Faux outrage watch: It's time for Chris and Joan to go!

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 2012

The spread of the brave new bullroar: It’s pitiful to watch the brave new bullroar spread—the scripted new bullroar from our tribe, the kind that dumbs our side down.

On Monday evening, Joan Walsh pretended to be outraged by Romney and Romney’s terribly vile choice of words (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 4/17/12). In this morning’s New York Times, Maureen Dowd is faux furious too:
DOWD (4/18/12): When the Romneys got married and moved to Boston in 1971 so Mitt could attend Harvard, they set up house in a suburb, befriended other young Mormon couples and kept to their cloistered, conservative, privileged, traditional, white, heterosexual circle.
They kept hanging out with heterosexuals! Go ahead—laugh out loud! (Needless to say, Lady Dowd worked in the Mormon thing too. Dowd's an instinctive bigot.)

Dowd’s full column today is a classic. Last night, though, Chris Matthews echoed Walsh’s specific complaints from the night before. Here’s the way this ridiculous person started his closing rant:
MATTHEWS (4/17/12): Let me finish tonight with this:

What sort of person do you think would tell the president of the United States, elected by the American people, to “start packing?” Is this some middleweight boxer mouthing off about his title shot, some trash-talking tackler out to sack the opposing quarterback? Sorry, Mitt. It’s nothing of the sort. And this jive is beneath a major party candidate for president.
Matthews was very upset by what he termed Romney’s “trash talk.” How dare this person tell the president of the United States, elected by the American people, to “start packing?” Nor was Matthews the only cable actor willing to feign such a state of aggrievement. Earlier in the program, Michelle Bernard and Ron Reagan agreed to recite the script too:
MATTHEWS: This entitlement, it’s—I’m not going to the verb, the adjectives. It just strikes me as entitlement.

BERNARD: It looks like entitlement by every stretch of the imagination.

[...]

MATTHEWS: How do you think this is going to help his likability rating now that he's decided it’s time for the president of the United States to pack up?

REAGAN: Not at all.
Entitlement! That's what Walsh said the night before! To observe this full dollop of bullroar, click this, though your IQ may drop several points.

All the children agreed to pretend that they shared Walsh’s faux outrage. As you may recall, Bernard was a leading black conservative through the summer of 2008, when she was allowed to flip on this ridiculous show in response to Obama’s nomination.

It’s sad to see the liberal world dumbed down in this manner. And yes, this faux outrage is dumb to the core. Matthews kept feigning outrage last night at the thought that someone would speak this way to a sitting president. Did he remember the 1992 Democratic convention address by Bill Clinton’s newly-selected running-mate, VP Candidate Gore?
GORE (7/16/92): No, the American spirit isn't gone. But we vow here tonight that in November George Bush and Dan Quayle will be history.

I'm not saying that they are bad people, but their approach to governing this country has badly failed. They have taxed the many to enrich the few. And it is time for them to go.

They have given us false choices, bad choices, and no choice. And it is time for them to go!

They have ignored the suffering of those who are victims—of AIDS, of crime, of poverty, of ignorance, of hatred and harassment. It is time for them to go.

CROWD: Time for them to go!

GORE: They have nourished and appeased tyrannies and endangered America's deepest interests while betraying our cherished ideals. It is time for them to go.

CROWD: Time for them to go!

GORE: They have mortgaged our children's future to avoid the decisions they lack the courage to make. It is time for them to go.

CROWD: Time for them to go!

GORE: They embarrassed our nation when the whole world was asking for American leadership in confronting the environmental crisis. It is time for them to go.

CROWD: Time for them to go!

GORE: They have demeaned our democracy with the politics of distraction, denial and despair. What time is it?

CROWD: It's time for them to go!

GORE: What time is it?

CROWD: It's time for them to go!

GORE: What time is it?

CROWD: It's time for them to go!

GORE: The American people—the American people are disgusted with excuses and tired of blame. They know that, throughout American history, each generation has passed on leadership to the next. That time has come again—the time for a new generation of leadership for the United States of America to take over from George Bush and Dan Quayle. And you know what that means for them. It's time for them to go.

