MSNBC host Ed Schultz has been suspended without pay for a week for calling right-wing pundit Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut” on his radio show. Schultz apologized on MSNBC last night, calling his words “terribly vile.”
This is not a new thing at MSNBC. In 2006, Keith Olbermann did a bit about Paris Hilton being assaulted—joking that she has “had worse things happen to her face.” The on-screen graphic was “A Slut and Battery.” In 2009, he called right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin a “big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.”
The Hilton piss has no defense. Ingraham and Malkin are certainly more than worthy of derision, but for what they do, and that doesn’t have a damn thing to do with their gender or physical appearance, does it?
There are legitimate gender-neutral epithets (although some admittedly wouldn’t pass the censor), and you have to ask why these dips chose not to incorporate one of them in their disses, don’t you?
Lennon sang, “Woman is the nigger of the world”, and this shit just proves the pervasiveness of that view even among many so-called “progressives”, doesn’t it?
Thanks for pointing this stuff out. Coming from a left-of-liberal position, it’s nauseating to encounter (neo-)liberals’ ongoing sanctifying of Olbermann, as seen recently right here in comments on another FAIR post.
Yes. People do get irritated at other people sometimes…..and yes; when irritated, they might even (shock and horror) say inappropriate things.
But at least on the left, they apologize for such rude behavior.
There is no equivalency here. There is no comparison.
The righties never own up to their constant outpouring of insults, baseless smears, and blatant lies. On a rare occasion, one of them might semi-apologize (usually only after a massive public outcry), and usually while trying to justify their slander.
Once again, the left (i.e. centrist/reality based) show their humanity, their emotions, their courage, and their well-earned sense of honor.
I’ve noticed MSNBC pretends to “Lean Forward” while promoting vile cop shows ostensibly helping “sex slaves” — a conservative fantasy that women cannot choose to do what they want with their bodies. This is leaning way back into made-up racist fantasies about white slavery, black pimps and Victorian prudery.
All the male commenters call politicians who do the bidding of the wealthy rather than consitituents “prostitutes” and “whores” — which disrepects a traditionally female profession that enhances pleasure rather than the political psychopaths unleashing widespread pain on every level of life.
What exactly is “vile” about slut-hood? Why was Ed Schultz forced to call his comment “vile”? Women who choose to enjoy and benefit from their sexuality are not “vile”.
Prudery is mysoginistic. Once women proudly own their sexual choices, prudery as a tool of patriarchy will be seen for the imbecility and oppressive force it is.
I don’t have a dog in this hunt one way or the other, but I have heard/read that Ed was trying to use the expression “attention whore” and in attempting to clean it up, he used the term “slut” and before it was over, he had simply called her a “repub slut.”
Not that it makes much difference, but I don’t think the slur was one of a sexual nature.
The article leaves out Chris Matthews’s years-long record of unrelentingly sexist comments.
Ed Schultz went over the line and he did the right thing when he apologized. I have noticed that he loses his temper sometimes (red hair?), and says the wrong thing. However, Ed is a very compassionate man, whose gone out of his way many times to help those Americans who have been hurt by this recession. His heart is in the right place, he just lets his tongue run away with him sometimes. He shouldn’t have used the term “slut”, and I hope that the memory of this episode will be a goad to keep him from doing this again.
but, Laura Ingraham more than probably is some version of what he said she is. Doesnt anyone remember how she originally came to fame in the 80’s ? For wearing a leopard print miniskirt. I remember the flap about it, and the accompanying picture; not my idea of a sexy babe. But the press was that she was soooooo openly sexy for a rightwinger and wasnt that such a big deal. I dont know about Malkin, I dont get why she is featured at all. In personal appearances she talks like a valley girl, ‘whateverrrrrr…’ How is her opinion of any more value than anyone else’s?
