(POL) Michelle Malkin - Frickin idiot.

[CamEdwards]

Wow. Just watched that Kevin James video. Man, that was painful to watch, professionally speaking.

[cartman]

I never could get into 'King of Queens' either.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by cartman

I never could get into 'King of Queens' either.

Though I wouldn't mind getting into the lady that played his wife.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

True, but there are just so many more (and more popular) on the conservative side of things. It's not even close.

I sincerely doubt it. You're going to have a hard time convincing me one side or the other has an advantage here. Do I need to keep throwing names out there? Jesse Jackson. Al Sharpton. Jane Fonda. PETA's already been brought up. Take your pick of eco-terror groups. Female daytime talkshow hosts.

Both sides have a serious plethora of wacko nutjobs, way too many to say one side has some advantage, unless you narrow it to some specific set of criteria like "radio talk-show host".

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

Malkin is an annoying idiot, but I would hit it.

Don't stick it in the crazy.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by samifan24

Malkin and Coulter are extreme examples of conservatism. In some ways, they give conservatism a bad name the same way that Michael Moore gives liberalism a bad name. Malkin, Coulter and Moore are all the same, they're all agitators and are out there to make a name for themselves, not the good of their parties.

Originally Posted by gstelmack

You forgot Al Franken. But the point is definitely correct: there are crackpots on both sides of the fence, many of them getting great publicity.

There are some differences, though. Franken was the Emmy-winning writer on SNL back when it was good. Moore's the Oscar-winning and Palme D'Or winning creator of huge-grossing documentaries. Malkin & Coulter write different editions of the same book over and over again and go on TV and radio and shout a lot.

But I take your point, Greg, in that we could sit here and create lists of partisans on both sides and it wouldn't accomplish much.

The only difference, I think, and it's a subjective observation, is that the level of hate and vitriol from the right seems much greater.

I mean, look at some of the stuff Coulter says, from poisoning Supreme Court justices, to "perfecting" Jews, to converting all Muslims to Christianity, to blowing up the NYT building, to calling the 9/11 widows "harpies". And I won't even get into the stuff Malkin says. You won't find similar (in quantity or quality) from Moore or Franken.

Heck, just look at the Kevin James vs. Chris Matthews video and the difference between the right-winger and the left-winger.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The only difference, I think, and it's a subjective observation, is that the level of hate and vitriol from the right seems much greater.

I mean, look at some of the stuff Coulter says, from poisoning Supreme Court justices, to "perfecting" Jews, to converting all Muslims to Christianity, to blowing up the NYT building, to calling the 9/11 widows "harpies". And I won't even get into the stuff Malkin says. You won't find similar (in quantity or quality) from Moore or Franken.

Heck, just look at the Kevin James vs. Chris Matthews video and the difference between the right-winger and the left-winger.

I'm also going to have a hard time buying the "Liberal wackos are the polite ones" bit. Again, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson. And Al Franken has been pretty vitriolic himself, despite any legitimate trappings you want to try and hang around him (I could care less what awards you want to discuss, doesn't change who he is or was). He's tried to clean up his act recently because he wants to be a politician rather than argue about them (it used to be amusing when Franken got a free pass for using the same type of language that got Limbaugh villified). And trying to claim Michael Moore doesn't spew this kind of hatred himself is patently absurd.

I mean come on, Bill Clinton and Al Gore elevated class warfare to an art form not all that long ago.

Right-wingers are vitriolic right now because they sense a losing election coming up. Left-wingers were vitriolic for most of Bush's presidency and have quieted down now that it looks like they might win and are trying not to spoil it (well, except for Geraldine Ferrarro and her attacks on Obama as "sexist", but it's fun to watch a group turn on itself). Right-wing radio talk-shows got their popularity going during Clinton's administration. Etc etc etc.

[Buccaneer]

Cool. People hearing only what they want to hear.

[Big Fo]

Kevin James is the Republican party. Great video.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'm also going to have a hard time buying the "Liberal wackos are the polite ones" bit.

That's not what I said.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

the level of hate and vitriol from the right seems much greater.

Bolded for emphasis.

However, you could be right in that it's a cyclical thing. You have to admit, though, that the "chattering class" of right-wing talk show hosts/guests and pundits (like Malkin, Coulter & Limbaugh) do their relentless best to keep their brand of viscious hate and vitriol front and center in the media.

