Wonkette
About three and a half minutes into this LOOONG clip, you will see every liberal’s favorite girlfriend Rachel Maddow start arguing with David Frum about whether political humor is as discourse-cheapening and violence-inciting as shouting “Kill him!” at a political rally. “We all could do better,” says Frum, boringly. Then he says Rachel Maddow should invite Paul Wolfowitz on her show for a Serious Discussion, and then they both have a hearty chuckle because really, Wolfowitz? That clown? [MSNBC]
I caught this last night. Frum is a tool.
This is like a young Nixon - say 18- with burning hemorrhoids and acid reflux disease.
that was a helluva way for Frum to ingratiate himself to his hostesse, creating the false equivalence between her (awesome) show and the race-baiting antics of the McFailins.
other cable news suckas would have glossed over it and moved on, but not rachel, no. She stuck it to him, with a strap-on.
I thought Rachel handled Frum and his ridiculous accusations brilliantly. Frum and the repubs are just trying to cover their a$$es against any and all possible criticism now that American’s have finally caught on to their shenanigans. Finally.
I thought Frum looked like an asshole and did not really have a point.
It’s amazing how this motherfucker who has spent his entire career making base attacks and assertions that have the same swing-and-a-miss accuracy of Bill Kristol would feel it incumbent upon himself to tell the TeeVee host how to do her job. What a douche.
Sorry US America. Most of us in Canada City don’t want him back. The Frumlet wasn’t particularly right on the Canada City stage so it is a mystery to me why he was considered a serious pundit on the US America one.
She pretty much wiped the floor with that sniveling twerp.
I chuckled.
The right gets points across on their TV shows through righteous anger and fear, the left gets their point across through jokes and sarcasm.
In a debate, I’ll always side with the funny guy. If you’re chilled out about the topic enough to be able to crack jokes, you probably know more about what’s up than the red-faced guy hurling spittle and hyperventilating over imaginary threats. Plus, if you don’t care about the topic, you can just giggle at the jokes.
Oh Rachael, the American Enterprise Institute is the pinnacle of objective, purely intellectual, political think tanks. How can you possibly argue with fish-face’s obviously-well-though-out scolding to you and your witty ilk?
Tsk tsk. You know liberals use words, and GOP-fucktards use violent racial slurs….geeez.
And yes, Sara, she IS my favorite imaginary girlfriend….*SIGH*
Hahaha, suck it, lesbo libtards. The Fox News babes so pretty.
Frum has a look on his face like he just took a bite out of a turd.
I don’t appreciate the fact that Rachel Maddow is a gay and therefore hates America.
mattbolt: In a debate, I’ll always side with the funny guy. If you’re chilled out about the topic enough to be able to crack jokes, you probably know more about what’s up than the red-faced guy hurling spittle and hyperventilating over imaginary threats.
So I take it you weren’t a Dean-voter?
What, Rachel didn’t pull a “Fox move” and somehow lose the satellite??
She has so much to learn from Bill O’Reilly and friends!
Rachel’s Adams Apple is bigger than KO’s. So are her balls. Tell them all to suck it Rach!!
beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
What a condescending, pompous little asshat. I know Rachel probably wants to keep her teevee show on the air a little longer, but you could tell she was THIS close to going all Dog Day Afternoon on his ass, which he would have deserved.
In some profile of her that I read, somebody talked about her work ethic and long preparation for her radio shows. Said she’s the most prepared person he’s ever known. That certainly was evident with Frum. Couple that with her grace under pressure and he came off looking bloody rude at best.
Wolfowitz is an absolute fucking moron, AND a failure. Maddow isn’t under any more of a moral obligation to have him on the show than Katherine Harris. If she wants to embiggen the discourse, maybe she could invite a real mid-east scholar, or an anthropologist, or a natural-resources economist, someone who actually KNOWS something.
probly wont.
Bah, Frum is a loser. If you want the conversation to take a more distinguished tone then do so. But spending 15 minutes criticizing your host for her sarcasm is just playing the same game from a different angle.