But right-wing female politicos and pundits mystify me in general. Surely there are better choices out there than the dipshits and intellecutally-challenged women than routinely seem to rise to the top there. Palin? Bachman? Silly people with no depth or talent. Media creations merely. Grizzly moms and botched video appearances, 10 ton of makeup and helmet hairdos.
I recall that Ann Coulter caused some stir with one of her ridiculous books by stating that democrats had lousy sex. My question was; how many democrats had she slept with to arrive at that conclusion, and how did she establish that they were ones at fault, and not herself? In short, I would like to see the right bring to prominence women who did not routinely make asses of themselves. They have consultants, advisers, find better to work with. Ed was picking at the low hanging fruit.
Well, rm, Coulter’s an asshole, that’s why. That’s gender neutral, don’t you know. And Proud Slut? Well said. I hope you’ve checked out Max Blumenthal’s Republican Gomorrah. The Republicons have issues with sexuality. And morality. And fairness. And hypocrisy. Boy, do they ever.
@Proud Slut,
Sorry, but there really is a huge problem worldwide with sex slavery, and it’s a problem here as well. If you’re a sex slave, man or woman, by definition you do NOT have control over your own body.
While ‘slut’ has traditionally been used to demean women, in recent years it has been used more to refer to men also. And until the word attains equality, so to speak, it will always be considered to be sexist, even coming from feminist men. I would like to give Ed the benefit of the doubt, and hope this doesn’t get all blown out of proportion.
As for Olbermann, let’s face it, sorry, but he got it exactly right on Hilton, AND what is really that wrong with “big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it”? Oh, I get it – it’s the last part – the use of the word lipstick, and the quote referring to a woman.
But when Obama said “you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig”, most people understood the term was not sexist (although hypocritical Republicans tried to paint it as such). When I heard Olbermann say what he did about Malkin, I saw it in exactly the same way. Others will undoubtedly disagree, but that’s how I read it.
And, TimN is exactly right in saying…
“The Republicons have issues with sexuality. And morality. And fairness. And hypocrisy. Boy, do they ever.”
All of which goes to show that the “Lean Foward Network”does have a better work ethic than FOX. There’s not much more to this article.
What he meant to say was Laura Ingraham is a loathsome, demented, vindictive right-wing fountain of lies and hate, but it came out Slut. Ed should have apologized to all those diseased sluts out there who should have been offended by having their good name sullied by an association with Laura Ingraham.
Hey im tea party.I have tried to gently help libs understand that tea bagger is not a great term .They dont understand .It does not seep through the bone in their heads.They cant say Sarah Palin without saying bitch, whore ,the c word,or any number of politically” correct” words indicating she is a retard(the word they really mean to say).Watch these blogs indicate that Laura is much worse( poor poor Ed.)than anything Ed called her.That would be the’ me a dumb dumb” leftist response.Personally I think the reason tea party rallies are clean as a whistle and obama rallies filthy as pig styes is in the nature of the beast.Dont change.Show yourselves everyday in every way.I wasted my time and breath trying to instruct and help you to change.Really we love you just the way you are.Ed too.I hope he calls mrs Christie a fat loving whore- who deserved to be gang shamied by a gang of desert car wash attendants.We on the other hand will leave Obamas daughters and wife above the frey,and will try not to call Hilary the c word (as i heard obama supporters call her during the election run.)After all this is your territory
To my knowledge, no one has ever called “Smush” (Norman Goldman’s term for Palin; I’m not sure why he calls her this but it seems like a good idea) a whore, or a cunt or a bitch. Certainly not at FAIR blog. While I’ve certainly called her a lying harridan and a self-aggrandizing dumbell, tha’s just what she is. That’s not my fault! It’s just what Smush is. I don’t know about Mrs. Christie, but certainly her old man is a fat gasbag lying mother-fucker who’s trying to destroy the middle and working classes. Who ever said anything about car wash attendants or Christie Christie liking a certain kind of sex act with other men? No one here, that’s for sure. Baggers and Righties just have this thing about sex–they can’t stop thinking about it, but insist they never think about it, and you gay people better stop thinking about it too, or else!
