Wonkette Completely Destroyed By Cenk Uygur's Blistering Logic Bombs

Well, golly, we sure did attack that Cenk Uygur something fierce! The "attack" consisted of mentioning that a recording of Eleanor Holmes Norton leaving a message asking for a campaign contribution was from 2010, and in suggesting that it didn't sound like "extortion" to us. (We also made fun of the video's "taco robot death march" closed captioning.) Here are just some of the conclusions that Cenk Uygur drew from our four short paragraphs:  

Wonkette is fine with bribery and corruption.

Wonkette believes that if conservatives and liberals agree that corruption is bad, then really it must be OK because they balance out.

Wonkette thinks that Eleanor Holmes Norton is above criticism because she is a Democrat, an African-American woman, and because she represents Washington, DC.

Wonkette doesn't think Cenk Uygur should call attention to the violence inherent in the system.

Wonkette doesn't want people to try to change things, because change is haaaaaard.

Wonkette would have opposed women getting the right to vote, because arglebargle snarksnark cynicism.

Wonkette refuses to say whether we've stopped beating our wife yet.

Wow! We sure do have a lot to answer for, especially the stuff we didn't say! On the plus side, Uygur finally acknowledges that the recording is from three years ago, so score one point for accuracy in reporting. Maybe we should just declare victory and demand he pay us 10% of whatever he raises off claiming we attacked him. 

The thing is, and here's the thing: Corruption and extortion and bribery are all words that have very specific meanings. The Eleanor Holmes Norton video is not evidence of any of those very specific things -- it is evidence of a politician asking for money and being pretty entitled and douchey about it. But there are no quid pro quos, no threats, no suggestions of doing anything under the table. And calling it "legalized bribery" again and again doesn't make it actual corruption -- this is the ol' logical fallacy that your rhetoric teachers call "begging the question," which is the actual meaning of that poor abused phrase. She has to be corrupt! Just look at her asking for money! And they all ask for money!They're all corrupt!!1! 

Also, do we really need to say that pointing out that the story was from 2010 is not the same as saying "that's old news and everything's fine, we like it oh so very much"? OH WE GUESS WE DO.

One of Yr Wonkette's favorite political aphorisms is Molly Ivins' line about the influence of money in politics, and not incidentally, the title of one of her books:  "You Got to Dance with Them What Brung You. " Of course we would be better off with public financing of campaigns. Of course we would be better off if politicians didn't devote more time to fundraising than to governing. And of course we'd be better off if there weren't a revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street.

And of course, we never said otherwise.

Frankly, we are disappointed at Cenk's dopey straw-man arguments. He accuses us of being "lazy," when in fact we are mostly drunk. He thinks we're complacent, but no, we are not at all complacent; we are actually vigorously kowtowing to radical Islam. He says that we think cynicism is preferable to activism, when in fact we are far more into bleak existential despair.

But he is absolutely right about one thing: We don't watch his show.

[ YouTube ]