Maddow handled him with much more grace than he deserved. I think Obama possibly being shot by someone revved up on Ayers/Muslim/Reverend Wright rhetoric trumps Palin or McCain having a sad because Maddow reacts to insanity and inanity with humour. I’m sure he’ll go on O’Reilly, Hannity and the other comic shows on the right next and tell them to stop being meanies. Maddow’s ability to be collegial and respectful while not kowtowing to Buchanan is one of her claims to fame.
tinybubbles: He may be a fool but he totally just *played* Maddow right there! Instead of talking about whatever they were supposed to talk about, he changed the frame to the Liberal “MSM” and how they will never give the McCain campaign a fair shake.
Even though Maddow is my new pretend lesbian TV girlfriend and I hate *Everything* David Frum is about, I have to tip my hat to that display of showmanship and douchebaggary.
After watching the interview, I’d have to say that Maddow won the “Whose is bigger?” contest by a landslide.
I can’t believe how even-tempered she was. Grace under pressure, indeed. Frum did the equivalent of, after being invited to dinner, spitting in the food. You’re free to share your opinions regarding likes and dislikes, but don’t go personally insulting the host. It’s just impolite.
Rachel is so my imaginary lesbian girlfriend. If I ever went there, at least I’d know that pillow talk would be totally worth it.
…when I watched this live last night, I was praying for Rachel to call him waste human genetic material. I guess he is trying to say shouts “Kill him!!!” and “Traitor” are merely McCain supporters attempt at satire?!
I think Frum rented Bound before he came on, and he was disappointed Gina Gershon wasn’t on the panel. God knows I would be.
Cogito Ergo Bibo: Yes, when I get to imagining your pillow talk, I’ll post it. You’re not even into the cigarettes and getting a towel stage though, yet.
How can this buckethead say that others are turning politics into a spectator sport, when he goes on a TV show for the apparent sole purpose of criticizing it and then insulting and creating a confrontation with the host? What the hell?
I think we all know America’s missile gap with Red China should be the defining issue of the election. And yet Rachel Maddow had the gall to laugh at brave Dr. Wolfowitz’s efforts!
Ditto to those who commented about her even temperment. Rather than getting all defensive and shouting (Bill O’Reilly), puffing up with pomposity (Rush Limbaugh), or responding with personal attacks rather than addressing the issue at hand (Sean Hanity), she did something unusual — reasoned, rational refutation of this asshat’s half-brained argument. In the world of punditry, it’s so unique I almost think the conservatives would consider it cheating.
And yes Rachel is my make-believe girlfriend. “But she’s gay!” says a friend. To which I reply “It’s a fantasy, fuck-tard! Let it alone. Sexual orientation is just ONE of the many impossible hurdles I’d have to clear. Now leave me alone to drink and idly touch myself!”
Oh yeah, Mr. “Axis of Evil” can’t understand why we’re not having substantive conversation. He had no problem manipulating the truth, and playing “drugstore cowboy” when pulling the string for Bush, but now he decides the problem in this country is that issues aren’t being treated substantively, but played for humor? I guess his appearances on “The Daily Show” was an attempt to put an end to humorous discussion.
You know what’s really funny? Watching Republicans play CYA. They’re so embarrassingly hypocritical it’s laughable.
David Frum’s constipation was really acting up this week, so we should give him a break.
Now that is discourse I can believe in!
Frum’s argument was about tone. He doesn’t think ‘humor’ is a serious way to conduct discourse. What he doesn’t say or acknowledge is that humor stings him and his ilk because it rings true. Humor is always about events in the past, a recollection of sorts. NOW he wants to change the tone because he’s on the bottom as it were. Rachel’s tacit response was elegant, graceful, and appropriate: “Sorry Mr. Frum. Deal with it. We didn’t start this mess, you did. You can’t change the subject anymore. Would you like another portion of crow?”
I watched their exchange last night, and Rachel handled Frum a lot better than I would have done. Kudos to her for not jamming a spoon in that douchebag’s eye.
Well, it’s certainly not like any other politicians in the course of human history have used irony and sarcasm and humor to make a point.
I remember the highly ironic Harry Truman holding up some paper saying that someone else had won the presidency. Oh, the ironic cheap discourse!
Or St Ronnie saying sarcastically “I’m with the government and I’m here to help.” Cheap, cheap discourse!