Tim Im glad you don’t use the terms Ive enunciated.But i sure have heard such things everywhere I go.These blogs are usually replete with insulting phraseology. It has seeped into liberal consciousness to personally attack anyone espousing a less than leftist philosophy. And conservative woman are huge aiming points for the left.Look at it cleanly.If i went to a liberal rally with a Sarah Palin shirt- would people be approaching me to argue her platforms?It would be personal invective.Come to a tea party rally with an obama shirt and people will be clamoring to engage you in discussion to enlighten you.The n word wont be used.His wife or life wont be attacked…..
Smush( whatever that means,) sounds fine.Unless it is an attack on his appearance.I would think the left with their sensitivities to such things woud lead that charge.And your attacks on Christie’s policies are fair game.Though i still don’t know what his being fat, or a mother -fucker has to do with his policies.Anymore than Obama being a skinny ,black,…cigarette smoking dude, who “fucked’ his mother has to do with his.Im not sure where sex came in.But on behalf of the tea party i think i can safely say………. we also engage in it.
Hello Michael E. We meet again, sir. About those tea party rallies…
I did attend one, in the company of and at the insistance of my 80 yr old mother. I did not wear a partisan t-shirt of any stripe. Now I understand that one person’s experience in one situation is anectodal at best, not comprehensive. Nonetheless
It was a small gathering, a couple hundred at most. If there were any persons of color in attendance, I did not see a one in the approximately 3 hrs that we spent wandering through the crowd. I saw white, mostly older folks (50 yrs and up, I’d guess.) Younger people, say 35 to 45 yrs, were almost all white males. There was a ‘picnic’ atmosphere, for the most part; ladies reclining on blankets on the ground with coolers and plastic utensils, that sort of thing. There was a loud, but small contingent of ‘birthers’ with large placards. There was a group of about 20 or so of the aforementioned younger white males in hunting gear, gathered around a number of SUVs and pickups, one of which had a store window mannequin roped to the hood with a sign indicating that this was a liberal and that it was ‘open season’ on liberals. They were offering bumper stickers designed to resemble hunting licenses stating that the approved game was liberals and there was no limit. There were large posters of the president as a bone-thru-the-nose, grass-skirt wearing african witch doctor, and of course, represented as Hitler. No one ‘engaged’ us in any way beyond a ‘rah, rah, aint we great’ assumption that if we were there, our political sentiments were with the group. We encountered little political discussion of any sort, and the whole thing felt like a small town 4th of July celebration, but for the ugly references to hunting liberals, or Obama as a nazi and so forth. Yes, it was all very tidy indeed. But it was corporately sponsored and so the clean up crews were a visible presence everywhere. The Koch Brothers proudly claim their sponsorship of the tea party, along with a number of republican think tanks. I can say that from this crowd I did notice that the ladies were largely big fans of Glenn Beck, and there were a number of placards displaying his picture. A few speeches were made by low level local notables. If anyone of more national standing was due to speak we did not hear them as mother had tired and was ready to leave.
I was underwhelmed and bemused, mother was confused and disappointed. It seemed a diffuse and unfocused gathering, more to create a community feeling and vent hostilities toward those outside of the party than to accomplish anything of a clear substance. More of a; ‘this is who we are, and this is who we reject and defame’ than anything I would recognize as a genuine and independent political party. And the corporate discipline and image control present gave the distinct impression that the whole affair was more astroturf than grassroot.
As for discussing Ms Palin’s ‘platform,’ I think even she would be surprised to learn that she had one.