Fahrenheit 9/11 and Sicko may be, in a way, propaganda pieces, but they're also not 90 minutes of telling people that Supreme Court justices should be poisoned, or that you should shoot federal agents in the head, or that vast numbers of Americans should be rounded up in internment camps.

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Cool. People hearing only what they want to hear.

What's that, grandpa?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Cool. People hearing only what they want to hear.

P.S. GO WINGS!

Fixed.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

However, you could be right in that it's a cyclical thing. You have to admit, though, that the "chattering class" of right-wing talk show hosts/guests and pundits (like Malkin, Coulter & Limbaugh) do their relentless best to keep their brand of viscious hate and vitriol front and center in the media.

Fahrenheit 9/11 and Sicko may be, in a way, propaganda pieces, but they're also not 90 minutes of telling people that Supreme Court justices should be poisoned, or that you should shoot federal agents in the head, or that vast numbers of Americans should be rounded up in internment camps.

I think part of it is the tactics are different (and I'll be up-front and clear that I agree there are some messed up people on the right-wing side). I'll give you a personal close-to-home example. I've posted a couple of times about the local school situation, where a growing school population is being used as an excuse to implement a socio-economic-based diversity busing policy. Anyone who argues against this policy, or any politician that actually tries to do something (such as the city of Garner withholding permits for school construction and renovation as their only tool to get the school board to change assignment policies that have fallen on them pretty hard) gets immediately labeled as "racist" (if you're a city like Garner that isn't considered "rich") or "elitist" (if you're a city like Cary that is considered "rich") or a "bigot" no matter where you are from.

You can't debate facts in the case, they just decide you don't want poor black kids to get a good education or want them in your neighborhood so you must be an elitist racist bigot and shout you down. While that does not cross the lines you are mentioning above, it's still a vicious attack intended to just wash away whatever realistic concerns you may have, forcing you to defend yourself rather than debate the merits of the particular point, and one that can lead directly to danger for yourself (and if you doubt that, look how the defendants in the Duke Lacrosse case were treated by large chunks of the population of Durham, which included events like protesters banging drums outside the frat house at all hours of the night).

I came of age during the anti-nuclear protests of the '80s (you know, the ones that always protested NATO but never the Soviet bloc, I loved those) and the class warfare used by Clinton and Gore to get into the White House in the early 90s. You can take an isolated election season and use it as some general trend and reason to attack your political opponents if you like, but this is just a blip on a fairly long and distinguished graph.

So what I'm trying to say is, sure the right may seem more vocal right now, but that's because they are fighting for political survival and the left is nice and smug in their imminent victory. When the political winds of change shift again, it will be reversed again, don't you worry.

Unless more people do like I do and ignore most of the talk shows from both sides of the aisle. Frankly, I had no clue much of this was going on as I stopped listening to most of this garbage nearly a decade ago. I don't watch CNN, I don't watch Fox News, I don't watch most of the nightly news, and instead I troll various sites and catch snippets here and there because frankly most of the media is far more interested in selling the news than telling it, most of it is sensationalized, most of it is politicized (back to the local education thing, we can't get our local paper to say anything bad about the local school board unless it involves a criminal issue like embezzlement, thanks in large part to the publisher sitting on the board of the Wake Education Partnership, the propaganda mouthpiece for the liberal educational elite who think they know what's best for our kids), and more and more of it is flat-out made up: the Nightline exploding pickup truck incident, the Bush National Guard scandal that took down Dan Rather, the Swift Boat folks, newspaper reporters being fired for making up stories, the Super Bowl practice walkthrough taping incident, etc etc etc. Just tune these folks out, they'll go away eventually. Now if I could just find someone who wants to tell me what's going on, I'll be set again.

[CamEdwards]

gstelmack,

Try Marvin Gaye.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Fahrenheit 9/11 and Sicko may be, in a way, propaganda pieces, but they're also not 90 minutes of telling people that Supreme Court justices should be poisoned, or that you should shoot federal agents in the head, or that vast numbers of Americans should be rounded up in internment camps.

But there are liberals who believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy, and two of the three things you quote are clearly exaggerations similar to things ordinary liberals say about Bush all the time.

And using Kevin James to make a point about all conservatives is as ridiculous as using Al Sharpton to make a point about all liberals.

Democrats find bias in FoxNews, Republicans find it on MSNBC.