Or one John McCain saying that Big O was “measuring the drapes” for the white house in North Carolina last night. Ha! McCain just cheapened the discourse.
So I guess a professional speechwriter never has an occasion to use humor to make a point. Or is that why he’s a former professional speech writer? His withered soul can’t even come up with a knock knock joke.
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions,” according to the Thomas Jefferson, whom I just know would have been totally in love with Miss Maddow.
I caught the tail end of the interview. Frum tried to end the interview with an arrogant and dismissive comment, and Rachel basically gave him a great verbal smack across the face which left Frum with this shit-eating grin on his face as he said goodbye.
Sonic Former Youth: Stop cheapening the discourse with your funny jokes, Thomas Jefferson.
Frum wouldn’t know humor if it hit him in the face with a Whopee cushion while he was slipping on a bannana peel while he was chasing the Roadrunner.
Rachel Maddow is almost too perfect to be of this earth. She can smile while slipping the shiv and twisting it until a jerk like Frum has been eviscerated, not knowing it until he his doctor tells him he seems to be missing a few entrails.
Now, I may be completely biased due to the fact that I think Rachel Maddow is one of the coolest, wittiest and most awesome people on earth, but that guy was a total douche.
Rachel did an awesome job handling this guy. I kept thinking while I was watching it - is Frum going to go on Fox (Hannity, O’Reilly, etc.) to complain about the level of discourse in this country? Why single out Maddow’s show - which in fact holds probably the most civil level of discourse of ANY of ‘em on the air? She actually gives her guests time to make their points, she listens, responds, and engages them in a dialog…which is the same classy way she handled Frum!
Jon in Austin: Um, cause when I was watching this last night, I thought, he thinks this girl is an easy target. The look on her face was priceless, I could see she wanted to choke the life out of him. I applaud her for holding her ground.
Dernyul: word. Frum has a lot of nerve. Sounds like a kid who isn’t having fun in his game of keep-away now that he’s lost the ball.
i am happy that Rachel pointed out that the difference in rhetoric between the two candidates
With the qualifier that I am an active Obama supporter, these comments prove Frum’s point. Every single one of them dismisses everything he said without one iota of consideration for his merits (kneejerk nonsense that, thankfully, Sen. Obama eschews).
Whatever Frum is guilty of, he does want to have a serious discussion, and you’re kidding yourself if you don’t see any equivalence between race-baiting and racism-baiting. Doesn’t mean there isn’t racism, but it does mean that every case of it we’ve seen throughout the primaries and general election have worked to Senator Obama’s favor.
But y’all get boners everytime the right says something loathesome and this is not the stuff of substantive discussion- it’s just collecting ammunition. This is why MoveOn.org alienates so many people- they have speakers who garner thunderous applause at the mention of disastrous developments in America’s economy and foreign policy. Bad news is not rousing, unless it only affects you theoretically.
If you wanna win, wake up, you snivelling elitists!
ProfessorJukes: Her being a lasbian ADDS to the fantasy…. increases the shot at a 3-some, and who cares if you get left just watching!!
Oooo. Response from Frum! The direct link doesn’t seem to work, so go here and click on “Blog Row” and “Frum”: http://www.nationalreview.com/
Short version: he’d never even SEEN Rachel’s show, despite being booked to appear. NICE. His criticism was based upon seeing half an hour of it from the green room. His relatives think he did a dandy job. Of course, he has 300 irate emails saying otherwise. Heh.
lets roll this back a little, perhaps momma Frum heaped a little too much praise when little Davey pooped in the potty?
geeze i detest this guy.
and yes, she’s also my imaginary lesbian girlfriend
and i dont think the fact that im a straight girl
should have any effect on that.
Name Pun Phenh: It still leaves him open to the legitimate point that he’s being hypocritical. Sarcasm has no place in this? Funny, when he was schilling his latest book (given today’s headlines, the hilariously titled “Comeback: Conservatives Can Win Again”), he sure didn’t hesitate to book an interview on “The Daily Show.” When sarcasm works for him, and potentially puts money in his pocket, he seems fine with it. Video of his TDS appearance linked below. Watch if only for John referring to Dubya as President Homer, while Frum has to smile and take it.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=147187&title=david-frum
I’d have to say that was one of the most well handled discussions I’ve seen on a talking heads show that didn’t devolve into interrupting each other or shouting louder than the other. Rachel handled it wonderfully and while Frum did change the topic to what he wanted to talk about it was a valid point and I think Rachel did the right thing by shifting gears and taking him on. She still won but he did at least offer up something better than blabbering, nonsensical talking points.