But this is just one person’s impressions, mine. Mother abandoned the idea that anything of genuine, inclusive or dispassionate substance was to be found in the tea party. I simply remain unconvinced. But then, politics is a dirty, dishonest and ultimately destructive endeavor, and I believe that no answers that would benefit the whole of humanity will ever be found there. History bears me out. It is a game for the benefit of the elite, the populace is only conned and used. The tea party is destined to become a footnote in the ugly history of politics, along with the Bull Moose Party and Ross Perot. In the larger scheme of things, it appears another in a series of momentary cultural spasm, albeit a largely devisive and destructive one.
And for what it is worth; while I admire your desire to engage in discussion with those whose political stances you find so repugnant, it is not your business to set about ‘educating’ those with whom you disagree. You are either sincerely interested in what and why people think as they do, or you are simply seeking an audience to whom you may pontificate. I wont try to talk you into anything, if you extend me the same consideration. Let us just compare, contrast and explore without the burden of having to recruit.
Oh, and stop hanging around foul-mouthed liberals. That personality type exists across the board in all groups, liberal or otherwise. They are fringe and inarticulate and do not represent the main anymore than nitwits selling joke hunting licenses on fellow human beings represent you. Or at least I am assuming so.
Just wondering one thing: Shultz said it on his radio show.
Less that 24 hours later he had apologized (apparently sincerely) and been suspended without pay for a week by MSNBC, even though the network has nothing to do with his radio show.
So what I’m wondering is: How is this proof that MSNBC is mysogynist?
Rm
When I say educate I don’t mean it in a belittling way. I simply give my opinion and hope people here see another side to the leftist view.
Of course there are nincompoops at any gathering. Sounds like you saw a couple.I have as well in my years. Though I have never seen anything remotely resembling what you saw at any tea party rally.And i would ask you to report it in every way you can think of to tea party leaders, and any part of the press you have access to with as much evidence as you can produce. Your testimony would help us greatly to see where and how this unexceptable faction came from. They are trash .We would make no apologies for them as they are simply fools that have attached themselves to good people gathering to effect positive change.Im sorry they colored your mothers view of us. Have a good memorial day weekend RM. All the best to your mother.It is wonderful that at 80 years young, she is still so watchful as a parent -of this liberty we hold dear.
Your view of the tea party is not far off in a sense.It is almost all astro turf now.All grassroot at other times.I think you and you mother could see that if you had seen other rallies.Of course i miss the huge passion, and clear thinking and articulation of the organized rallies at that seminal time when they were so needed.But i never expected it to become that- that washington thought the most dangerous of things.An entrenched political class.A new party if you will. Currently it is a loose(very loose)group of people waiting. Waiting to stop living their lives, and working their jobs (for a time) to come back together and stand up again ,and move mountains.There never was an organized move to form this third party.I said this over and over.The libs freaking out along those lines were off the mark.Its massive power is in its diametrical response to anti constitutional ,anti American cells that have grown like mold over the years.It was born to clean the barnacles from the ship of state.It effected (and infected) both parties with a wake up call.If Obama does something anti constitutional- we will rise up like a giant tsunami.If he does not -we will go back to our jobs and lives, ever vigilant of course.We have already accomplished much we set out to do..We have reinfused the constitution into every equation.Million man marches are not needed every day to see that Martin Luther King lives in every American today.He changed our perceptions in subtle ways.Good seeds that took root.That is all the tea party ever was, or is.Only those who ever believed that our constitution is a mean document.Something in the way of needed governmental expansion need ever have feared.We will work to remove Obama and his regime be sure.Then we will(perish the thought)go back to the simple day to day job of living our lives.So as Obama does his full court press to raise billions for his run we will live our lives.I believe we will show him that his billions….his union ownership….his massive corporate backing….his huge backing from those he supports in the giant nanny state…..His control of much of the press….98% of blacks….his campaign of attack and refusal to run on his own record.And of course every trick dirty and otherwise….Class warfare,race cards,economic twisting of every figure imaginable without the slightest look to taking any responsibility.Running once again against bush.,All this we will throw down.We will simply speak to the American people of a few truths and let them decide.Private citizen Obama has a nice ring I think.Hopefully you and mom learned that the mysterious power the tea party had to effect massive change in the last election cycle is no mystery at all.It is not contained in huge rallies or any one face to represent it.If you see not another gathering…it still is.It is people realizing this governments move to remake America under anti constitutional ,socialist, nanny state values with the emphasis on a massively empowered fed, able to effect our lives,and the creation of class warfare does not fly.,Penalizing success, and subsidizing failure to effect governmental growth is not on our battle flags.