CROWD: It's time for them to go!
Within the context of American politics, Gore was speaking in normal ways. But then, so did Romney this week.

Romney was responding to a typically stupid question from Diane Sawyer, one of the biggest embarrassments in the American upper-class pantheon. But what he said is completely normal, except in the brave new world where hustlers and clowns like Matthews and Walsh drag your IQ to the floor.

They stick big bucks in their pants as they clown. Your IQ is brought very low.

40 comments:

  1. Wow. The trifecta. Chris Matthews, Joan Walsh and Maureen Dowd, all within the first five paragraphs.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Does Dowd actually have evidence that none of Romney's friends at Harvard were non-Mormons, liberals, not rich, not-white, or gay? My guess is that she simply made up that "fact".

    I'd be surprised if all his friends were Mormons, because there aren't that many Mormons in Massachusetts. He must be good at getting along with non-Mormons. He didn't get elected as a Republican Governor of Massachusetts with just the Mormon vote.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Matthews only approves of bullying females.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dowd, too, for that matter.

      Delete
  4. somerby calling anybody else a bigot is a joke. likewise, his demeaning of anybody elses intelligence level given his often ridiculous columns.

    unless...

    unless he really doesnt believe what hes saying. i remember one radio talk show host i listened to for decades who flipped seemingly overnight from left to right. the one thing that by definition the right surely has is a lot of money to throw around.


    “Faux outrage watch: It's time for Chris and Joan to go!” - b. somerby

    its possible that its not simply that he is using americans who have some irish catholic heritage as scapegoats to shift blame onto from somebody(s) or something. could be his masters on the right, if he has any, want to get rid of the americans with known irish-catholic heritage in the 'left' oriented media because their presence is offsetting the prominent presence of hannity and oreilly in the rightwing media. the idea would be to get the less informed voters to falsely sense that if they are with the right then they are with the perceived natural american rebels. ... but the presence of dowd, mathews, and walsh et. al. is causing too much cognitive dissonance for that narrative to ring true.

    or possibly somerby is trying to do the rights thinking for them...no charge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hate Somerby *because* he's Irish-Catholic!

      Delete
    2. he wouldnt be the first self-hating type to go against his own "group". its particularly easy to get away with against a group which is hardly a real group anymore like americans with irish-catholic heritage who dont socially cohere very well.

      that said, ive never heard of somebody refering to their "irish aunts" as a way of representing as somerby has. i had an english aunt but my parents and all my known blood ancestors were born and raised in ireland and catholic.

      and btw i dont hate him. he just says out loud what a lot of people think, whether he actually thinks it himself or not.

      Delete
    3. Bob needs to cool it regarding Chris Matthews. He's a good salt of the earth liberal and regular fella who grew up playing stickball in South Philly for cryin' out loud! Maureen Dowd's wit is simply delightful. What a lovely lady! The way she skewers the stuffed shirts with her uncanny insights is something to behold. We liberals are SO fortunate to have them speaking for our side.

      Delete
    4. i said:

      "the idea would be to get the less informed voters to falsely sense that if they are with the right then they are with the perceived natural american rebels."

      >>>i should have siad "perceived natural *white* rebels" when you consider the experience of the native american and other non-whites who have fought the power structure here. but i was also thinking of the reputation the irish took with them from ireland.

      Delete
    5. wow and wower.

      hollerer is too dim to know he's dim.

      anonymous is a genius at sarcasm or 1 class A Sucker.

      Delete
    6. Yes. Clearly Chris Matthews and Maureen Dowd are masters of their work, such geniuses revealing a great work of art every day that anyone who criticizes them just hates the Irish (the most oppressed minority in the US right now). If it weren't for anti-Irish bigotry they'd either have a daily cable show or a regular NY Times column by now.

      Delete
    7. Well, Alex, I can only speak for myself, but I am no fan of Chris Matthews or Maureen Dowd. Criticize them all you want, but to me it's kinda sorta like criticizing the crackpot standing on a downtown street corner proclaiming the end of the world.

