Meanwhile, Bluegrass Pundit cites The Examiner on the fear setting in amongst the Democrat Party on the likelihood of #OccupyResoluteDesk winning re-election:
Added Democratic strategist Doug Schoen, “It’s gone from ‘We expect he’ll be re-elected’ to ‘We think he’ll be re-elected’ to ‘We hope he’ll be re-elected’ to ‘He’ll probably be re-elected if everything goes right.’ Yes, they have something to worry about.”
Still way too early to pop the champagne. If the Unions pull out a victory in Wisconsin today, that will change the mood and breathe some hope into the Obama campaign.
Nevertheless, Romney is running a serious campaign, in contrast to Stacy’s cousin’s 2008 phone-in. Given that the Left appears to achieve success only when running against the record of an incumbent, (For, Bush41, Bush43) standing by actual accomplishment seems to elude them (Carter, Obama?) except when running against some tired old warhorse (Dole, McCain).
Liberty, ye Americans: it’s what’s for lunch. This Socialist dessert looks and smells fresh from the pasture.
American Power, living up to its name, pays a visit to the Congressman’s office. I’d do the same, except my Congresstool, ‘Gentleman’ Jim Moran, is more likely to wonder why people are picking on poor wee Brett, assuming Moran can be pulled away from day trading.
Those living in districts with halfway useful Representatives are encouraged to follow Douglas’s lead.
Update: more at That Mr. G Guy, who gages my opinion of Moran accurately.
American Power is all up in arms about Kathy Griffin’s non-command of facts about #OccupyResoluteDesk’s record, calling BHO a Harvard Law Professor. This is misguided. In the Hope & Change era, we have moved on beyond facts.
Barack is as much a Harvard Law Professor as:
Obama was a member of Led Zeppelin, which we’ll be exploring around noon, so check back.
I, for one, rejoice in the substitution of farce for facts by people in the media and government. This supports much more interesting blogging than dreary ol’ reality.
The goal of these progressive cowards was to have me fired. And what’s so amazing is how seriously those contacted by my enemies took the lies and allegations against me. Carl Salonen even had an investigation at my college initiated upon the demand of California Attorney General Kamala Harris. . . .
For people like Aaron and myself, and so many others who’ve had their livelihoods disrupted simply for exercising their First Amendment rights, there is no other more important story than the progressive left’s campaign of political (and criminal) intimidation. . . .
Read the rest. You might call Brett Kimberlin a deviant criminal sociopath, or you could call him a “progressive activist,” but the one thing you can never call Brett Kimberlin is honest.
There may be other work to be done today — work for which I might actually get paid — but even if nobody hits my tip jar, this verbose bimbo is gonna get smacked around so bad, she’ll wish she’d never even thought about writing that witless screed. Just give me a few minutes to skim through and find the proper angle of attack. While you’re repeatedly hitting the “refresh” button in eager anticipation of the forthcoming viciously misogynistic updates, however . . .
C’mon: $5 or $10 to make it worth my while? Because nothing would so infuriate Rebecca Traister as to know that a shameless capitalist blogger is getting paid to heap more ridicule on her.
UPDATE II: While you’re waiting for me to unleash the hounds of patriarchal hell on Rebecca Traister, let’s point out that embittered humorless feminists are not a stereotype. They’re the unspeakably grim reality that is Michelle Goldberg on MSNBC:
Donald Douglas at American Power: “I’ve written about Michelle Goldberg many times. I was literally sickened when I read her book a few years back, which is a global manifesto for infanticide.”
In their spare time, Goldberg and Traister probably volunteer at the local abortion clinic, taking turns plunging knives through the hearts of any infants who manage to survive the procedure.
UPDATE IV: OK, now working feverishly on the main response, and thanks to Shelly in New Mexico for hitting the tip jar. The rest of y’all, c’mon: $5 or $10, and I’ll try to earn it.
There isn’t really an argument, except between Traister and her selected strawmen, or perhaps among the screeching voices inside Rebecca’s demon-filled head. (“My name is Legion” – somewhere, a herd of swine awaits.) Her intent is to celebrate the humor of various other liberals, to whom she attributes an aptitude she conspicuously lacks herself. No one has ever accused Rebecca Traister of being intentionally funny and, if “the personal is political,” her politics is either intensely secretive or utterly empty. Careful observers of Traister’s work cannot help but notice how guarded she is about herself, seeking always to have us focus on whatever idols she reveres or scapegoats she demonizes.
There is something about Rebecca that Rebecca doesn’t like (a self-loathing she externalizes by attacks on others), and her “feminism” is less a philosophy than an attempt to distract herself and others from her own emotional desperation.
