Links
Archives
Media Double Standards
Thursday, July 16, 2009
In case anyone is interested, I've got a new business going. I've purchased a couple new and different URL's to drive traffic. Its all a lot o voodoo.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
...attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies...
Just imagaine if Whites or Republicans behaved this way. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC...would never let it go. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton...
The Washington Times
'Party trumps race' for Steele foes
By S.A. Miller
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published November 2, 2005
Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.
Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.
Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted.
But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious."
"There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes.
"Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy."
Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.
"Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people."
During the 2002 campaign, Democratic supporters pelted Mr. Steele with Oreo cookies during a gubernatorial debate at Morgan State University in Baltimore.
In 2001, Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. called Mr. Steele an "Uncle Tom," when Mr. Steele headed the state Republican Party. Mr. Miller, Prince George's County Democrat, later apologized for the remark.
"That's not racial. If they call him the "N' word, that's racial," Mrs. Marriott said. "Just because he's black, everything bad you say about him isn't racial."
This week, the News Blog -- a liberal Web log run by Steve Gilliard, a black New Yorker -- removed a doctored photo of Mr. Steele that depicted him as a black-faced minstrel.
However, the blog has kept its headline "Simple Sambo wants to move to the big house." A caption beneath a photo of the lieutenant governor reads: "I's Simple Sambo and I's running for the Big House."
A spokesman for the Maryland Democratic Party denounced the depiction as being "extremely offensive" and having "no place in politics or in any other aspect of public discourse," The Washington Post reported. Democrats have denied any connection to the News Blog.
Still, Mfume spokesman Joseph P. Trippi said Mr. Steele opens himself to such criticism by defending Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. for holding a Republican fundraiser in July at the all-white Elkridge Club in Baltimore.
"The facts are the facts. Ehrlich went to that country club, and Steele said it didn't bother him," Mr. Trippi said. "I think that says something ... and should be part of this debate."
Several club members told the Baltimore Sun that, though blacks are welcome as guests and there is no policy banning blacks from membership, the club never has had a black member in its 127-year history.
Democrats also have used the club for various events, including Peter O'Malley, brother of and adviser to Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley, a Democratic candidate for governor. Peter O'Malley held his wedding reception there in 2003.
State Sen. Verna Jones, Baltimore Democrat and vice chairman of the General Assembly's legislative black caucus, said black Republicans deserve criticism because the Republican Party has not promoted the interests of the black community.
"The public policies supported by Democratic principles are the ones that most impact the African-American community," she said. "I'm not saying [Mr. Steele] is a sell-out. That's not for me to say."
In July, however, Mr. Mfume noted how Republicans were rallying for Mr. Steele but his party had ignored his historic candidacy. "More voters in Maryland are carrying the impression that the Democratic Party talks the talk, but doesn't always walk the walk. People may find a way to cross over in the fall," he said.
Steele campaign spokesman Leonardo Alcivar said state Democrats are afraid of losing the black vote to Mr. Steele.
"That has caused a great tremble throughout the Maryland Democratic Party," he said. "Of course [they are] going to condone racism. It's nothing new, and it's not surprising."
Monday, October 17, 2005
I caught the last half hour or so of the Frontline O.J. Simpson program on PBS this evening. Its message; White Americans just don't "get" race.
Most disturbing was the acknowledgement from a number of Blacks that the African Americans who were celebrating the verdict (an image I will never forget) were not celebrating O.J. getting away with murder. They were celebrating...well, I'm still not sure.
Several said they thought he was guilty but were nonetheless pleased by the verdict. Pleased that a man got away with murdering two innocent people with a hunting knife. No. I don't "get" it.
There were plenty of other comments that made me upset.
One constant refrain was that the L.A.P.D. tried to frame a guilty man. This was spelled out by one commentator who speculated that perhaps Mark Furhman planted the bloody glove on O.J.'s property. How he planted or knew about the cut on O.J.'s hand is left unexplained.
The likelihood of this happening is nil. Mark Furham is going to plant evidence on O.J. Simpson's property? He's going to frame O.J. Simpson?!?!? And how would he explain that glove if (and I say "if" because he didn't) O.J. had an alibi? Ooops.
Its my contention that nothing short of a video tape of O.J. committing the murders would have that jury convict him. Had the cops found the bloody knife with O.J.'s fingerprints hidden in the liquor cabinet, it would not suffice. The defense would simply claimed the police planted it, like everything else. Its called "jury nullification". Remarkably, I didn't hear that term on PBS.
