Monday, March 05, 2007

To the rescue: Rich Lowry, Brecht Girl

Ann Coulter comes out and spews the word "faggot" all over a premier conservative event. They lap it up and Rich Lowry tells John Gibson lefties aren't being fair to point out how scummy she is.
She meant it as a joke, and obviously the way that the Democrats and the press are using it is entirely opportunistic and ridiculous.
Of course, last October Lowry acted like he was too stupid to figure out that John Kerry wouldn't insult American troops and spun his "botched joke" for all it was worth.
Now, it is entirely plausible that Kerry was trying to make a joke about President Bush, for two reasons. One, typically of the humorless Kerry, it wouldn't have been funny. Two, typically of the arrogant Kerry, it would have reversed the usual convention, wherein politicians tell jokes at their own expense in their opening remarks. (Someone needs to take Kerry aside and tell him, "It's the hauteur, stupid.")

But Kerry's statement was also plausibly interpreted by people of good faith as a slam against the military. After all, he never mentioned the name Bush.
Kerry had, in fact, mentioned the name Bush in the sentence just before his oft-spun joke, saying that he'd just been to Texas, where Bush used to live, though now he lives "in a state of denial." Then bam! the botched joke. Even the hyperpartisan former Republican congressman Dick Armey had to admit that "John Kerry's right...He's saying, 'Look, I was not maligning the troops. I was maligning the president of the United States.'"

Lowry went on to say that the press is highlighting Coulter's statement
because the press would prefer to talk about Ann Coulter and portray Ann's remark in that instance as typical of all conservatives...
Unfortunately for Rich, his co-guest on Gibson's show, Young America's Foundation spokesman Jason Mattera, pointed out that Ann was giving conservatives in attendance exactly what they wanted, and in the process, smears John Edwards himself.
In fact, I would like to also point out she was basically calling John Edwards a wuss, that he was a girlie-man, and that if he were elected president he would probably embolden Al Qaeda to attack us. He's not a real man. And many at CPAC held that sentiment. I mean, it's grassroots -- many -- I want to point this out, too. There were thousands of college students there, and she knows how to -- communication 101 principle -- she knows how to communicate a message to an audience, especially to college students, and she got rousing -- rousing applause and rousing standing ovations throughout the event.
Let me first say that Mattera may want to be careful. I've known several gay men who were far from wusses and we all know that Mattera only fights "the battle for ideas" (which, I believe, involves a lot of slapping and crying on his part).

Also, Mattera has been berated by a blog operated by Lowry's own magazine for being someone obsessed by the Coulteresque slander laughingly referred to as "activism" to the point they "use it as a crutch, a stand-in for discriminating, tasteful debates."

So, while Rich Lowry tries to act as if Republicans are above the shit that Coulter slings, anyone with eyes to see has to notice Mattera practically begging for more name calling. If I thought Rich believed that his party was being maligned, I might feel bad for him, since he's so obviously ensconced in a party filled with people so myopically in love with their own hatred that crazyiness simply springs from their mouths and they are surprised--SHOCKED!--when people have the temerity to label it as hate.

Remember, Lowry is willingly defending someone whom he either fired or who quit his magazine in a bitchy huff after she wrote the infamous column saying we should "invade (Muslim) countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." During the debacle, Coulter even called Lowry and the other National Reviewers "girly-boys," saying they lacked spines and, I'm willing to bet, probably called Lowry, Goldberg, et al., "faggots" among her coarser friends.

But Lowry himself is willing to advocate actions unimaginable to decent Americans, and didn't even require a war to do so. Way back in December, 2000, Lowry told an audience at the Ashbrook Center about an observation of Bertolt Brecht's, he heard via Steve Forbes.
He said in East Germany under the Communists, when the government lost and election, the government didn’t change, the people changed. You know, they’d chase people out and exile them from the country, they’d arrest them, they’d beat them, they’d shoot them. That’s obviously a terrible thing, but there’s something to be said for that kind of thinking. I think conservatives need to think in that way when it comes to the American electorate.
Tough talk. Tough disgusting talk.

And that's why nothing Ann Coulter could do or say could get her excommunicated from right wing punditry. If they went after Coulter for her comments, they'd have to go after Sean "Barack Obama is a cult member" Hannity. They'd have to get rid of Glenn "Show me your tits" Beck. Eliminating from the public discourse conservatives who'd made racist, misogynistic and elminationist comments would leave few pundits standing on the right. If you really wanted to clean house and get rid of the liars, too, then the Republican noise machine would sound like nothing more than crickets and the wind. Right wingers like Lowry cannot kick Coulter out of their hive, as her absence on its edge would leave a hole where the sunlight could get in, allowing observers to see inside and note that there are few on the right who are not infected by a similar angry hate to one degree or another.