As far as Sarah.She is a good woman by all accounts.Very successful in most everything she has put her hand to.A good voice for conservative ideals.And of course her platform is the conservative platform.The tea party ideals.Beyond that is a mountain of mud thrown about her by the left.No different than the attacks they heap on anyone who stares them down.In fact if you do the history…no different at all.
Michael E –
ah, sorry darlin’, I double checked, (took hours, but you keep me on my toes) Ms Pallin is a media creation, with no record to stand on. She broke her contract with the people of Alaska to pursue fame and fortune. In that she has succeeded, moving from a couple hundred thousand a year to around 12 million and counting. (a reality program, fox commentator, ‘Dancing With the Stars,’ give me a break) Like most media stars and politicians; whatever they may say, they are in it for personal gain and playing the public for the dupes we have repeatedly shown ourselves to be. Sarah Pallin is a media invention, not a statesman.
As for the tea party, I simply cannot take them seriously. The members elected recently around the country and in congress are at best ridiculous and offensive and at worst compounding the problems while attempting to create new ones. In short, the same old political con job under a new banner. The tea party may give you hope and comfort, today, tomorrow, next year. But I doubt you will see any tangible improvement in government or society as a result of all their bluff and bluster, politically-tinged celebrity theatrics or corporate slap and tickle.
Given the results in NY this week, it may be that the tea party’s 15 minutes are about up. With the public at large, anyway. Beat cops, firemen, teachers and farmers, regular folks of all stripes are contining to gather in large numbers at state houses around the country to register their disagreement with policies and agendas pushed by their tea party public servants, whose approval numbers are tanking. But I think that you can count upon the mainstream media to keep beating the party’s drum regardless of whether the general public is buying or not. Tea party politicians are the best thing to hit celebrity television since ‘Survivor.’
We are playing in the dirt while time and the heavens pass overhead.
rm, your first comment merely serves to give ammunition to people like michael e. about “those libs”. Do you really mean to attack female right-wing pundits based on physical appearances (“leopard skin miniskirt”, “not my idea of a sexy babe”, “valley girl”, “helmet hairdos”)? Probably not really, but that’s how it probably sounds. It would be better to keep the focus on the shit that they say.
tt- of course I didnt mean to ‘attack’ anyone based on their physical appearance, because I didnt. Read it again. Or not. If I did ‘attack’ anyone’s attributes, I believe the relevant phrases were ‘dipshit’ and ‘intellectually-challenged.’ I apologize if I was unclear and am always willing to apply myself to improving my writing skills. One wishes to be understood. I will endeavor to do better. That said, the content of my views will not be proscribed for me by any person or group. I will take whatever heat my views may generate, but they will be my views.
As for Michael E and ‘people like him,’ unless you skipped over the rather lengthy posts just prior to yours, you might have noticed that he was not using ‘ammunition’ on me, he was conversing with me.
And to Michael E: This is way off topic, but as we were discussing the tea party, I was wondering if in your experience of it, had you felt any difference between what you termed the spontaneous beginning of the thing (grassroots) as opposed to what it has become in the hands of media, politicians and corporate donors (astroturf.) And if you did, how, and what do you think? I hope that question makes sense.