Before O.J., a friend of mine happened to be the foreman on a jury where a Black man had strangled his Asian girlfriend. He told me from day one "that jury will never convict O.J. Simpson", and he told me why. He said that he learned on his trial that when a Black woman sees a Black man with White woman, she doesn't get mad at the man. She hates the White woman. Believe me, he was the only person saying O.J. would walk. After O.J. I heard the jury consultant for the Dream Team confess this very same finding.
Needless to say, PBS didn't say a word about that.
An African American news reporter who covered the trial said it was about race from day one. The White reporter said Whites, including those in the media, didn't realize it was about race until Furhman spontaneously combusted on the stand.
What does that say about Blacks and Whites?
What does the confidence White Americans had in the predominantly Black jury to do the right thing say about Whites?
The different reactions to the verdict between Black and Whites is telling. The faith and confidence that White Americans had in that Black jury wasn't the only thing that was dashed. White Americans had hope. Hope that we could put all this crap about race behind us and just all be Americans. Hope was killed that day...and we watched Blacks celebrate.
Most disturbing was the acknowledgement from a number of Blacks that the African Americans who were celebrating the verdict (an image I will never forget) were not celebrating O.J. getting away with murder. They were celebrating...well, I'm still not sure.
Several said they thought he was guilty but were nonetheless pleased by the verdict. Pleased that a man got away with murdering two innocent people with a hunting knife. No. I don't "get" it.
There were plenty of other comments that made me upset.
One constant refrain was that the L.A.P.D. tried to frame a guilty man. This was spelled out by one commentator who speculated that perhaps Mark Furhman planted the bloody glove on O.J.'s property. How he planted or knew about the cut on O.J.'s hand is left unexplained.
The likelihood of this happening is nil. Mark Furham is going to plant evidence on O.J. Simpson's property? He's going to frame O.J. Simpson?!?!? And how would he explain that glove if (and I say "if" because he didn't) O.J. had an alibi? Ooops.
Its my contention that nothing short of a video tape of O.J. committing the murders would have that jury convict him. Had the cops found the bloody knife with O.J.'s fingerprints hidden in the liquor cabinet, it would not suffice. The defense would simply claimed the police planted it, like everything else. Its called "jury nullification". Remarkably, I didn't hear that term on PBS.
Before O.J., a friend of mine happened to be the foreman on a jury where a Black man had strangled his Asian girlfriend. He told me from day one "that jury will never convict O.J. Simpson", and he told me why. He said that he learned on his trial that when a Black woman sees a Black man with White woman, she doesn't get mad at the man. She hates the White woman. Believe me, he was the only person saying O.J. would walk. After O.J. I heard the jury consultant for the Dream Team confess this very same finding.
Needless to say, PBS didn't say a word about that.
An African American news reporter who covered the trial said it was about race from day one. The White reporter said Whites, including those in the media, didn't realize it was about race until Furhman spontaneously combusted on the stand.
What does that say about Blacks and Whites?
What does the confidence White Americans had in the predominantly Black jury to do the right thing say about Whites?
The different reactions to the verdict between Black and Whites is telling. The faith and confidence that White Americans had in that Black jury wasn't the only thing that was dashed. White Americans had hope. Hope that we could put all this crap about race behind us and just all be Americans. Hope was killed that day...and we watched Blacks celebrate.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Can you imagine the media firestorm if staffers for, say, Frist, had used Barack Obama's Social Security number to fraudulently obtain his credit report?
But An African American Republican...
Schumer's Plumbers
Posted 10/3/2005
Politics: Staff members for a champion of the right to privacy and a leading critic of identity theft fraudulently obtained the credit report of a rising black political star. Your turn for tough questions, Sen. Schumer.
While the media focus on House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's alleged skirting of campaign laws to get Republicans elected, former Education Secretary Bill Bennett's alleged racially insensitive hypothetical regarding blacks, crime and abortion, and Sen. Bill Frist's recent sale of stock, a real crime against a black politician has been committed in virtual silence.
Sen. Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, is chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), and it's his job to get Democrats elected in hopes of wresting Senate control from the GOP. Michael Steele is lieutenant governor of Maryland, and the DSCC, and along with most everyone else, expects Steele to run for the open seat of retiring Sen. Paul Sarbanes.
Steele, an African American, is a rising star in a Republican party regularly accused of racial insensitivity if not outright racism, a party that thought so highly of him and his political future that it chose him to be the deputy permanent chairman of the 2004 Republican Convention.
