered a rising star in the political world in the Pacific Northwest. Or he was until it was revealed that he had been dating an 18-year-old kid who was an intern in his office.
At first he denied it, then last week he fessed up.
We all know that people, regardless of their sexual orientation, do stupid things. The fact that Mr. Adams is gay doesn't make him a monster because he had sex with an 18-year-old; it makes him an idiot who thought with the wrong head. And while I don't condone for an instant what happened between Mr. Adams and Mr. Breedlove, it isn't because of Teh Gay; it's because Mr. Adams was his boss and it's thoroughly unprofessional to fool around with subordinates. But I'm also pissed at both of them -- Mr. Breedlove is in on this too -- for once again reinforcing the stereotype that all gay men are predators on teenage boys -- thank you, Mark Foley -- and that we are somehow held to a different standard in terms of our political prospects because of it.The mayor admitted that he had lied about the affair, had smeared his accuser, and had urged the boy — a kid with the improbable name of Beau Breedlove — to lie as well. He did it all to get elected, he said.
“I want to apologize to the gay community for embarrassing them,” the 45-year-old mayor, now contrite, told his city last week. Three newspapers — including a popular gay paper — called on him to resign.
Sam Adams was the Great Gay hope. Mayor today. Senator tomorrow. And beyond?
“I personally gave Sam Adams my vote, my support, my friendship and my money,” wrote Marty Davis, publisher of Just Out, the city’s gay newspaper. “In return, he took my trust.”
So now, instead of breaking barriers, Sam Adams has stirred old hatreds. Daily, people have gathered outside City Hall to shout at one another and wave placards.
“Pedophile!”
“Bigot!”
This week, after seven days of soul-searching, the mayor said he would stay on the job, though he faces a criminal investigation by the Oregon Attorney General.
“I know I have let you down,” the mayor said in a videotape message to the city. “And I ask your forgiveness.”
What Mr. Adams did was stupid and possibly criminal -- for the lying, at least -- but he shouldn't be banned for life from the political arena any more than if he had been straight and been sleeping with an intern who was of legal age and was female. If a straight man does it, he's a pig. If a gay man does it, all queers are pedophiles.
I'm not saying Mr. Adams should be given a free pass, but he shouldn't be banished, either, unless the same punishment is meted out to every man or woman in political life who does the same thing; i.e. Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich. But what he did doesn't help the cause of gay equality. I doubt he was thinking about that at the time, but when you've made your mark as the mayor of the largest city in America with an openly gay man at its helm, it's time to learn to think with the right head.
HT to Timothy Egan.
Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.
Lost Open Thread
Last night's episode will be discussed in infinitesimal detail, so if you haven't seen it, and don't want any spoilers, move along...
It's Official
President Obama has signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law, with Lilly Ledbetter standing at his side.
"Making our economy work means making sure it works for everyone," Obama said. "That there are no second class citizens in our workplaces, and that it's not just unfair and illegal — but bad for business — to pay someone less because of their gender, age, race, ethnicity, religion or disability."Thank you, Ms. Ledbetter. Thank you, Democratic Congress (and Republican women of the Senate). Thank you, President Obama. And thank you one more time, Ms. Ledbetter.
...Obama appeared before a jammed East Room audience, and his entrance and many lines of his brief remarks were met with happy applause and yells.
He paid special tribute to Ledbetter, who fought for the bill even though it won't allow her to recover any money for herself.
And in the room were the living symbols of this fight: Nancy Pelosi, first woman speaker of the House, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who took her pursuit of the presidency further than any other woman.
When They Were Curvy*
by Shaker InfamousQBert
I read some very silly celebrity blogs, but make a point of staying away from the ones that make fun of people for being fat, sad, whatever, even as they may poke fun of the sometimes-ridiculous things celebrities wear.
That said, AYYY! does a "puzzle corner" every Monday and blurs out the faces of people in a similar theme (i.e. child star pics of current stars) and the reader's meant to guess who's who. Last week, they did one of women who are currently very twig-like, but once were curvier.
So, let's pretend we're playing the puzzle just like any old Monday morning. Do you think you recognize any of these stars? I'll admit, I only had guesses for a couple of them.