RM I would say your look into Sarah job, and how well she did in it is not correct.She was a great mayor.Great gov.Very shrewd with high approval ratings.And I think she is beloved because she is a straight shooter who is not fooled for a minute by the slicksters now running things.She looks them in the eye and calls them liars to there faces.We need many more like her.And for that she pisses off both sides.The lefts hatred of her is hysterically funny to her and us.She wont be running ,but will always be a thorn in the side of these elitists.The tea party brand off course has been compromised by the press.But that is fine.As long as they don’t compromise the message. And the message is simple.YOU WILL ABIDE BY THE CONSTITUTION.
As far as New york…. People running shady campaigns based on making up this boogie man attitude directed at the right can only go so far. And it is an old game.Have you heard the one about how Ryans budget is going to take away everyones safety nets?(As Obama robs Peter to pay Paul in his healthcare vs robbing medicare reform.)
As i say if this was an easy run for BAM he would not be raising a billion against non existent tea party candidates.In the end all candidates aside, only one question matters to an incumbent. Has he led the ship of state in the last 4 years to beautiful places. That answer is a resounding no. The best he can say is his negatives go down at times.And that is why he needs a billion plus.
You say the tea party “candidates”will not make things better.I totally disagree.They are the monkey wrench in Washington as usual.And that is all good.It will take time,but we sent them there to do what is right…or shut it down.I think we are so jaded that when a group comes in to turn off the spigot we think they can be bought sooner or later.Well so far they have not been.
RM
Did a lot of research last night on why the left(and some of the right)hate so deeply a woman no longer in office.I have a few theories.Number one….when the press thought her a real threat to their chosen guy(Obama)they threw everything at her they could.Obama himself sent 30 lawyers/investigators to Wasilla.Nothing!In fact she laughed it all off and went her own way.Quit Politics.Had fun with a whole bunch of projects, and made a lot of money doing it.There of course in knock number one.She walks the walk.Has a son serving proudly.Never has she questioned Obamas use of him.She has a handicapped child she loves and chose to have…. another knock.She gives massively to charity as Obama never has.Another knock.She loves rugged outdoorish activities.Another knock in the halls of academia.She does not play the accepted political games right or left…another knock.So …..they were not able to bring her down.Just the opposite in fact.So with her celeb she keeps mocking the prez and anything she perceives is hurting the country.She is still- after all their mudslinging, a bur in their saddle.Her high shrill twangy (smile as you say it )voice is out of step with her opposites in the Gloria Steinem mold of all a woman could ,or should be.That is a huge part of their hatred.Twisted elitism based on her appearance and…….style.Now to her policies/beliefs.She believes America does not need to be remade.She believes it presumptuous to even say it.She believes America only need rediscover the best in her.She believes in smaller government with less power in our lives.Yet for these foundational, principled beliefs she is attacked as no one else?So here we have a beautiful successful woman with a loving and loved family from a state of rugged individuals that she rose up from obscurity to leadership in through her own smarts and mettle.Yet she has 60% negatives ….all generated in the giant Democratic attack machine.Almost all without foundation.Almost all beliefs held by half the country.She is not saying anything particularly new here .It is actually shameful.And that is the in depth analysis FAIR should be doing. Demagoguing personal attacks ,for the sake of political gain and perception.The lefts power base.The created from whole cloth perception is, and always has been all conservatives are “stupider”than their counterparts on the left. Especially the woman.When people on the lest were polled as to why they thought her “not the sharpest tool in the shed”do you know what the number one answer was?She said she could see Russia outside her window!Something Tina fey (not sarah) said in an SNL skit.What more need we know?
My father once said to me “michael why are you so angry at (something)that was said about you?If it was a lie you would not care half as much”
Well Sarah inflames the left because what she is saying hits home.She has no power to effect your lives in any way.She cant raise your taxes, or send your children to war.It is really a question you should ask yourselves- this irrational hatred. She simply- like a laser ,says what so many feel about an out of control government.Simple freedom of speech.Ann coulter is an attack dog and is not as hated.Go figure.Me,,,I love her.What an amazing woman.I hope her well in everything.She is the best thing about this country.A person with a voice ,who exercises her freedom of speech outside the swamp that is washington.Give you a guess.I think she may at some point run for the republican senate seat in Arizona.