And never forget that it's a business. These wacky conservatives would never be on TV if they were more restrained.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I remember her, on Hardball w/ Chris Matthews, during the 2004 election suggesting that John Kerry had purposely gotten injured in Vietnam so that he could win Purple Hearts.

Loved it when he lit into her on that. The best was Zell Miller later trying to defend her when Matthews and Miller went at it after Miller spoke at the Republican convention. If I recall, I think he actually kicked her off the show.

Here, I found the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ab-t...eature=related

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Loved it when he lit into her on that. The best was Zell Miller later trying to defend her when Matthews and Miller went at it after Miller spoke at the Republican convention. If I recall, I think he actually kicked her off the show.

Here, I found the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ab-t...eature=related

That was awesome. Total pwnage.

[KWhit]

Official Statement from Dunkin Donuts:

“Hi, I’m the president of Dunkin’ Donuts. Not that long ago, we decided to hire Rachel Ray to plug our products because, annoying as she is to listen to, you gotta admit she’s cute as a bug. And she has a lot of fans who’d drink motor oil if she told them that the 40-weight helps lower cholesterol. (It doesn’t, by the way. I’m just saying.) So we hire her and film some cute commercials and we figure we’re going to make out like bandits with this ad campaign.

“Then along comes this Michelle Malkin, a pundit who apparently lives in some faraway country where all the legitimate social and political issues were settled a long time ago. At a loss for what to complain about, she goes after our Rachel for wearing what Malkin thinks is a kiffiyeh, some kind of Arab scarf. We are surprised on several counts: (a) we thought it was a regular old scarf, (b) we can’t for the life of us figure out how wearing a kiffiyeh makes you a terrorist sympathizer (if it did, wouldn’t smart terrorist sympathizers stop wearing them?), and (c) Michelle Malkin knows how to spell kiffiyeh? And who would be dumb enough to believe what Malkin is saying in the first place?

“So we do a little market research and find out something crucial: stupid people buy donuts. Not only stupid people, mind you, because we know for a fact that more than one Nobelist has expressed a love of the Bavarian Cremes. But stupid people are an important part of the donut-buying demographic, and ignoring them could be costly. And some of these people are really mind-numbingly stupid; we’ve been sued by customers who got donut filling in their noses, or broke their wrists opening the little bag the donuts were in, or other stuff you wouldn’t even think was physically possible. For those folks, believing Michelle Malkin would be a, uh, no-brainer.

“We could take a stand, refuse to pander to stupid people, and suffer the consequences. Or we could apologize to the stupid people and hope that the whole thing blows over. I’ve got principles, believe me, but I’ve also got stockholders and a boat payment. So, Ms. Malkin, we’re sorry. Really, really sorry. And just to show you that we’re dealing in good faith, we’re going to send you some free coupons. For Krispy Kreme.”

[path12]

Awesome.

[st.cronin]

Rachel Ray

I would so hit that.

[Suburban Rhythm]

I know he's having a terrible series against the Wings, but idiot is a little harsh.

(Rather than creating a Malkin parody thread, I'll just post this here)

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Official Statement from Dunkin Donuts:

I would kill for that to be an official statement to this all. However, I can't find word one of it anywhere

SI

[Maple Leafs]

I find most of the far right-wing media pundits uninteresting. They're just playing one-dimensional characters, doing bad impressions of Rush Limbaugh from ten years ago.

That said, I have to admit to being a huge fan of Ann Coulter. Not her politics, but her writing style. It's obvious that her entire schtick is finding ways to twist the knife into sensitive lefties, and she's so good at it. I doubt she believes a word of what she's saying, but there's always just enough truth in it that it drives liberals crazy. It's great entertainment.

I mean, from her last column:

After decades of comparing Nixon to Hitler, Reagan to Hitler and Bush to Hitler, liberals have finally decided it is wrong to make comparisons to Hitler. But the only leader to whom they have applied their newfound rule of thumb is: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

That's gold!

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

There are some differences, though. Franken was the Emmy-winning writer on SNL back when it was good. Moore's the Oscar-winning and Palme D'Or winning creator of huge-grossing documentaries. Malkin & Coulter write different editions of the same book over and over again and go on TV and radio and shout a lot.

But I take your point, Greg, in that we could sit here and create lists of partisans on both sides and it wouldn't accomplish much.

The only difference, I think, and it's a subjective observation, is that the level of hate and vitriol from the right seems much greater.