3 Comments:

Blogger Minor Ripper said...

More proof that Ann really isn't the sharpest knife in the shed...(see video)
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/ann-coulter-gets-owned.html

6:47 AM  
Anonymous JOHN THOMAS GILLICK said...

oopsies.Above, got the UNPROOFED draft of my comment. For clarity's sake, please remove and leave this one?

My bad.

=============================

“COGNITIVE DISSONANCE - the first warning sign of dreaded BLOGHORREA: it can strike anyone, anytime, anywhere”
- from a spot for THINKAGAIN, the new wonder-drug that slows down typing speed to match speed of thought.

For instance, this little pretzel of yours on Jason Mattera’s bit:

“Let me first say that Mattera may want to be careful. I've known several gay men who were far from wusses and we all know that Mattera only fights "the battle for ideas" (which, I believe, involves a lot of slapping and crying on his part).”

Tell us please, where you think your “a lot of slapping and crying” characterization comes from, what’s its cultural provenance. And, tell us too, what you think those “far from wusses” gay men you know might suggest about from what perceptions (in you) it flows.

Myself, I have to say that “slapping and crying” line comes across as pure Coulterization.

Shape up.

------------

On another note, I’d like to clear up some possible misconceptions about that “observation” of Bertolt Brecht’s you cite. First of all, I only hold you responsible for the promulgation of misinformation in that you were obviously too lazy to research the matter, and just passed on what Lowry SAID Steve Forbes SAID to him about what Brecht SUPPOSEDLY SAID (3 degrees of hearsay, that). Now that is almost possibly somewhat maybe sort of excusable a little in a soft-hearted, soft-headed, be kind to the hardworking blatherhead who blogs so assiduously way. I mean, after all, the purpose of passing that bolus of misinformation, misunderstanding, misinterpretation along was to lambaste Lowry for being not just a dunderhead but a vile neo-Straussian, sub-Platonic, power-worshipping post-Randian dunderhead as well.

But you really would have done much better to find out what Brecht said - and said about what and said when - and put that out there as well; especially as it is so apt, both specifically and generally.

Apt specifically in showing even more clearly how Lowry got wrong (or Forbes got wrong for him?). Doing that would have allowed for some nice speculation on just why he heard what he did (whatever it was) in the way he did - the inevitable conclusion being, he heard what he wanted to hear in the way he wanted to hear it - or took it in like mother's milk because it so neatly fit his preconceptions.

Anyway, enough with the drum role. Here is what Brecht wrote (not said, not “observed”) in a poem on the Worker’s Uprising of 1953 in East Berlin:

--------------------
THE SOLUTION
After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

Bertolt Brecht, 1953
-----------------

Not exactly as construed and promulgated by Mr. Lowry, is it? Not quite the sentiment he was admiring with oh-so-disingenuous reluctance. Think how much more fun you could have had with his stupidities if you had bothered to find out what it was he was trying to talk about.

Next time, do your homework.

3:25 PM  
Blogger Nitpicker said...

Um, JTG? I think that there are some people who can be identified as "wimps" without suggesting they're gay. I'm sorry that you took that differently, but I can't help how you read things. Remember, George Will was notoriously called a "war wimp" for the way he supported--but refused to fight in--the Vietnam war. Now imagine Mattera and Will going "toe-to-toe" and the image which pops into your head immediately is the entire "cultural provenance" of my statement.

As to the other thing, I don't care what Brecht said or Forbes said, but only that Lowry seems to think the conservative movement needs to think more like people who would "chase people out and exile them from the country,...arrest them,...beat them,...shoot them." I wasn't writing about Brecht, but about Richie "The Only Thing I've Ever Done With My Life Is Write Right Wing Bullshit" Lowry. Perhaps I could have written more and had "much more fun" with Lowry by looking up the Brecht comment, but that just doesn't interest me. If I wanted to write about what interested other people, then I would be sitting in a cubicle (again), trying to crap a story about collecting weathervanes or the "5 Steps to A Healthier, Wealthier You." But I blog, therefore I write what I want and I don't give a flying fuck what other people wish I'd written about.

Thanks for reading, though.

4:29 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home