Michael E
You didnt answer my question. But of course, you dont have to.
I dont give a damn about Pallin or Coulter. Uninteresting, hollow media images, contributing nothing of substance or value. Beyond the effort to keep things stirred up, people at each other’s throats, angry, suspicious and refusing to allow any voice or participation from outside of a narrowly delineated ideology. This more than indicates a desire to rule over and dictate to a good half of the population. Intolerate, belligerant and without restraint of method. I am repelled. And not into the arms of some equally narrow opposing ideology. I want free of the suffocating confines of other people’s ideologies. I am sick of the endless, positive result-free stalmate of this vs that. Success consisting of scoring ‘points’ against ‘the other,’ how many of our guys against how many of theirs. I am sick of pundits (how and when did running your mouth become a career?), talk, talk, talking heads, stirring the pot, keeping the little people staring each other down from behind opposing imaginary lines. And doing it for ego and money with no concern for the poisonous divisions they create and service. Hell, division is the point. Julius was right 2000 some years ago when he said ‘Divide and Conquer.’ The tactic is alive and well and working like a charm today. Nothing feeds power like the people fighting among themselves. I’m left, you’re right, I’m conservative, you’re liberal. Labels preclude the need to talk, slap a label on someone and the conversation is over. Now its just a shouting match.
Well, count me out. There are ways to live an ethical life and contribute to the common good, and none of them involve politics or marching lockstep in service to ideology. Both are anti-diversity and so anti-life. Maybe it is simple, simple-minded, human nature to keep playing in the dirt until the heavens split overhead. Then, maybe, we look up, join hands and head together for higher ground. I wont hold my breath.
Came across the following, written by a historian in the mid-1800’s:
“Accursed be Politics for ever! The maelstrom that has drawn in and engulfed so many able and worthy men. What talent it absorbs that is so needed elsewhere! How many fair reputations it has blasted! What toil, what ingenuity, what wealth, what lives have been wasted upon it! How mean are political methods and expedients, and how absurdly disproportioned are political triumphs to their cost! Politics can never be reformed. To abolish politics altogether is perhaps the atonement America is going, one day, to make to an outraged world, for sinking to the deepest deep, and wallowing in the filthiest filth of political turpitude.”
James Parton
and I couldnt agree more.
take good care, rm.
You know RM I couldn’t of said it better.Your entire first paragraph is a tome against the size and scope of government.I always say that if the founding fathers came back today it would be a barfing contest.But what you just wrote would not make them bat an eye.Because it is accordance with their beliefs.
Take care as well
RM Sorry you felt i did not answer your question.
I think the tea party started off as an angry reaction to this presidents socialist ways.Ron Paul had made great strides pointing out that both Bush and obama were flaunting the constitution.People were slowly remembering that document and being educated.At a point Obama pushed too far and too fast, and a grass roots implosion took place.So called Tea party reps sprang up for election speaking constitutional values and American values -and won.Now we have the left squirming and kicking.The right is of two minds.The old dogs know they have been playing fast and loose and are trying to torpedo tea partyists.The new junior members are doing a good job.The press is trying to paint them as religious nuts -fascists,and the like in support of the libs.And of course the libs are doing that as well.Has it changed?Well the message is the same.Those learning,and following the message are constantly changing.Even democrats are changed by the tea party movement.This flight to the socialist left has been greatly curtailed.Since there is no particular horse in the game i dont feel one way or the other about big rallies,small rallies or whatever.The tea party will shrink as Obama stagnates.And grow as he and his regime try the next move.What style of grassroots movement could be better?They will grow at election time and go home after, as any citizen uprising should.The message,the re occlusal back into American politics is unstoppable.As i said in that sense they cant be compromised.As far as corporate donations…..Obama is so far ahead on that it really is not a balance i worry about.And i believe the very idea of corporatism is a joke.Has the donors changed the Tea party?Really they cant.Te tea party values are set in stone.Or better put…the constitution.