Steele, a Catholic who once trained for the priesthood, was inspired to join the Republican Party by Ronald Reagan's failed 1976 presidential bid. He demonstrated in his appearance at the 2004 convention that he has charisma, warmth and a keen grasp of public policy. He has already won statewide in Maryland.
Apparently nothing frightens the DSCC more than an articulate and charismatic black American who also happens to be a Reagan conservative. How else to explain the behavior of two of Schumer's campaign committee members — research director Katie Barge and junior staffer Lauren Weiner — who dug for dirt using Steele's Social Security number, reportedly culled from court records, to fraudulently and illegally obtain his credit report?
Columnist Michelle Malkin has reported that as of Sept. 30, according to Steele staffers, Schumer, who is a longtime crusader against identity theft and denies any knowledge of the scheme, had offered no apology for the invasion of Steele's privacy by people in his employ or given any hint as to what they were after or why they did it.
These were no naive, overzealous interns. Barge is a longtime Democratic operative who led the research unit for a liberal media watchdog group run by journalist David Brock. She led the opposition research team for failed Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards. She knew the ropes and the rules.
So what motivated her and Weiner to knowingly and willingly break the law and put their freedom and future at risk? Under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, knowingly and willfully obtaining a credit report under false pretenses is a felony punishable with a fine and a maximum two years in prison.
Reportedly, the two women confessed to the act in July, were suspended with pay until Aug. 31 and finally resigned in mid-September. One would think a potential felony by staffers for a top Democrat — a case being investigated by the U.S. attorney's office in D.C. as well as the FBI — would at least get a paragraph of coverage somewhere between the grocery coupons and the obituaries.
Can you imagine the media firestorm if staffers for, say, Frist, had used Barack Obama's Social Security number to fraudulently obtain his credit report looking for stuff to derail his Senate campaign? Frist would have been before a media firing squad faster than you can say Bill Bennett.
But An African American Republican...
Schumer's Plumbers
Posted 10/3/2005
Politics: Staff members for a champion of the right to privacy and a leading critic of identity theft fraudulently obtained the credit report of a rising black political star. Your turn for tough questions, Sen. Schumer.
While the media focus on House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's alleged skirting of campaign laws to get Republicans elected, former Education Secretary Bill Bennett's alleged racially insensitive hypothetical regarding blacks, crime and abortion, and Sen. Bill Frist's recent sale of stock, a real crime against a black politician has been committed in virtual silence.
Sen. Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, is chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), and it's his job to get Democrats elected in hopes of wresting Senate control from the GOP. Michael Steele is lieutenant governor of Maryland, and the DSCC, and along with most everyone else, expects Steele to run for the open seat of retiring Sen. Paul Sarbanes.
Steele, an African American, is a rising star in a Republican party regularly accused of racial insensitivity if not outright racism, a party that thought so highly of him and his political future that it chose him to be the deputy permanent chairman of the 2004 Republican Convention.
Steele, a Catholic who once trained for the priesthood, was inspired to join the Republican Party by Ronald Reagan's failed 1976 presidential bid. He demonstrated in his appearance at the 2004 convention that he has charisma, warmth and a keen grasp of public policy. He has already won statewide in Maryland.
Apparently nothing frightens the DSCC more than an articulate and charismatic black American who also happens to be a Reagan conservative. How else to explain the behavior of two of Schumer's campaign committee members — research director Katie Barge and junior staffer Lauren Weiner — who dug for dirt using Steele's Social Security number, reportedly culled from court records, to fraudulently and illegally obtain his credit report?
Columnist Michelle Malkin has reported that as of Sept. 30, according to Steele staffers, Schumer, who is a longtime crusader against identity theft and denies any knowledge of the scheme, had offered no apology for the invasion of Steele's privacy by people in his employ or given any hint as to what they were after or why they did it.
These were no naive, overzealous interns. Barge is a longtime Democratic operative who led the research unit for a liberal media watchdog group run by journalist David Brock. She led the opposition research team for failed Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards. She knew the ropes and the rules.
So what motivated her and Weiner to knowingly and willingly break the law and put their freedom and future at risk? Under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, knowingly and willfully obtaining a credit report under false pretenses is a felony punishable with a fine and a maximum two years in prison.
Reportedly, the two women confessed to the act in July, were suspended with pay until Aug. 31 and finally resigned in mid-September. One would think a potential felony by staffers for a top Democrat — a case being investigated by the U.S. attorney's office in D.C. as well as the FBI — would at least get a paragraph of coverage somewhere between the grocery coupons and the obituaries.