I mean, look at some of the stuff Coulter says, from poisoning Supreme Court justices, to "perfecting" Jews, to converting all Muslims to Christianity, to blowing up the NYT building, to calling the 9/11 widows "harpies". And I won't even get into the stuff Malkin says. You won't find similar (in quantity or quality) from Moore or Franken.

Heck, just look at the Kevin James vs. Chris Matthews video and the difference between the right-winger and the left-winger.

Nah, it is pretty much the same with variance for personal style. You just identify with one group more so than the other.

[st.cronin]

For me, I think it depends who is in power. When Clinton was President, the right wing was apoplectic and very tough to swallow. The last 8 years, the shoe has been on the other foot.

[Glengoyne]

Too many things to comment on, but that won't stop me.

The whacko complaining about the ad is a moron. As Cam pointed out such things do more harm than good.

Dunkin was silly to pull the ad. Their new ad campaigns have been fantastic. I'd consider going there for coffee, even though their doughnuts are the very worst I've ever tried.


Someone pointed out that this was simply conservative "political correctness" running amok. I agree. At least I'm consistent and dislike the conservative brand of PC as much as the touchy feely variety.

Al Frankken and Michael Moore aren't any more respectable than their conservative equivalents.

Oh and Kevin James is apparently an uneducated moron. But to compare him to Republicans or even Republican pundits in general? That is pretty much just as moronic. Crap rhetoric like this remind me of the days shortly after the 2004 presidential election. You people need to realize that people can be intelligent, and still disagree with you.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I think the real sin is wearing a scarf with a short-sleeved t-shirt. Well, that and being Rachael Ray in the first place.

As for the xenophobic wing of the Republican Party... I guess maybe I'm a moderate xenophobe? I actually BOUGHT my wife a kuffiyah for Christmas a few years ago, but at the same time would never allow one of my children to wear a Che Guevara t-shirt.

I also do believe we're a bit too touchy-feely when it comes to the threat posed by fundamentalist Islam, but attacking Rachael Ray's outfit seems to be one of the silliest ways to draw attention to the threat that fundamentalist Islam poses. In fact, I'd argue it does more harm than good, because it makes people think you're a silly crank who imagines terrorists and terrorist sympathizers at every donut shop.

Still, I can't say that the fact that Ann Coulter exists stops me from voting for a Republican, any more than Michael Moore has prevented me from voting for a Democrat. There is an abundance of assholes in politics these days, and unfortunately it's a truly non-partisan trait.

You wouldn't allow your child to wear a Che Guevara T-shirt, even if your child studied up on what Guevara stood for, and decided they were in agreement?

I think at that point you go from teacher to brainwasher.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I would kill for that to be an official statement to this all. However, I can't find word one of it anywhere

SI

Okay, so I lied.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Oh and Kevin James is apparently an uneducated moron. But to compare him to Republicans or even Republican pundits in general? That is pretty much just as moronic. Crap rhetoric like this remind me of the days shortly after the 2004 presidential election. You people need to realize that people can be intelligent, and still disagree with you.

So he is a Republican pundit who is also an uneducated moron. They can be compared because he wears each of those as a badge whether purposely or not. They may not be mutually exclusive but a pundit of any kind can be compared to other pundits...he just happens to have other things going for him, like asshattery.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

So he is a Republican pundit who is also an uneducated moron. They can be compared because he wears each of those as a badge whether purposely or not. They may not be mutually exclusive but a pundit of any kind can be compared to other pundits...he just happens to have other things going for him, like asshattery.

OK so because you are a poster on FOFC, I can get away with things like saying you are a moron just like jbmagic? JB is a moron, so Flasch is too? I'm not buying that.

[Flasch186]

Yes, im saying that because we're both on FOFC and both post we can be compared...the conclusion you reach is what may vary from other people's, magazine's, pollster's conclusions. Whether or not one of us falls into a side of the spectrum that is more moronic than the other is valid, and an ok opinion based on your own comparison of the two, 3 or group.

Im not saying a conclusion of said comparison would be agreeable to everyone, Im simply saying that you CAN reasonably compare people that are in the same "group", line of work, etc.

[CamEdwards]

I was talking to one of my former co-workers back in Oklahoma City today, and he reminded me that Kevin James was actually the guy who replaced me at KTOK after I moved to Washington, D.C.

That cracks me up. I'm glad to see the listeners of KTOK didn't have to put up with him that long.