For what it is worth, I have been up to my eyebrows in early American history for over a year now. While history is my vocation, early American had never piqued my curiousity personally. But the opportunity to work with original documents from this period; essays, diaries, public and personal correspondence seemed worthwhile (employment always is these days.)
I have been greatly enlightened by what I have learned, and it is hardly what I would have expected. For my understanding, the often misunderstood and misused reference to the ‘founding fathers’ can only practically apply to the authors and signers of the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution came along some years after the establishment of the United States as an independant nation. It was a contested document whose ratification was a drawn out process of years of political maneuvering and deals between powerful factions and families. Even it’s contributing authors and supporters stated their belief that it was a highly flawed construction that would not and should not, stand the test of time. It’s supporters simply felt that it was the best they could put over at the time, and necessary to at least the intitial establishment of central, ascendant, federal power. It’s creation and ratification process provided the basis of the initial split into factions of power, which ultimately and quickly hardened into defined political parties. The Constitution’s most ardent supporters hoped that it would simply provide them the basis on which to draw the American form of government into closer alignment with the English system. The ‘Federalists.’ The republicans, a group holding more members of the original Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation group, viewed the Constitution as an evil attempt by closet-monarchists to deprive the states and so the people of the freedoms declared in the Declaration, by instituting concentrated federal power.
So now, when folks, including yourself, reference the horror they imagine the ‘founding fathers’ would have experienced at the state of things today, I cant help but know that they are mistaken. The majority of ‘founding fathers’ viewed the Constitution as highly flawed at best and an abomination at worst. Alexander Hamilton felt it to be a best-we-can-get first step on the road to something much larger and more powerful, as he held the masses in complete contempt and felt them unfit for governance in any measure. Thomas Jefferson saw the Constitution as a betrayal of the revolutionary principles of enlightened humanist freedom. At least until he took the throne. His principles of public avowal and private practice maintaining their usual distance.
The thing is, dont bend a knee to any of the works of man, they are all necessarily flawed and must, for the purpose of the benefit of humankind, be open to constant change and improvement. Taking a ‘it’s the best we have come up with so far, so let’s stick with it unquestioning come hell or high water’ attitude is to wear blinders to the reality of human endeavor and motivation. The Constitution did not come down from the Mount, chiseled by the divine finger on tablets of granite, so let’s get a grip. It was, and is, as much a political document argued over by self-interested aristocrats as a high-minded encodement of advanced principles of governance.
Holding the members of government to no higher requirement than a strict adherence to the letter of the Constitution is letting these creatures off way too easily. They are well able to betray the public trust and serve the interests of unelected power to excellent effect and still adhere to the letter of the Constitution. And that is politics, baby.
(P.S. I cant help but feel that we are coopting this blog for our personal conversation and that we may be pissing off the other participants. Is there some way we can move this discussion to another venue? I do not know the etiquette or technology applicable. I just worry that we are somehow being bad mannered, and I dont mean to be)
We probably are bad mannered(though we are having a respectful discussion).But you are right we should probably move on.Hope your on the next series FAIR releases…….
I agree with much you wrote.I also have studied deeply those times.We are not purist.We are a mishmass of ideas.Scot/French/English.We are an experiment in freedom.Constantly growing and changing.And our “founding fathers did put in the ability to change any part of their words and writings.They would agree it is not cut in stone from God.What we are talking about is changing those things they(our politicians) have taken an oath to , while overstepping the procedural process of doing so.In a sense disregarding the law because they don’t agree with it.
When i say they would barf if they came back today….I kind of was thinking case law. Precident.Things that erode around the edges till the form is gone.
They are well able to betray the public trust and serve the interests of unelected power to excellent effect and still adhere to the letter of the Constitution.