Friday, May 29, 2009

Douche Quote of the Day, Part 4

posted by Armadillo Joe
"I think she'd say that her word choice in 2001 was poor"
- Robert Gibbs, White House Press Secretary


Why concede any ground at all when the wingnuts were well and truly about to implode into a fine red mist of degenerate racism and reprobate misogyny?


Washington D.C. is hard-wired for Republican Rule. As Atrios pointed out today, no matter how bad things may be for Republicans at any given moment (and they look pretty bad right now), the GOP will always enjoy a home field advantage in Washington. That's why we bloggers invented the term "Villagers" to describe all those Kewl Kidz who golf-clap their approval whenever some politician displays strength by punching a dirty fucking hippie in the face. Their incomes and class and economic upbringing and social status all make them part of a non-partisan ruling elite who nevertheless distrust an "Other" which usually resides in the Democratic Party. This reflexive distrust of the less monied, the less plugged-in, the less connected, the less powerful, the less glamorous -- frankly, hatred for the riff-raff -- gives them a natural affinity for the policies, procedures, arguments and methods of the Rethugli-goons, whose raison d'tre is to advocate for The Villagers -- not as "Villagers" per se, but simply as the rich, entitled, powerful people who expect special treatment that they are.

I mean, hell, Cheney's speech last week was presented by our MSM opposite Obama's like anything a potentially-indicted private citizen has to say about anything even remotely merits 1/10th the attention as an important speech by the sitting president. And Cheney reinforced that whole misguided notion by growling his way through a pro-torture "answer" to Obama national security speech, strutting and preening like the titular head of a government in exile, which to much of The Village he is.

So, now, the official stance of the White House is that some of the things Sotomayor said casually in a public forum almost ten years ago are out-of-bounds and, like that poorly-trained friend's dog we all know who will take the slightest breath of a hint of attention from a house-guest to jump and slobber and bark, a perpetually-in-search-of-conflict media pounces on the hairline fracture to split it wide-open. Shuster and Fineman nattered away on Hardball today like two old biddies in a sewing circle about the young hussy who just moved in down the street.

As digby said about it today:
Republicans were acting like crazed freaks, alienating Hispanics by the thousands and making women hate them even more, and the whole country was aghast. Why they gave them validation on this, I don't really understand.


this controversy will make it necessary for Sotomayor to bow and scrape before Jeff Sessions and Orrin Hatch. The wingnuts have been hoping for a chance for some payback for Thomas and maybe they'll get a pound of female flesh this time.
Two steps forward, three steps back.


chris said...

my favorite part is all the pundits saying "she'll have to explain that remark to the Senate". Why? The remark needs no explanation when read in context! Shouldn't we be able to assume that our Senators can read? It's apparent that the pundits can't. (which may exlpain the whole teleprompter kerfuffle...)

Anonymous said...

Thars what I hate about talk shows on both cable and radio.If read in context,there is no controversy but they purposely take it out of context just to creaye a story because they know most viewers are either too busy or to lazy to read the whole thing for themselves.Its the model that fix news created and the other networks use because they would much rather be disengenuous to the viewer than to be honestwith them.The dumbing down of for the whitehouse,they should've simply said "anybody who can read english will understand what she was saying when read in context those who continue to distort what she sai need to take remedial english".