Can you imagine the media firestorm if staffers for, say, Frist, had used Barack Obama's Social Security number to fraudulently obtain his credit report looking for stuff to derail his Senate campaign? Frist would have been before a media firing squad faster than you can say Bill Bennett.
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
The moral authority of presidential critics is directly related to how politically useful they are to the liberal agenda.
Some parents mean more than others
Brent Bozell
August 31, 2005
Cindy Sheehan is wrapping up operations in Crawford, Texas, and preparing to torment the East Coast with her "Camp Casey" circus, much to the delight of the cheerleading national media. In the New York Times, Maureen Dowd underlined the template of the Sheehan media blitz with her column's declaration: "The moral authority of parents who bury children in Iraq is absolute."
Let us say this firmly: not so. Let us say this with equal vigor: Ms. Dowd and her legions of like-minded reporter peers are hypocrites. There are hundreds of other grieving family members loaded with moral authority who think Sheehan is wrong. Even Sheehan's own family has denounced her street theater. Where are Dowd and Co. bestowing on them the mantle of moral authority?
These same journalists never cared much for the moral authority of grieving parents unloading their pain and bitter anger at the commander-in-chief during the Clinton years. Take the story of Randy Shughart, who earned the Congressional Medal of Honor for insisting he be dropped into a fierce firefight in Somalia on Oct. 3, 1993, to aid American soldiers grounded in a helicopter crash. His heroism cost him his life. Shughart was honored at a White House ceremony in May 1994.
The award ceremony drew minimal media coverage. The Washington Post dedicated a few hundred words on Page A-6. USA Today's story on page 9A highlighted Clinton's stage performance, with reporter Richard Benedetto touting a "visibly moved President Clinton" who "softly whispered" thanks to the widows. But softer than a whisper -- missing, in fact -- was any discussion of the Vietnam-style dawdling of Clinton and his defense secretary, Les Aspin, and the decision not to send armor and gunships to support American soldiers on the ground in Somalia.
Shughart's father, Herbert, stood next to President Clinton at that awards ceremony -- and after refusing to shake the president's hand, told him off for not providing enough military support in the conflict. National media coverage of that hostile exchange was nonexistent.
The story eventually bubbled up, albeit packaged with sympathy for the "anguish" of President Clinton. One of the earliest accounts of this came over a year later, in the Jan. 22, 1995, Los Angeles Times Magazine. Reporter Doyle McManus wrote that Clinton had delayed meeting with grieving parents (no media criticism in that case) since aides explained he was shaken by "seeing his own orders lead to tragedy." Clinton extended his hand to Shughart, and the grieving father refused to take it. "You are not fit to be president of the United States," McManus recounted Shugart saying. "The blame for my son's death rests with you."
Another account surfaced in the New York Times on Dec. 28, 2000, as reporter Jane Perlez looked back on Clinton's strained relationship with the military. Perlez recounted that Shughart gave Clinton a "dressing down" instead of polite thanks. "I told him that for a man who dodged the draft, he wasn't fit for the job," Shughart told the Times. It is nice that the Times was on the story -- six years, seven months and one week after it happened.
Michael Durant, who broke a leg and his back when his Black Hawk crashed, recalled in his 2003 memoir that as he recovered, "I had begun to really understand how much my comrades resented the actions of the Clinton administration, and their anger and bitterness over the refusal to provide us with the armor and the air support we needed." As the one man saved by Shughart and his colleague Gary Gordon, Durant decided to reject an offer from the Clinton White House to attend the ceremony. "I wasn't going to stand on the White House lawn and make it appear that all was forgotten and forgiven, while my comrades were barely cold in their graves."
Why didn't Durant's "moral authority" draw a crowd, Ms. Dowd?
Some parents of soldiers slain that day were more vocal. Larry Joyce, a Vietnam combat veteran who lost his son Casey, was angry enough to agitate in Washington, testifying before the Senate, and getting a meeting the night before with President Clinton. The New York Times reported that Joyce "stunned the voluble panel into silence with a moving eulogy for his son," but apparently, his moral authority was very limited, too. The Times didn't quote him attacking Clinton. USA Today at least reported he said everyone should "know the consequences of foreign policy that is developed haphazardly and implemented by amateurs."