So, let's have the big reveal, shall we?
1. Renee Zellweger, 2. Nicole Richie, 3. Madonna, 4. Amy Winehouse, 5. Lindsay Lohan, 6. Jennifer Connelly, 7. Christina Ricci, 8. Courtney Love, 9. Teri Hatcher, 10. Sophie Dahl
And here are the same women today:
Now, I want to put a disclaimer out there that I'm not trying to body shame anyone here—fat, skinny, in between, or whatever words you prefer to describe yourselves. And, based on their older pics, I'd say that these are not generally women who are naturally this thin (though, of course, such natural changes can occur). I'm sure we all know at least one naturally extremely thin woman, and they get their share of shame (No boobs!) and guilt (Gawd! You're so lucky! I wish I could be that skinny!) from people daily. I'm not here to add to that.
The point I want to make is that these women have ALWAYS been beautiful. They were considered beautiful enough to be stars with their curves, so what made them think they needed to lose them?
What I want to know is: What changed? What happened between the '90s (when several of those pics were taken) and today? You can see evidence of the skinnying of hollywood over many decades, but it seems like it suddenly sped up to an extreme point in the last 10-15 years.
What are your takes on the social/political issues that have made this shift occur? My guesses include a lot of conservative blowback against the liberation of women, but I'dd really like to know what you think.
-----------------------
* Title unapologetically stolen from ayyyy.com, the inspiration for this post. Cross-posted.
Have I Mentioned Lately That I Love Al Gore?
Once Al Gore was a mere vice president, but now he is a Nobel laureate and climate-change prophet. He repeats phrases such as "unified national smart grid" the way he once did "no controlling legal authority" -- and the ridicule has been replaced by worship, even by his political foes.Because his lovely wit was always buried by a media who were intractably determined to cast George fucking Bush as the charming bloke in the election Gore ultimately "lost," even that little self-deprecating quip, hiding the genesis (and the catastrophic result) of those low expectations, makes me blub.
"Tennessee," gushed Sen. Bob Corker, a Republican from Gore's home state, "has a legacy of having people here in the Senate and in public service that have been of major consequence and contributed in a major way to the public debate, and you no doubt have helped build that legacy." If that wasn't quite enough, Corker added: "Very much enjoyed your sense of humor, too."
Humor? From Al Gore? "I benefit from low expectations," he replied.
I will never recover from his not being my president.
Where Are They?
Updated
The smackdown* last night between Joan Walsh of Salon.com and Former Rep. Dick Armey got me to thinking about the number of Democrats who are showing up on TV to defend the president's stimulus bill... or the lack thereof. I'm not the only one who's wondering where they all are.
As Media Matters has documented, during the Bush administration, the media consistently allowed conservatives to dominate their shows, booking them as guests far more often than progressives. The rationale was that Republicans were “in power.”Even MSNBC, supposedly the new voice of liberalism, is overflowing with Republicans. Maybe that's because they're up there so Chris Matthews can slap them down? (Yeah, right.)
It appears that old habits die hard. Even though President Obama and his team are in control of the executive branch and Democrats are in the majority in Congress, the cable networks are still turning more often to Republicans and allowing them to set the agenda on major issues, most recently on the debate over the economic recovery package.
On Sunday, conservatives began an all-out assault on President Obama’s economic recovery plan, with House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) both announcing that they would vote against the plan as it stood. Despite Obama’s efforts at good faith outreach, congressional conservatives have continued to attack the stimulus plan with a series of false and disingenuous arguments.
The media have been aiding their efforts. In a new analysis, ThinkProgress has found that the five cable news networks — CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Fox Business and CNBC — have hosted more Republican lawmakers to discuss the plan than Democrats by a 2 to 1 ratio this week:
Apparently the mindset goes something like this: when the Republicans are in charge, we need to hear from them because they're the majority and they're setting the agenda. Then when the Democrats are in charge, we need to hear from the Republicans because they're the loyal opposition and it's good for bipartisanship to hear what the other side is saying. Sheesh.
*Read Ms. Walsh's excellent post on her encounter with Mr. Armey here.