[JPhillips]

Your move was just like 1938.

Appeaser!

[flere-imsaho]

Savage Stands by Autism Remarks

Excerpt:

Michael Savage, the incendiary radio host who last week characterized nearly every child with autism as “a brat who hasn’t been told to cut the act out,” said in a telephone interview on Monday that he stood by his remarks and had no intention of apologizing to those advocates and parents who have called for his firing over the matter.

“My main point remains true,” Mr. Savage, whose radio audience ranks in size behind only those of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, said in the interview. “It is an overdiagnosed medical condition. In my readings, there is no definitive medical diagnosis for autism.”

On the July 16 installment of his program, which is broadcast every weekday, Mr. Savage suggested that “99 percent of the cases” of autism were a result of lax parenting. He told his audience: “They don’t have a father around to tell them, ‘Don’t act like a moron. You’ll get nowhere in life.’ ” Among the other admonitions he felt children with autism should be hearing, he said, were: “ ‘Straighten up. Act like a man. Don’t sit there crying and screaming, idiot.’ ”

[Flasch186]

wow, just wow.

[JPhillips]

Savage never bothers me because the clown show aspect of his gig is so obvious. I never feel like he's trying to be taken seriously. He's the ultimate shock jock trying to be so extreme and controversial that he'll get listeners. I'm sure there are a few fools that actually believe his rants, but he's no where near as troublesome for me as Malkin.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Savage never bothers me because the clown show aspect of his gig is so obvious. I never feel like he's trying to be taken seriously. He's the ultimate shock jock trying to be so extreme and controversial that he'll get listeners. I'm sure there are a few fools that actually believe his rants, but he's no where near as troublesome for me as Malkin.

Based on this part of the expert "Mr. Savage, whose radio audience ranks in size behind only those of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity", I reckon the number of "that actually believe his rants" is probably quite a bit larger than simply "a few."

[flere-imsaho]

Sadly, incorrect statements that are repeated enough without challenge become accepted truth to a significant portion of the populace.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Sadly, incorrect statements that are repeated enough without challenge become accepted truth to a significant portion of the populace.

Yes, this is very true. You throw so many incorrect statements out there that get repeated, people just don't have the time or energy to keep trying to prove why each one is false. It's much easier to say something incorrect (without anything to back it up) than it is try to show people why something is incorrect.

It's exhausting.

[JPhillips]

I'm not really arguing influence or whether or not he's a jackass. Personally I don't find him as troubling because his over the top routine is easy to see through. Certainly it doesn't make his statements any less reprehensible if he's only saying them for shock.

[sabotai]

I'm not surprised that this isn't becoming much of a controversy, but it should. What he said about autistic kids is about one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard. This is, IMO, much worse than any controversial statements from other shock jocks that have made headlines in recent years.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Sadly, incorrect statements that are repeated enough without challenge become accepted truth to a significant portion of the populace.

You're probably just saying that because you're a muslim like Obama.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

You're probably just saying that because you're a muslim like Obama.

...says the covert Senators fan....

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

You wouldn't allow your child to wear a Che Guevara T-shirt, even if your child studied up on what Guevara stood for, and decided they were in agreement?

I think at that point you go from teacher to brainwasher.

I missed this the first time around. How on earth is it brainwashing to say to a child "While you are in this house, you will respect my rules and not wear X", regardless of whether it's a Che shirt or an extremely short skirt?

My child can study up on what Guevara stood for and decide he/she is in agreement, but that doesn't negate the fact that while they're living in my house, they're operating under the rules set up by my wife and me.

And back to Savage, I'm absolutely amazed that his audience is 8.25 million people (as of Fall of '07). I would have thought it was much, much lower.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Yes, this is very true. You throw so many incorrect statements out there that get repeated, people just don't have the time or energy to keep trying to prove why each one is false. It's much easier to say something incorrect (without anything to back it up) than it is try to show people why something is incorrect.

It's exhausting.

The Clintons have made a career of it. Obama is cutting his teeth on the same approach. Pretty much more politicians than not use this tactic. Actually you are saying exactly what Rush Limbaugh says, but applying it to a different political group.

Who cares what Savage says. If you don't like it, don't pay any attention to it.

[DrAFTjunkie]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Though I wouldn't mind getting into the lady that played his wife.

Lookin' to bang the scientology out of her? Yeah...she's one of those.