I hope she has him on again.
Rachel rules.
frum, hell
The sad thing is this tool is the son of Barbara Frum, who was basically like the Peter Jennings of Canadia. She was brilliant and well-respected. How such a brilliant woman could have such a moran son who could actually believe what he’s saying is really quite a mystery. We should run DNA tests to see.
Cogito Ergo Bibo: You’re right, and I should do a better job in distinguishing between substance and seriousness. But so should Rachel Maddow. She’s being lauded on this illustrious message board simply for not shouting. But she was more defensive of her style than her substance. How whiney is it to say that you won’t invite someone on your show because you know he won’t accept?
There’s no arguing that Frum’s scolding was hypocritical, but just because Maddow doesn’t lose her temper doesn’t mean she is lending due consideration to an appropriately broad spectrum of opinion. The cheers for her here remind me eerily of that Daily Show report from that tavern in Wasilla after the VP debate where they all proclaimed it a Palin ass-whupping.
All I’m saying is that, asshole he may be, Frum had a point and we reject it at our own peril.
Nobody wants to actually MAKE the moral equivalence argument. They just want to point out something the other side did that may be perceived as offensive as a means of obliquely referring to moral equivalence. But Rachel (along with anyone with a functioning brain) knows moral equivalence when she sees it. Making jokes about Paul Wolfowitz =/= shouting “Kill Him” at a campaign rally.
But yeah, she cheapened Frum’s discourse right there. She should just have Andrew Sullivan or Daniel Larison on her show if she wants to discuss things with conservatives who are actually concerned with conservatism and capable of making arguments based on conservative political philosophy.
Name Pun Phenh: Concern trolls are often found in areas lacking context.
Name Pun Phenh: I think the only response in 2008 to race-baiting might be racism baiting. The Obama Curious George Guy from the other day? He had to be hounded into seeing how shameful he was acting. You really don’t have to look far to find serious discussion on the left–just turn your radio to NPR. Or if you can’t listen at work, browse you a little Wonkette.
Harvey Birdman: Name calling?! I’m sending you my therapy bills.
Harvey Birdman: If we were at all serious about it we would invite David Frump on Wonkette for a serious discussion, if we were at all serious about it.
Name Pun Phenh: OK, here’s a real, thoughtful analysis of Frum’s argument. His thesis is that humor/sarcasm do nothing to further a discussion of real world issues and bring us no closer to consensus.
My thesis is that the folks on his side of the idealogical spectrum have indicated at every turn that they not only do not wish to have any consensus, they frequently do not even seem to be operating in the same objective universe as the rest of us.
This is, for many of us in this country, the legacy of the Republicans; not their foreign policy, not their (alleged) fiscal policies or social policies, but their complete disdain for discussion and consensus. Their contempt for considering your opponent’s ideas thoroughly and thoughtfully. I will, until proven otherwise, expect the party of Bush to be a party that is concerned with winning at all/any cost; whatever lie, fantasy, exaggeration is necessary. And this is not just a Bush thing, Mr. Frum. The McCain campaign has shown itself (especially in the last few weeks) to be more concerned with winning this election than with what happens after the election.
Further, I would like to point out an essential difference between your side and mine, Mr Frum. During your party’s long years in the desert, back when Bill Clinton was in office, the era of political talk radio was born. I am curious if you feel that Rush Limbaugh’s brand of spew cheapened the dialogue. After all, this is a broadcaster many Republicans credit as a valuble tool for your side.
Frankly, I think you’d be hard pressed to find an instance of Maddow, Olberman, or Stewart making fun of a politician’s child for their looks (or a member of their cabinet…remember how Limbaugh treated Reno and Reich). There is no equivalence between that type of nastiness and making fun of Palin because she’s inexperienced. One is satire…the other is just mean bullshit.