Update: Driving home from work I listened to NPR's All Things Considered. The lead-off story at 4:00 ET covered the stimulus vote and its future in the Senate. They interviewed a bunch of Republicans from the House, and Tom Davis, who isn't even a member of Congress any more, about how this won't hurt the Republicans. Then they moved on to Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) about the bill's future in the Senate and how it would be impossible to pass the bill without 60 votes because of the threat of a filibuster. Sen. Grassley seemed downright cheerful about that prospect. No Democrats were heard from.
When they finished the interview, they moved on to a story about a dead body frozen in ice in an abandoned warehouse in Detroit.
HT to Digby.
Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.
Mike Pence is a Blithering Idiot
That's not news, of course, but this clip of his exchange with MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell about Rush Limbaugh is so absurd, and, at the same time, so astonishingly indicative of the intellectual and ethical bankruptcy of the Republican leadership, that it must be seen. Yglesias, quite rightly, says:
Mike Pence is a moron, and any movement that would hold the guy up as a hero is bankrupt. You can see my colleague Amanda Terkel for more of the specifics on this, but I would refer you to this post from September about the earth-shattering ignorance and stupidity of Mike Pence. He has no grasp, whatsoever, of public policy issues. And yet I can only gather from the fact that his colleagues have elevated him to a leadership post, that a large faction of them are actually so much stupider than Pence that they don't realize how dumb he is. But it's really staggering. In my admittedly brief experience talking to him, his inability to grasp the basic contours of policy question was obvious and overwhelming.
[Transcript below.]
The frightening, infuriating, and hilarious thing is that Pence quite genuinely doesn't appear to have any idea what an unmitigated ass he looks like asserting that Limbaugh is not racist immediately after being read a transcript in which Limbaugh says something wildly racist. The whole thing just does. not. compute.
He also seems to think Limbaugh really isn't racist. He's not clever enough to be spinning, and needs not struggle to maintain the thin veneer of dignity fought for by most politicos in a similar situation; Pence is, in fact, so thoroughly gormless he doesn't even realize he should be embarrassed. He actually believes what he's saying.
He is truly a fool. And he's the cream of the GOP crop. Shudder.
Norah O'Donnell: On another matter, I do want to ask you about Rush Limbaugh, because he has said, "I hope he fails," talking about President Obama, and Rush Limbaugh also said this, he said: "We are all being told that we have to hope Obama succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever, because his father was black, because this is the first black president." Do you agree with Rush Limbaugh?
Mike Pence, R-Indiana, Inveterate Fuckneck: Well, let me speak specifically to what Rush Limbaugh said about America. Actually, I heard a little bit of him this afternoon. I mean, we all hope America succeeds, and, in that vein, we hope our president succeeds, and I think Rush Limbaugh, who I admire, and, like millions of Americans, I cherish his voice in the public debate, I think that is what he was saying, but what he was also saying was, where Barack Obama is going to pursue the implementation of campaign promises where he's gonna grow government, grow spending, depart from traditional values, or take positions with regard to our national defense that are antithetical to conservative values, we certainly hope there will be strong opposition from voices like Rush Limbaugh and from leaders here on Capitol Hill, so we appreciate his statement; I understand what he was saying, Norah, and, you know, we all hope our president succeeds, we all hope America succeeds, but that doesn't mean we're always gonna agree with what the best solutions are for the country.
O'Donnell: No doubt you can agree with Rush Limbaugh about that he is calling this stimulus package essentially a sham, what's going on, that it's just too full of wasteful spending, but on that specific thing, that we "have to bend over because this is the first black president," why don't you feel like you can denounce something like that? Are you so beholden to someone like Rush Limbaugh that you can't say—
Pence: Oh, gosh, Norah.
O'Donnell: —that's not the kind of rhetoric, when America's trying to come together, and do something for— The unemployment rate in your state of Indiana: Now 8.2%.
Pence: Right.
O'Donnell: Is that the type of rhetoric we need?
Pence: Well, look, Norah, I don't believe that Rush Limbaugh's got a racist bone in his body, and if you're suggesting that his statement had a racist element to it, I would commend you to, you know, a greater understanding of the positions that he's taken. He's a man that's about opportunity for all Americans, regardless of race, creed, or color, and I think that's why he's so admired and appreciated all across America.