      Granted, by virtue of the platforms they hold, the words of Matthews and Dowd reach far more people. But that doesn't necessarily mean they wield any more influence.

      Delete
  5. And this is what I find so offensive about this blog these days:

    "They stick big bucks in their pants as they clown. Your IQ is brought very low."

    Bob, speak for yourself. If watching Matthews or reading Dowd makes YOU dumb, then don't project that to any one else.

    Of course, Bob Somerby has powers of mental resistance to the evil "liberal" media not given to us mere mortals, thus HE can watch them for us and then issue his stern warnings about what we are allowed and not allowed to see.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fact that Blue Tribalists are rushing to defend the indefensible, pretty much validates Somerby's thesis. The Blue Tribe is getting stupider. Easily as stupid as the Red Tribe.

      Delete
    2. oh my goodness!

      you actually believe that bilge!

      anonymous is a class A Sucker.

      Delete
    3. Can't argue with that. Anybody who can watch Millionaire Matthews night after night must have a very strong stomach, and little respect for the truth.

      Delete
  6. Keep up the good work Bob. Expose these charlatans.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I clicked the comment section to offer my agreement on Diane Sawyer....to express my dismay that she is bringing her patented vacuity to ABC's nightly news, but the comments have left me stunned. For anyone to argue that Bob Somerby is rightwing or anti-Irish Catholic is beyond ludicrous. Sadly, these comments affirm Bob's fear that we Dems/liberals/progressive have indeed slipped into the tribal miasma that engulfs the mentally abused audience of Rush and Fox, et al. The Cult of Stupidity is alive and well, and growing. And, to paraphrase Bob, the gods look down us, and the halls of Olympus are rocked with laughter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see the Cult of Somerby has rushed to his defense.

      Here's a clue for you. I am not, nor are most "American people" so damned dumb that I allow Chris Matthews or Maureen Dowd do our thinking for me.

      Nor, unlike Bob and the Cult of Somerby, am I particularly so obsessed with them that I have to write about them day, after day, after day, after long, boring, tedious day, as if I have no other purpose in life but to expose the evil that is Chris Matthews and Maureen Dowd.

      Like I noted a long time ago, this blog was very good at one time when it did more than report the latest manufactured "outrage" from the New York Times and MSNBC.

      It is a hard habit to break, but every day that goes by, as Somerby gets more predictable and more boring, it is becoming easier and easier.

      Delete
    2. And Anonymous AGAIN rushes into the breach -- favorable opinion of Somerby's work *must* always be the result of thoughtless, cult-like reverence for Bob Somerby.

      If it is indeed a "hard habit" for you to break from reading Somerby, Anonymous, I wonder if you have equal difficulty in breaking your habit of commenting?

      I ask because there is little more "predictable and boring" than the comments by this particular "Anonymous" -- I had no idea that Somerby would write today about the "start packing" outrage, but I *did* know, to a certainty, that "Anonymous" would appear here, regardless of the subject matter, to inform us that Bob's work is stale, Bob's targets are irrelevant, Bob's readers are mere cult followers, and Bob's assumption is that no one can think for themselves.

      The comments, by now, write themselves.

      Delete
    3. Swanny, I get where you're coming from. Bob Somerby walks on water.

      You can spare yourself the effort of responding in the future, since that is about all you ever have to say.

      Delete
    4. That you take criticism of yourself to be evidence of fawning over Somerby doesn't say much for your reading comprehension.

      But it is very revealing about where *you're* coming from.

      Delete
    5. No one is suggesting Matthews or Dowd does the thinking for anyone, but even the most staunch liberal tribalists/apologists should be able to recognize that the two, among others, are a waste of space and represent a wasted opportunity. It's interesting to note that the critics of this blog never rush to the defense of their ilk, instead they bellyache that anyone would draw attention to their nonsense, as if we should be content to make a habit of just looking the other away whenever "our side" in the media opens their mouths.

      Delete
    6. Has anyone bothered to peruse reader's comments to Dowd's column to see if she indeed has a coterie of fawning dittoheads?
      I won't do it because I really don't care, but wouldn't it provide evidence of how influential she is and how stupid are her fans?
      Just asking.