Finally, it cannot be said enough; the reactions that the McCain camp were getting at their campaign stops (aggression, yelling of threats of violence, clear “mob” mentality) were a direct result of conscious decisions made by the McCain campaign. They sprung from the sentence “We’ve got to turn the page on this economy and go on the attack”. Nothing done on the Democrats’ side comes close to this level of craven populist torch throwing. John Lewis was right to speak out the way he did. After the heat of this election cycle is over, McCain may be saddened to discover what has become of his reputation of honor.
So, in the face of 8 years of secrecy and Orwellian double speak, my party has developed satire as an effective weapon of public opinion.
And in the face of losing one election, your party went the pitchfork and torch route.
And I’m cheapening the process by making jokes on the internet?
Suck it, Frum.
Suck it.
Name Pun Phenh: No, I think he’s putting you on a moral equivalence to Frum. And I think he’s right.
If you seriously think Frum, with his track record, is looking for rational dialog, then perhaps therapy might be a good idea.
Up your game if you plan to troll here. You’re going to bore us this way.
Name: you seem to think that the Wonkette comment board is the kingmaker in American political combat. So silly you are! So how did you find out?
Hey, I bet none of you people with your funny quips and wry commentary realized you were actually part of a rampaging mob, did ya? I didn’t.
Awww, the waving torches make me feel all warm inside. Outside, too.
ivenson: See now, you I cheer for! LOUDLY!!!
Gopherit v2.0: When you say “us,” who is it that you think you’re representing with your baseless and ad hominem defense of yourself as a mature person? We’re all anonymous and welcome to be as fatuous as we wanna be. But is “upping my game” trying harder to belittle you? Or is it using slangier language while agreeing with everyone else here that Rachel Maddow rules because she doesn’t yell?
I’d love to hear a response, but before you fire one off, give it some thought. Then make sure you’re wearing a clean diaper.
Name Pun Phenh: Maddow isn’t being lauded for simply not shouting, here. She’s being lauded for defending the format of her show. The central thesis Frum seems to be pushing is that if you think a problem is important, discuss it seriously. Maddow countered with the fact that different people learn in different ways; for some, sarcasm, teasing and humor help. She also countered by taking Frum’s suggestion to at least ask Wolfowitz if he would like to come on the show for a serious discussion of North Korea. Maddow is willing to have a serious discussion on pretty much any topic, if proponents of that idea would like to show up.
In point of fact, Frum willfully ignores what Maddow is trying to illustrate: you don’t have to choose a side; you can do both. And I think she does. There is humor and sarcasm a-la-Daily-Show (a forum in which Frum evidentally has enough respect to appear when it suits his needs) along with thoughtful discussion when speaking directly with proponents of a given topic or point of view. Frum seems put out that the show doesn’t stick with the dry side of the street. To which I reply: you aren’t the FCC; but if you want to be the TV patrol, could you please do something about reality television or Jerry Springer? They’re much more damaging than Rachel. Or get your own show. I’m sure it’ll be an unintentional laugh riot or an amazing soporific.
ivenson: Dang. I’m subscribing to YOUR newsletter. Kudos!
I just figured this out. Anyone who’s cohabited with a woman may recognize being suddenly verbally attacked. “What I do?” “It’s not what you did, It’s what you said!” “What’d I say?” “It’s not what you said, it’s how you said it!” “What–” “Snarl!” Rachel knew what to do. Back off, slow gentle tones. Off the air Frum was probably offered chocolate. In a few days he’ll be through his cycle and his hormones will be back to normal.
Name Pun Phenh: You must have wanted the blog next door. You’re apparently seeking reasoned, rational discourse. Not that there aren’t many here who are more than capable but you just dropped into the nuthouse my friend. We eat our dead here.
Okay, that was a bit much. Tribal council, anyone?
Cogito Ergo Bibo: I think that’s mostly a good point, and maybe I’m not being wary enough of the idea that Frum is trying to sidetrack a good argument by belittling it for its use of humor. I agree completely that satire can help us see through a lot of the bullshit in public discourse. But I also think that snark can be an obstacle to thoughtfulness, and I just think we’re better off in recognizing that distinction than we are in cheering loudly for one side and booing loudly for the other.
