Adoring the Luv Guv, reviving a witch!


Hello once again to all that: It’s great to see Gail Collins settling back into the nation’s policy wars.

Last Thursday, Collins returned to the New York Times after a three-week break. These are the topics she has selected for her last two Thursday columns:
Thursday, May 2: South Carolina Luv Guv Mark Sanford
Thursday, May 9: South Carolina Luv Guv Mark Sanford
Remember how we all swore, after September 11, that we would never do this again? People like Collins walk one way. It’s dumb stupid piddle or bust!

That said, we’ve been struck by the way some genuine liberals have responded to Sanford’s election. Just yesterday, two of our absolute favorites puzzled us just a small tad.

In this post, Kevin Drum referred to Sanford as “a disgraced Republican.” He linked to Paul Krugman, who had instantly described Sanford as “a man who cheated on his wife.”

Is Mark Sanford really “disgraced?” If so, is he disgraced because he cheated on his wife? How often did any of us ever refer to Bill Clinton in those ways?

We’re just saying!

Somehow, we always seem to drift back into these puddles of piddle. It seems to be the low-brow way our society deeply works. We thought of this problem yesterday morning, when we read Jeremy Peters’ report in the New York Times about the upcoming Benghazi hearings.

Good lord! Just like that, a famous old construct was back:
PETERS (5/8/13): At the center of the controversy is Mrs. Clinton, who once deplored the machinations of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” out to destroy her and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and now finds herself at the center of a controversy that in many ways echoes her fight with the political right in the 1990s. This time there are accusations of lying to investigators and a broader cover-up by the administration to further Mr. Obama’s political ambitions and her own, since she is frequently mentioned as a likely 2016 presidential candidate.
Wow! There was absolutely no reason to dredge up that old “vast right-wing conspiracy” motif. But the VRWC is a famous old play. It churns the blood in familiar old ways. It reminds readers, and it reminds editors, of treasured societal novels.

We told you only two days ago that this was going to happen. If Hillary Clinton runs for the White House, a lot of famous old shit will be back—and it won’t just be on Fox.

People like Peters seek easy ways out, easy ways to tell familiar old stories. For entertainment purposes, you haven’t been warned about this on MSNBC, where the children keep saying that Hillary’s race would be an absolute cinch.

We’re sorry. We don’t think that’s obvious.

All those stupid old themes are lurking. People like Peters will be inclined to rush them back into print. In large part, those familiar old themes still exist because our liberal leaders enabled those themes down through all those bad years.

They made up shit about both Clintons, then they made up shit about Gore. To this day, the career liberal world has refused to tell the public this stupid and ugly old story.

Meanwhile, the children are saying that Hillary would be a cinch. The children do that to make you feel good. People! They need to build ratings!


  1. If Hillary runs, Chris Matthews will be re-re-purposed once again for an encore performance of 2008, along with the rest of our favorite liberals.

  2. I would say that, for a solid spell after Lewinsky, many of his supporters admitted Clinton had behaved disgracefully and was disgraced. Perhaps Joe Leiberman could be asked to make a speech chastising the voters of South Carolina?

  3. "The liberal world ...[fill in the blank]." Here we go again.

    However, Jeremy Peters is a genuine douchebag and should be called out on this garbage.