What the DNC is really all about
Yes, yes, unity. Blah, blah, optimism. Yadda yadda, hope. Never mind all that-- the real objective of the Democratic National Convention is to make wingnuts’ heads explode. This is not a trivial matter-- every wingnut whose head explodes between now and November is a wingnut who won’t be casting a vote.
The good people at townhall.com and worldnetdaily.com (sorry, no links to these-- we don’t want to be opening any mystic portals to Ben Shapiro or Suzanne Fields on this blog) are absolutely furious that the Democrats have given them so little to be furious about, which, they note, just shows you how devious Democrats are! (Yep, they got that right-- we were hoping for paralyzing paroxysms of right-wing rage at having nothing to rage about, followed by the distinctive sounds of wingnut-skulls-a-poppin’.) They’re also furious at USA Today for spiking Ann Coulter’s column on Monday, when, of course, they should be thanking that branch of the SCLM for sparing them the embarrassment of having the ravings of an incoherent, dessicated harridan represent them in the hotels and airports of the nation. Here are the first few grafs of Coulter’s convention coverage, along with the editorial remarks (and remember, humaneventsonline.com-- sorry, no link-- ran this in the belief that it justifies the right’s complaints about the media):
Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much like gay men do. My allies are the ones wearing crosses or American flags. The people sporting shirts emblazoned with the “F-word” are my opponents. Also, as always, the pretty girls and cops are on my side, most of them barely able to conceal their eye-rolling.
USA Today: EYE-ROLLING? AT WHAT?
Democrats are constantly suing and slandering police as violent, fascist racists—with the exception of Boston’s police, who’ll be lauded as national heroes right up until the Democrats pack up and leave town on Friday, whereupon they’ll revert to their natural state of being fascist, racist pigs.
USA Today: WHAT DEMOCRATS SUE THE POLICE? BUT THEY WON’T ACTUALLY REVERT TO BEING FASCIST PIGS, DON’T YOU MEAN THE DEMS WILL THINK THEY HAVE REVERTED TO BEING FASCIST PIGS?
A speaker at the Democratic National Convention this year, Al Sharpton, accused white police officers of raping and defacing Tawana Brawley in 1987, lunatic charges that eventually led to a defamation lawsuit against Sharpton and even more eventually, to Sharpton paying a jury award to the defamed plaintiff Steve Pagones. So it’s a real mystery why cops wouldn’t like Democrats.
USA Today: IS THAT LAST SENTENCE SARCASTIC? IF SO, YOU SURE LOST ME.
Apparently, the liberals at USA Today just didn’t get the humor in Coulter’s idea of mangling the syntax in the second graf and then using the ha-ha double-or-triple-twist punch line of the third to undermine the ha-ha mangled-syntax punch line of the second. But Ann’s Fans get it: Democrats only pretend to like cops but really think they’re violent fascist pigs and then sue them and then have to pay them money, so it’s a mystery why cops don’t like Democrats! Spawn of Satan! Humorless Spawn of Satan!
Whew. But I’m not here to talk about poor, pickled Ann. I’m here to talk about what happens to a hapless nationally-syndicated wingnut who writes about the Democratic National Convention and doesn’t have the good fortune to be screened by a competent editor.
I don’t usually devote my precious time and energy to Cal Thomas, but I couldn’t avoid him today: his scary pasty face-- and his column-- were in my hometown paper. And here’s what he’s saying about what he calls the Democrats’ “convention cover-up”:
The Democratic National Convention, designed for television with so many flat-screen TVs in use that it looks like Circuit City on steroids,
Good one! Damn those Democrats and those flat-screen TVs and the rampant steroid use against which the President has spoken so eloquently.
is trying to steal Ronald Reagan’s optimism.
Um, no. Ronald Reagan does not actually own the rights to optimism. Even Ronald Reagan’s estate does not own the rights to optimism. What we’re trying to steal is Reagan’s “mojo” by travelling back in time to 1980 and . . . but of course I don’t want to give away the details.
The “no Bush bashing” and the ban on talk about “gay marriage” messages went out early and are being (almost) enforced. There are references to President Bush’s “dishonesty” and laments about the federal deficit, which never seemed to bother big-spending Democrats when they controlled the checkbook.
Oops! It’s blue-pencil time. WHICH DEMOCRATS SPENT BIG? THE ONES WHO WERE SUING THE POLICE? IS THAT LAST SENTENCE SARCASTIC? BUT DIDN’T THE DEMOCRATS LEAVE US WITH A SERIES OF BALANCED BUDGETS THAT THE REPUBLICANS THEN USED AS THE PRETEXT FOR TAX CUTS THAT HAVE NOW TURNED A PROJECTED $5.8 TRILLION SURPLUS INTO A PROJECTED $5 TRILLION DEFICIT?