Name Pun Phenh: I was speaking for the Wonkette community at large to a blowhard making the dubious claim that David Frum gives two shits about a real debate. It hardly gets more fatuous than that. You and Frum are two peas in the same pod. You are both arguing that it’s the left that has avoided rational debate. The chutzpah it takes for Frum to claim that is breathaking. For you to defend him is breathtaking, too, but more for it’s deliberately obtuse avoidance of the truth. Frum and his ilk have been fighting rational debate for 7 years now. What is there to be expected in a debate dow?
No one is asking for you to cheer for Rachel, but if you’re going to criticize her, why would you pick such a ridiculous attack? Beccause you’re a troll, and not even a good one. This page is meant for snark, not rational debate. Go peddle your Ivy League PoliSci degree at Kos. You’ll get a better reception there.
Frum tried a John Stewart v. Tucker Carlson takedown, but Rachel handed his ass to him. Well done.
Name Pun Phenh: This is a snark page, but of course, as a troll, you know that. If you aren’t going to snark, you’ll bore the majority of us and be banned. I hope it’s soon.
I like Republican chicks because the mouth-breathing is alluring.
Tommy Says Soooo: See. Concise, vapid, and snarky. That’s an A in wonkette.
Are you watching Phenh?
Gopherit v2.0: I’m sorry I hurt your feelings. I don’t know anything about you, but whatever you think is best about yourself, I’m sure it’s quite true and I commend you heartily for it.
Rachel should embiggen the discourse by making all her talking heads dress up like clowns.
Name Pun Phenh: You’re getting closer. But still not quite there yet. Snotty is not snarky. Give it another try.
Name Pun Phenh: I mean, you obviously have it in you to be a good troll around here…..but you’re singing the wrong tune.
ivenson: Yeah! Exactly!
God almighty!!! I almost choked listening to that clown talking about “raising the level of political discourse” — now? now?? NOW??!!! — after years, maybe decades, of gleeful swiftboating, Willie Hortoning, dog-whistling, and all of that other cynical exploitation of so many Americans’ fears (and disinclination to think for themselves), Frum and his ilk all of a sudden now want to raise the level of political discourse and stick to the issues? Why this sudden change in tactics? It’s because the ol’ time religion of disseminating preposterous lies to the credulous AIN’T WORKING THIS YEAR — not because these “asshats” (I love that word) suddenly grew a decency bone. If 58% percent of the American electorate were currently wandering around saying, “Umm, I heard Obama is a Muslin baby-killer and a terrorist and also a foreigner so I’m not going to vote for him”, then we wouldn’t be hearing all of this high-toned, principled talk about sticking to the issues. It’s only because only 41% of the electorate believes that crap that Frum-the-asshat and his dumb friends are so shocked — shocked! — that Rachel is being so mean to them and their shitty candidates.
I mean, what can Rachel do with someone like Palin except laugh at her? Go onto her MSNBC website and watch the clip of Palin talking about how happy she is that the “Troopergate” investigation report totally exonerated her (Palin that is — Rachel Maddow was NOT exonerated by that report, let’s be clear on that issue). You can’t even begin to make a rational, issues-oriented comment about someone like that — it simply isn’t possible! The only feasible alternative response to laughing at Palin is to be struck dumb w/ speechless amazement, but thank god Maddow doesn’t have that problem.
Gopherit v2.0: Go peddle your Ivy League PoliSci degree at Kos. You’ll get a better reception there.
Win, primarily for knowing that the Kos tards will rip him/her to shreds if she dares say one negative thing about Maddow. To borrow from Stewie Leibowitz & TDS about Moveon, Daily Kos will make even those who share the politics cringe.
Daily Kos Response #1: This site is about electing Democrats. No trolls allowed!
DK R #2: This site is privately-owned, so no bitching about free speech. No trolls allowed!
DK R #3: THAT’S NOT FUNNY. NO TROLLS ALLOWED!
Wonkette is to Kos as high-heeled pumps are to granola chicks. No contest.
Name Pun Phenh: Conciliatory troll is conciliatory.
Frum has that “Karl Rove baby-head” thing going on.
(Well, someone had to take the low road.)
