“This is not an election on November 2. This is a restraining order,” P.J. O’Rourke writes:
Perhaps you’re having a tiny last minute qualm about voting Republican. Take heart. And take the House and the Senate. Yes, there are a few flakes of dander in the fair tresses of the GOP’s crowning glory—an isolated isolationist or two, a hint of gold buggery, and Christine O’Donnell announcing that she’s not a witch. (I ask you, has Hillary Clinton ever cleared this up?) Fret not over Republican peccadilloes such as the Tea Party finding the single, solitary person in Nevada who couldn’t poll ten to one against Harry Reid. Better to have a few cockeyed mutts running the dog pound than Michael Vick.
I take it back. Using the metaphor of Michael Vick for the Democratic party leadership implies they are people with a capacity for moral redemption who want to call good plays on the legislative gridiron. They aren’t. They don’t. The reason is simple. They hate our guts.
They don’t just hate our Republican, conservative, libertarian, strict constructionist, family values guts. They hate everybody’s guts. And they hate everybody who has any. Democrats hate men, women, blacks, whites, Hispanics, gays, straights, the rich, the poor, and the middle class.
Democrats hate Democrats most of all. Witness the policies that Democrats have inflicted on their core constituencies, resulting in vile schools, lawless slums, economic stagnation, and social immobility. Democrats will do anything to make sure that Democratic voters stay helpless and hopeless enough to vote for Democrats.
Read the whole thing, which dovetails perfectly with some very much related blog posts floating around the ‘Net.
Melissa Clouthier explores a topic I’ve been pondering all summer: given the rise of the Blogosphere, YouTube, Twitter, alternative media such as NRO, the Weekly Standard (where O’Rourke’s article appears above), Commentary, Reason, Drudge, PJM, Fox, etc., and knowing what we now know about the MSM via the JournoList scandal, their own public admissions, and 20 years of legwork by the MRC: “Why on earth should Sarah Palin or Christine O’Donnell or any of the Republicans give the media who hate them the ratings and money that comes with an appearance?”
Will the new politicians going to DC talk a lot to the press? Why should they?
In addition, it’s the press’ job to investigate. That’s their job. They need to get to it. You know, find some dirt, investigate it, and write a story? They could take some lessons from the National Enquirer. Otherwise, they just serve as stooges for the Democrats feeding them opposition research and tips.
And maybe, if the press actually broke old-fashioned news and held ALL politicians to account, they’d have readers. In fact, I know they would.
That is not happening. And the press shows no inclination to attempt to treat their political opponents fairly, so why should their lack of intellectual diversity, ratings-whoring and biased ways be reinforced. They’ve earned their Time Out chair.
Americans haven’t noticed, have they? They can still find out what a Republican thinks now. They just need to directly ask.
But note that if Republicans don’t want to play the role of punching bag for the MSM, it’s a voluntary gesture. That’s very different from the pressure being waged against liberal pundits and politicians from the far left not to appear on the source of all evil emanating in the world everywhere — channel #360 on your DirectTV dial.
Or as Prof. William A. Jacobson writes after spotting the latest attempts to bully more liberals off of Fox News, “Media Matters Is The Symptom, Not The Disease:”
No conservatives are trying to prevent people from appearing on NPR, but liberal interest groups and their media outlets are trying to prevent people from appearing on Fox News.
There is a real threat to freedom in this country, and it does not come from conservatives. Media Matters is just the symptom, not the disease.
Speaking of which, in Hollywood, John Nolte finds this principle at work as well: “Anti-Gay Bully at ‘Salon’ Suggests ‘Maybe it’s Time to Rethink’ Jodie Foster,” because the actress has chosen — despite what are presumably enormous cultural differences — to stay friends with her former costar, Mel Gibson.
And finally, after all of that hard news, we’ll linger in Hollywood just a bit for some comedy gold from Rob Reiner. Yes, the actor turned director turned anti-smoking obsessive quasi-government official gets his inner Garofalo on and has the Orwellian — and staggeringly clapped out — observation that the folks who want to shrink government and reduce its interference in our daily lives are secretly the folks who in the 1930s built one of the most massive welfare states of all — and I don’t mean FDR.
Or to borrow from Ameripundit, “Nothing says National Socialism like a bunch of limited government, anti-central authoritarian activists who despise nationalization and the running of other people’s lives.”
(Via Jim Treacher, who adds, “Rob Reiner’s IQ goes to 11,” though to be fair, that comparison is an attack on fine Marshall amps everywhere.)
Tammy Bruce’s new essay (“On being out, proud and conservative”) in the Guardian (and Orwell knows, they need her there!) should be read as a double-feature with the P.J. O’Rourke article above. As Tammy writes:
Presumably, “bats**t crazy” is an English liberal term of endearment, right? When I read another commenter’s description of American conservative women politicians as “a bunch of petty, incoherent shrews”, I was filled with joy at realising how great it was to be among authentic feminists once again.
Having made my point, I trust, I’ll now slip out of my snark suit and share a little secret with you. The real story of bigotry and intolerance is the fact that it lives and thrives on the left. As a gay woman who spent most of her adult life pushing the cart for liberal causes with liberal friends in a liberal city, I found that sexism, racism and homophobia are staples in the liberal world. The huge irony is liberals spend every ounce of energy promoting the notion that they are the banner carriers of individualism and personal freedom, yet the hammer comes down on anyone who dares not to conform to, or who dissents even in part from, the liberal agenda.
Think about what would happen if you did act up? If you dared to say you like Sarah Palin, or admire Margaret Thatcher, or think global warming is a hoax, or think Bill Clinton is a sexual predator, or that George W Bush isn’t to blame for everything, or that Barack Obama has absolutely no clue what he’s doing, you know there would be a price to pay. Odds are that your “liberal” friends would very liberally hate you. At the very least, being shunned would be your new experience, condemning you to suffer that horrific liberal malady called social death.
Definitely read the whole thing.
I prefer this one, myself.