See, Cal didn’t pay much attention to the budget numbers in the last few years of the Clinton Administration. He was distracted by a young woman. Which brings us to matters of public morality:
Former President Bill Clinton, who wowed the delegates and caused most of the big media to swoon, was at his best (worst?) as he spun his new rich-guy image and non-military service. Clinton wants to sell the idea that draft dodging and enlisting are morally equivalent.
Blue pencil again. DID CLINTON SAY THIS? AND SHOULD YOU REALLY BE TALKING ABOUT SERVICE RECORDS WITH BUSH AND CHENEY AT THE TOP OF ONE TICKET AND KERRY AT THE TOP OF THE OTHER?
But this is tricky stuff, this draft dodging and enlisting, and Democrats should probably say something between now and November to clarify this moral murk. After all, draft dodging and enlisting are not morally equivalent! And we don’t want any of that nasty postmodern relativism around here. So let’s try to sketch out the relevant moral positions involved:
Serving country in armed forces: good.
Not fighting in war you oppose: also good.
Fighting in war you oppose: complex.
Serving country in armed forces and then fighting to end war you oppose: doubleplus good.
Not fighting in war you support: deeply hypocritical.
Not fighting in war you support and then blaming black people for not letting you serve (known to ethicists as “the DeLay conundrum"): hypocrisy so deep it cannot be plumbed by known moral instruments.
Having “other priorities” during war you support: vacuous.
Enlisting in National Guard: good.
Using one’s father’s connections to jump the line waiting to enlist in National Guard, in order to avoid service in Vietnam: bad, but widely practiced and considered merely venial in some cultures.
Using one’s father’s connections etc. and then not fulfilling obligations to National Guard after all: unambiguously bad.
Using one’s father’s connections etc., not fulfilling obligations etc., then serving as commander-in-chief, waging war under false pretenses, and extending reservists’ terms of service in war while cutting veterans’ benefits: kind of like being on Tom DeLay’s moral level, only worse.
OK, that should clear things up.
Now, back to Cal and his unedited, “rough cut” exposÈ of the convention cover-up. What made him write such horribly self-undermining things about budgets and draft dodgers? The person of Bill Clinton, that’s what. And that’s why we need Clinton on the campaign trail this fall: as this week’s convention demonstrates, a publicly visible Bill Clinton, talking pleasantly and self-deprecatingly about his tax cut and John Kerry’s courage, will cause roughly 3.6 million wingnuts’ heads to explode by November 2 (margin of error plus or minus 3 percent). In Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Florida, that could make all the difference.
Kerry-Edwards: for a stronger America.
Clinton-Obama: for wingnut-skulls-a-poppin’.
Before I laud this essay on the DNC I have to point that, unfortunately,
Ann-thrax is right about the Dems and the police. Why, I’ve been running a site dedicated to suing, slandering and bankrupting police officers for many years now, and hope you can contribute to the cause at
Beyond that, I think you’ve hit on something that has the potential for not only carrying the election on its own merits but also exponentially adding to the number of wingnut head explosions.
We know that, legally, Clinton can’t serve any more terms as president. But this doesn’t mean that he can’t campaign. As a matter of fact, we could save a lot of money on ads, travel, and the rest of it by just having John stay home (on the proverbial and literal front porch) while Clinton hits the road, giving speeches, shaking hands, granting interviews, responding to RNC attacks, and generally serving as the point of reference for all matters relating to the Kerry/Edwards campaign. He could do the debates, too. Sample line: Hey Dubya, whad’ya do with all that surplus I left you?
He would be the face of the campaign. The wingnuts would be beside themselves, all the effort put into op-ed research, campaign ads, campaign books, etc would be wasted as they once again had to direct their energies towards the man who’s beaten them before. Now no one would pay attention to the Bossie books or those GOP hired mercenaries “swiftboatsfortruth” or whatever they’re calling themselves. Oh, no one is anyway?
In any event, since my other grand scheme was to confuse the GOP-FOX machine by leading them on with Kerry all this time and then spontaneously nominating someone else this week (Biden, Cuomo, Bradley, etc), then the Al-Clinton, All-the-Time will have to do.
Posted by on 07/29 at 10:51 AM
Point taken about the Dems and the police-- you’re right, I was much too glib about the phenomenon of Democrats suing, slandering and bankrupting police offers. Great website, by the way!
I don’t think Clinton can do the debates solo, but it might be useful to have him on the bench as DH if the debate takes place in an American League city. . . .Posted by on 07/29 at 11:05 AM
Is there a song here? To the tune of “Hellzapoppin,” maybe?