The contrast between Cindy Sheehan and these fathers who lost sons in Somalia is clear. The moral authority of presidential critics is directly related to how politically useful they are to the liberal agenda. Clinton was roundly criticized at the time for his bumbling in Somalia. But the critics armed with moral authority went ignored for years.
Brent Bozell is President of Media Research Center, a Townhall.com partner organization.
Some parents mean more than others
Brent Bozell
August 31, 2005
Cindy Sheehan is wrapping up operations in Crawford, Texas, and preparing to torment the East Coast with her "Camp Casey" circus, much to the delight of the cheerleading national media. In the New York Times, Maureen Dowd underlined the template of the Sheehan media blitz with her column's declaration: "The moral authority of parents who bury children in Iraq is absolute."
Let us say this firmly: not so. Let us say this with equal vigor: Ms. Dowd and her legions of like-minded reporter peers are hypocrites. There are hundreds of other grieving family members loaded with moral authority who think Sheehan is wrong. Even Sheehan's own family has denounced her street theater. Where are Dowd and Co. bestowing on them the mantle of moral authority?
These same journalists never cared much for the moral authority of grieving parents unloading their pain and bitter anger at the commander-in-chief during the Clinton years. Take the story of Randy Shughart, who earned the Congressional Medal of Honor for insisting he be dropped into a fierce firefight in Somalia on Oct. 3, 1993, to aid American soldiers grounded in a helicopter crash. His heroism cost him his life. Shughart was honored at a White House ceremony in May 1994.
The award ceremony drew minimal media coverage. The Washington Post dedicated a few hundred words on Page A-6. USA Today's story on page 9A highlighted Clinton's stage performance, with reporter Richard Benedetto touting a "visibly moved President Clinton" who "softly whispered" thanks to the widows. But softer than a whisper -- missing, in fact -- was any discussion of the Vietnam-style dawdling of Clinton and his defense secretary, Les Aspin, and the decision not to send armor and gunships to support American soldiers on the ground in Somalia.
Shughart's father, Herbert, stood next to President Clinton at that awards ceremony -- and after refusing to shake the president's hand, told him off for not providing enough military support in the conflict. National media coverage of that hostile exchange was nonexistent.
The story eventually bubbled up, albeit packaged with sympathy for the "anguish" of President Clinton. One of the earliest accounts of this came over a year later, in the Jan. 22, 1995, Los Angeles Times Magazine. Reporter Doyle McManus wrote that Clinton had delayed meeting with grieving parents (no media criticism in that case) since aides explained he was shaken by "seeing his own orders lead to tragedy." Clinton extended his hand to Shughart, and the grieving father refused to take it. "You are not fit to be president of the United States," McManus recounted Shugart saying. "The blame for my son's death rests with you."
Another account surfaced in the New York Times on Dec. 28, 2000, as reporter Jane Perlez looked back on Clinton's strained relationship with the military. Perlez recounted that Shughart gave Clinton a "dressing down" instead of polite thanks. "I told him that for a man who dodged the draft, he wasn't fit for the job," Shughart told the Times. It is nice that the Times was on the story -- six years, seven months and one week after it happened.
Michael Durant, who broke a leg and his back when his Black Hawk crashed, recalled in his 2003 memoir that as he recovered, "I had begun to really understand how much my comrades resented the actions of the Clinton administration, and their anger and bitterness over the refusal to provide us with the armor and the air support we needed." As the one man saved by Shughart and his colleague Gary Gordon, Durant decided to reject an offer from the Clinton White House to attend the ceremony. "I wasn't going to stand on the White House lawn and make it appear that all was forgotten and forgiven, while my comrades were barely cold in their graves."
Why didn't Durant's "moral authority" draw a crowd, Ms. Dowd?
Some parents of soldiers slain that day were more vocal. Larry Joyce, a Vietnam combat veteran who lost his son Casey, was angry enough to agitate in Washington, testifying before the Senate, and getting a meeting the night before with President Clinton. The New York Times reported that Joyce "stunned the voluble panel into silence with a moving eulogy for his son," but apparently, his moral authority was very limited, too. The Times didn't quote him attacking Clinton. USA Today at least reported he said everyone should "know the consequences of foreign policy that is developed haphazardly and implemented by amateurs."
The contrast between Cindy Sheehan and these fathers who lost sons in Somalia is clear. The moral authority of presidential critics is directly related to how politically useful they are to the liberal agenda. Clinton was roundly criticized at the time for his bumbling in Somalia. But the critics armed with moral authority went ignored for years.