Oh, that is rich: http://tinyurl.com/4sqhax
I Am Not Your Gary Busey: Fuck you and your grandmother. Especially if she’s dead.
Name Pun Phenh: Name Pun Phenh:I’m sorry I hurt your feelings. I don’t know anything about you, but whatever you think is best about yourself, I’m sure it’s quite true and I commend you heartily for it, Tony.
It’s a good question. How do you attract good trolls? I suggest Wonkette do blogads on websites for GoldKit, Werthers Original, and Franklin Mint.
Name Pun Phenh: Kinky troll is kinky!
nurple: Soliciting trolls would make me feel so….cheap. Even if they were 4-diamond trolls.
What we need is another good war, like when we went in with Red State to tell the Paultards to get bent. That brings out the quality crazy.
nurple: And maybe that floor-humping guy.
Rodney Badger: Or the train guy from craigslist?
nugget: ivenson: Well said, both of you.
Oh, Rachael Maddox, I adore you so….even if your nationally televised existence reminds me on a daily basis that I am unfit for social interaction and that I don’t play well with others. Keep up the good fight for those of us who would end up in jail if we tried.
Canuck13652: Ah yes, Barbara Frum. Canadians of a certain age will remember her has being a wonderful journalist and broadcaster with the same cool head and ability to think on her feet as our Rachel Maddow. May she rest in peace. Thus every time I see David Frum, I am always disappointed. Poor little David must never have learned how to deal with strong women which is maybe why he looks so sulky here.
Anyway to his point and the Name Pun Phenh / Everyone Else debate: The way I see it, Frum is trying to shut down the use of Funny because it is a tool of the left. The (not quite equivalent) tool of the right is Self-Righteous Outrage. Satire and humour has been the very way that the left has stayed heartened and returned to the mainstream during those years in the wilderness. Hell, this site is as good an example as any. I’d argue that satire beats self-righteous outrage as a means of serious discourse because it doesn’t rely on hypocrasy, but the likes of Frum will have none of it. As evidenced by An American Carol, they’re just no good at being funny.
sezme: Satire also feels more genuine than outrage. Yes, irony, I know. And satire is certainly more accessible than outrage. I mean, would you rather hang out with funny drunks or angry drunks? I am confident that no one has ever thrown a keg against a wall at one of Rachel Maddow’s parties. I think all political questions should be resolved in favor of whichever choice will least likely result in kegs being thrown against the wall.
All this shows that I don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about. But at least I’m not a repressed homosexual, like Name Pun Phenh.
I have been watching Dr. Maddow for a couple of weeks, and have become hooked. Keith Olberman is a great lead-in to her show. There are many, many advertisements on other channels I will never see, because I am watching MSNBC!
Rodney Badger: Tushay. Write that again so I can laugh some more. But how does that help the Democrats win?
Cogito Ergo Bibo: When I begin publishing one, I’ll let you know.
Gopherit v2.0: Concise…goddammit, I knew I forgot something. Sorry for the rant, all. Promise to keep it pithier in the future.
Name Pun Phenh:
Frummy needs to bone up on his Lacan, as interpreted by Slavoj Žižek, in his talk regarding Laibach/NSK philosophy, from the documentary Predictions of Fire Prerokbe Ognja: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114176/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmmM6hz4Ncg&feature=related
(fast forward to ~7:50)
In short, ironic, cynical distance from any system is a truly healthy thing, a positive condition…those douchenozzles that take it way too seriously are the truly dangerous motherfuckers. They are the subversives…
Like McCain, Palin and their “bitters” literalists, taking the “American” system(s) seriously more than the “American” system(s) takes itself (and Frum advocating the position of sober sober sober analysis) with their lack of critical potentials and ironic distance.
Why the hell is this Maddow woman on the air? Why is she on television? Have you guys tried to watch her “show?” It’s so cliched, tired, boring and bland, it’s pathetic. And she’s a terrible host. The show is produced poorly, and directed horribly. It’s about on the same level as most of the other cable news channel “shows.” Most of them are just horrible–and, oddly, severely lacking in news, reporting, documentation, investigating, reporting on the news, and just basic journalism in general. Most of them are terrible, and most of them should not be on the air.