Was that a subliminal suggestion of Clinton “on the bench” to Kerry for his first app’t to the SCOTUS?Posted by Linkmeister on 07/29 at 03:52 PM
Damn, Linkmeister! Now you’ve ruined my subliminable message.Posted by on 07/29 at 04:25 PM
Great stuff; this is my favorite new site. (recommended by the good management of Sadly, No!)Posted by daniel on 07/30 at 06:48 AM
Oops, sorry. Blame it on my instincts for a sunshine policy in government.Posted by Linkmeister on 07/30 at 01:23 PM
I detect another error in your piece. Throughout the ‘60s, I met many people of various persuasions who were in the National Guard, and every one for the same reason: to avoid the draft.
So I think enlisting in the NG during a draft can’t really be given an unequivocal “Good” score.Posted by Avedon on 08/02 at 09:17 AM
I’ve been thinking about your references to Ann-thrax Coulter and Cal Thomas, charmers they. If you wander over to Josh Marshall’s blog today you’ll see a snippet about BC2004’s announcement that they intend to use their convention to mock Kerry and his record. Last week Senator Trent “if we had only elected Thurman” Lott referred to Kerry as a “french Socialist” to the hometown crowd in the poorest state of the nation, Mississippi. Robert Novack’s column the other day threw in some barbs about Kerry’s “short” tour of duty in Vietnam.
Is it just me or does this seem like a curious campaign strategy? Not that I’m in the business of giving the conservatives advice, but it’s almost like the conservatives are out to prove how truly miserable and evil they are. I wonder if they realize how despicable this is, yet like addicts, honestly can’t help themselves?Posted by on 08/02 at 11:07 AM
Glenn-- I have a theory about the GOP campaign that I’ll post later this week. And Avedon, of course you’re right, and for that matter, “serving country in armed forces” isn’t necessarily good either. I was just suggesting a moral landscape for Democrats’ rhetorical purposes in the foreseeable future, so they can figure out how to handle wingnuts still obsessed with Clinton (hence “enlisting in National Guard good” disarms Bush’s disingenuous claim that Democrats are maligning reservists by attacking Bush’s Vietnam record). But now that I think about it, that’s situational ethics and we’re right back to moral relativism! Jeez, this philosophical stuff is harder than I thought.Posted by on 08/02 at 05:23 PM
And how much do you think Kerry is paying his “war buddies” to follow him around and lie for him.
Talk abnout paid meercenariess lies in your BSLOG.
It is providing us and everyone we show it to with plenty of laughs.
Too bad it is the ignorant that do not nvestigate that are lked by the nose or should I say the ass by the democrats.
Kerry was in Nam for 4 months and was well known bby those around him as a whiner and liar. Hey there is a fact that is easily researched, but you wont
Yeah I know Kerry represents the common man, well the billionare commo man at leazst. And Edwards made his millions driving up the price of everything the common buys with frivolous lawsuits. Maybe this is over your head as it is not the commonly spread lies told by the media.Posted by on 08/04 at 02:20 PM
Jesus I just saw that you are a teacher, Christ, the lowest, most lazy and most ignorant form of liar that there is.
You disgust us who have to work 40+ hrs per week and 52 weeks a year.
You, dear sir are scum and a joke.
It is scary that someone so obviously unimformed has the bully puplit to fill young minds with like ignorance and stupidity.Posted by on 08/04 at 02:25 PM
Keep those skulls a-poppin’, folks! And remember-- steer clear of teachers! Especially the kind who use their bully puplit to teach people all the letters of the alphabet.Posted by on 08/04 at 03:09 PM
You know, once upon a time, maybe as recently as yesterday, I thought it actually mattered (to the conservative press, wing-nut trollers, GOP office-holders, and related think tank founders) who the Democrats ran for President.
I was tempted to think (silly me) that a man with 20 years in the U.S. Senate, military service and Purple Hearts from Vietnam, and a relatively clean marital history, would not be subject to the same vitriolic bile that Clinton was. Once we got past Clinton, I assured myself, and we had a better “character” candidate, things would be different.
Sadly, no. The Repubs have simply gone back into their gutter full of tricks and thrown out the same crap (he’s fake, he lies, he’s a traitor to his country, he eats cheerios for breakfast, etc). Doesn’t matter who runs.
In fact, Faux news is already taking pot shots at Obama. Maybe its never to early.Posted by on 08/05 at 12:10 PM
"Kerry was in Nam for 4 months and was well known bby those around him as a whiner and liar.”
I ask you, sir, have you no shame!?Posted by on 08/05 at 12:13 PM