Brent Bozell is President of Media Research Center, a Townhall.com partner organization.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Gee. I wonder if a Bush had called a gay Democrat strategist "self-loathing", the media would be all over it?
Bill Clinton, Loathe-ario
Saturday's New York Times carried the news that political consultant Arthur Finkelstein "had married his male partner in a civil ceremony at his home in Massachusetts." Although Finkelstein's gayness wasn't news, his nuptials were something of a man-bites-dog story, for he is a Republican, and Republicans generally oppose same-sex marriage, whereas Democrats oppose it only when they're sure that is the politically expedient position.
Finkelstein made the Times again on Sunday, when the paper reported that he is gearing up an effort to defeat Hillary Clinton's expected 2008 presidential bid. "Republicans who know of his intentions say he is moving behind the scenes to line up donors to help the committee, called Stop Her Now, reach its goal of raising as much as $10 million to finance an independent campaign against her."
This morning's Times brings us yet another Finkelstein update:
Former President Bill Clinton unleashed an attack yesterday against a gay Republican strategist who has plans to work against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's re-election, suggesting that the man may be "self-loathing" to work on behalf of the Republican Party.
John Edwards, John Kerry and now Bill Clinton--that's three. We can now officially speak of the gay-baiting trend among Democratic politicians, though in fairness to Kedwards, we should note that they did not go so far as to imply being gay was loathsome.
Anyway, there's no need to resort to cheap armchair psychology to explain why Finkelstein would go to work against Mrs. Clinton. Why would anyone expect a man who's just gotten gay-married to have any use for the non-same-sex spouse of the president who signed the Defense of Marriage Act?
Bill Clinton, Loathe-ario
Saturday's New York Times carried the news that political consultant Arthur Finkelstein "had married his male partner in a civil ceremony at his home in Massachusetts." Although Finkelstein's gayness wasn't news, his nuptials were something of a man-bites-dog story, for he is a Republican, and Republicans generally oppose same-sex marriage, whereas Democrats oppose it only when they're sure that is the politically expedient position.
Finkelstein made the Times again on Sunday, when the paper reported that he is gearing up an effort to defeat Hillary Clinton's expected 2008 presidential bid. "Republicans who know of his intentions say he is moving behind the scenes to line up donors to help the committee, called Stop Her Now, reach its goal of raising as much as $10 million to finance an independent campaign against her."
This morning's Times brings us yet another Finkelstein update:
Former President Bill Clinton unleashed an attack yesterday against a gay Republican strategist who has plans to work against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's re-election, suggesting that the man may be "self-loathing" to work on behalf of the Republican Party.
John Edwards, John Kerry and now Bill Clinton--that's three. We can now officially speak of the gay-baiting trend among Democratic politicians, though in fairness to Kedwards, we should note that they did not go so far as to imply being gay was loathsome.
Anyway, there's no need to resort to cheap armchair psychology to explain why Finkelstein would go to work against Mrs. Clinton. Why would anyone expect a man who's just gotten gay-married to have any use for the non-same-sex spouse of the president who signed the Defense of Marriage Act?
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Little Green Footballs
From James Lileks:
This morning I was clicking around, following some links about Wolfowitz’ nomination to the World Bank (mrghmghfm) (surpressing mad laughter) (mrghmghfm) (Sorry, mwa HAHAHAHAHA) and encountered one of those brand-name sites I don’t visit much because the proprietor has nothing to say and no particular skill at saying it. He referred to that “filthy Wolfowitz.”
Do you often come across the word “filthy” applied to many politicians? No. Can you recall which group, in the last, oh, 60 years, got tarred with that word most frequently? Just curious. If the word rings no bells for you, then I’m overreacting. Obviously rung no bells for the author. I expect he will be equally unaffected if Trent Lott refers to “that uppity Rev. Jackson.”
From James Lileks:
This morning I was clicking around, following some links about Wolfowitz’ nomination to the World Bank (mrghmghfm) (surpressing mad laughter) (mrghmghfm) (Sorry, mwa HAHAHAHAHA) and encountered one of those brand-name sites I don’t visit much because the proprietor has nothing to say and no particular skill at saying it. He referred to that “filthy Wolfowitz.”
Do you often come across the word “filthy” applied to many politicians? No. Can you recall which group, in the last, oh, 60 years, got tarred with that word most frequently? Just curious. If the word rings no bells for you, then I’m overreacting. Obviously rung no bells for the author. I expect he will be equally unaffected if Trent Lott refers to “that uppity Rev. Jackson.”