      Delete
    7. Here's the point. I can think of absolutely no one who even watches Chris Matthews or reads Maureen Dowd. Now I suppose there are those who hang out to every overly excited word Matthews utters, or are fans of Dowd's catty high-school style of writing. But Somerby in his obsession with them gives them far more credit for influence they simply don't have.

      And at the same time, he and his followers apparently think that that these evil charlatans out to destroy the fabric of democracy would remain unexposed and free to wreak their havoc if it weren't for them and the work Somerby does on a daily basis, day after day after day after day after day.

      You know, most people have more on their plates than to worry about Chris Matthews or Maureen Dowd. One might also suspect that the obsession with them might be an interesting diversion, a game if you will, that would distract from the real issues we should be facing.

      But not Somerby. He live on a planet where all the problems of the universe can easily be lumped on the backs of a few convenient scapegoats.

      Delete
    8. "But Somerby in his obsession with them gives them far more credit for influence they simply don't have."

      >>> thats right last anonymous. thats where im coming from, not as a fan. i would add that that they are not sole proprietors. they have editors and various bosses who can tell them what to talk about or not talk about and fire them if they dont go along.

      Delete
    9. i do think walsh is tough and very smart.

      Delete
    10. Shorter Me:

      While Bob's wasting his time on the irrelevant Chris Matthews, Maureen Dodd, Rachel Maddow, E.J. Dionne, etc. there are more pressing issues.

      Like, me posting day after day after day after day after day my hatred of Somerby and his "followers."

      Will I have a new excuse for posting my same trash tomorrow? You can bet on it. Money in the bank.

      Delete
  8. Dowd's implications about Romney's perceptions may be bigoted, but are not entirely inaccurate. Romney as a child was taught that black skin was god's punishment for sins. He was also taught that the role of women is inferior to that of men, and are therefore an appendage to the father's family. Only men were allowed to be priests in the Mormon doctrine. Polygamy was a part of Mormon doctrine until the religion's leaders decided that conformity to the law would serve their religion better. Tithing to the Mormon church is mandatory for every member and is roughly ten percent of their income. A minimum ten percent contribution to the Mormon church has created a powerful support system for church members. I knew a couple of Mormons who received support for house payments, food and transportation until they found work. The bond between Mormons is cult-like in nature. All males have a shared experience of proselytizing "The Book of Mormon" as missionaries for the church. The bond between Mormons is quite strong except among what are referred to as "jack-Mormons". "Jack-Mormons" are Mormons who prefer to interact with the world on its terms. Taboos against swearing, drinking, dancing and loud modern music restrict participation in events other young people take part in. For better or worse "jack-Mormons" relate better to the material world than the strictly religious Mormons. There is exclusivity in being a Mormon, which limits the experiences of the faithful. There is conflict in the church between fundamentalist Mormons and more liberal interpretations of the faith.

    Therefore, it is not simply an exercise in stupidity and bigotry that Dowd appears to relish, but is not an unworthy path of inquiry to understanding how Willard Romney's character was influenced by the church's victim perception and fundamentalist beliefs. While Romney can publicly deny cult-like beliefs, the fact is the religion had a major impact on the boy who became the man before us as a candidate for POTUS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IMHO to judge Romney based on what other Mormons believed 30 or 40 years ago is nothing but prejudice. Romney should be judged on what he himself is.

      This is not an issue that works for Obama. Romney was born a Mormon. Obama chose to go to a racist, anti-American church for 20 years and to send his children to this church.

      Delete
    2. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech for some!

      Berto

      Delete
  9. Not that it matters much, but I think trash-talking the other candidate with a symbolic farewell _at the party's convention_ is a bit of a different case than trash-talking him in April.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have an old political button I love -- "Start Packing, Ladybird; the Nixons are coming!" So this is hardly offensive or new for that matter.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Did we all forget "Barack America"? This sort of talk is completely standard.

    ReplyDelete
  12. They were unkind to Al Gore, that made Bob mad!

    ReplyDelete