One suspects she has a history of suicidal thoughts. What sort of anti-depressants has Traister been prescribed, and in what dosage?
It doesn’t matter: She is not funny, because there is nothing funny about her own lonely and joyless existence. For this plight, she somehow irrationally blames conservative Republicans she’s never actually met and who wouldn’t even know she existed — admit it, you had never heard of her before now — if she hadn’t committed that stupid miscomprehension of “succubus.” (Can the Washington Post no longer afford to employ college graduates as editors?) At any rate, here is the conclusion of Traister’s column:
The hairy harridan of yore isn’t totally vanquished. She’s too useful for the right. Without her, it becomes clear that Republicans are fighting not some made-up monster but women themselves. Contemporary activists who have recently replaced the yellowing cartoon of feminism with a living, breathing, nuanced version of what women’s liberation means in 2012 must keep fighting with humor and zeal if they ever want to finish off the old bat.
Perhaps someday they’ll even avenge her by hoisting a banner of their foes as fogeyish, woman-hating, humorless prudes and carrying it into future battles.
Unfortunately for Traister, she can never escape her own worst enemy, whose unforgiving gaze penetrates her every time she looks in a mirror.
This is one that has to be sliced finely: I really don’t care, or want to know about, what consenting adults are up to in private. Hetero, homo, married, fornicating: I will defend to the death my commitment to ignorance about fluids, geometries, participants, accessories, and syndication agreements involved. I don’t wanna know.
But having a blog is about trying to help connect the dots; to raise awareness, even on topics where we lack personal enthusiasm; to organize community information so as to maximize synergistic convergence.
Thus, when American Power has a clip of Rand Paul expressing uncertainty aloud about whether #OccupyResoluteDesk’s view on marriage could get any gayer, I have to point Douglas to Althouse’s recounting of accusations against John Travolta. Not out of any personal, prurient interest, mind you: I’m strictly being a helpy helper-person here. It sounds like somebody could be spreading lurid rumors about Travolta in the name of garnering attention. If you find out, please refrain from telling me. I just don’t want to know.
“And there’s no doubt that . . . the timing of this obviously is in line with Barack Obama coming out a couple of days ago, saying — I’m sorry. It’s a fun — I mean, the media response to Barack Obama saying absolutely nothing. In the immortal words of Pat Buchanan, celebrating ‘a big fat nothing burger’ when Barack Obama basically said, ‘I’ve got the same position on gay marriage as Ron Paul or Ronald Reagan. I’m not going to do anything about it. The states can do what they want.’ But it seems to me that a story like this is timed to go along with the media celebrating Barack Obama saying he’s going to let states ban gay marriage.”
— Joe Scarborough, MSNBC, Morning Joe
OK, so who failed on the “BullyGate” story? And if Elizabeth Flock got fired for an inaccurate blog post, how can Jason Horowitz survive multiple inaccuracies in a 5,000-word front-page story? How does the WaPo plan to verify a secondhand quote from a dead man?
Washington Post ombudsman Patrick Pexton can be reached by phone at 202-334-7582 or by e-mail at [email protected]. Be polite.
The story is overwritten and hyped up beyond all reason — silly pranks cast as “terrifying,” the word “terror” and “terrified” appearing multiple times — and then, needing some justification for their overwrought hype, they start inventing other witnesses who, in their telling, have “long been bothered” by the horrors they witness, their every night’s sleep haunted by Romney’s psychotic… um, pranks.
UPDATE IV: Did you know that the stockholders in the Washington Post have been accused of “disinvesting” in news operations? Did you know that the Washington Post lost $22.6 million in the first three months of 2012? You’re probably not going to read that news in a 5,000-word front-page article in the Washington Post, eh?
Routine conversation at the Riley household, as imagined by typical readers of the Chronicle of Higher Education:
Naomi: Honey, will you take out the garbage? Jason: Stop oppressing me, cracker! Naomi: You left your dirty laundry on the bathroom floor again. Jason: Orval Faubus! Bull Connor! Selma! Naomi: Could you run to the store and get a gallon of milk? Jason: “We shall overcome . . .”
Once you start seeing the world through the lens of oppression and victimization, you see it everywhere. When the only tool you’ve got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Naomi Riley offers a few highlights of the absurdity:
MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry spewed a four-minute rant about my post, invoking the memory of Trayvon Martin and accusing me of “small-mindedness.” . . .
If you want to know why almost all of the responses to my original post consist of personal attacks on me, along with irrelevant mentions of Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and George Zimmerman, it is because black studies is a cause, not a course of study. By doubting the academic worthiness of black studies, my critics conclude, I am opposed to racial justice — and therefore a racist.
