In the wake of the lessons learned from Sandra Fluke, what the Republicans seem to take from it all is not to be apologetic or remorseful of the wrongdoings of one of their sycophant, mouth pieces, but to find ever inventive ways to recreate the media firestorm that followed Rush Limbaugh’s vitriolic, odd, predatory, and cruel comments about Fluke, a private person speaking publicly about a national issue — but to their advantage.
Yes, this is the way to nullify those incendiary comments, you must find any strand and pull on it until a whole box of unfettered proof comes flying out a closet full of supposed hypocrisy, if such a thing exists. This is the game plan.
Now everyone from Limbaugh, to Newt Gingrich and Bristol Palin, for heaven’s sake, has a stake in the shining beacon that presents itself in the potential “Flukeizing” of the Democratic Party.
Bristol Palin, on her blog (who knew?), wrote an open letter to President Obama this week asking if he’d like to call her to offer his support with regard to the derogatory remarks comedian Bill Maher has made about her and her family, as he did with Sandra Fluke. Obama has said that he felt compelled to call Fluke because of his own two daughters. Bristol submitted this assessment:
“If Maher talked about Malia and Sasha that way, you’d return his dirty money and the Secret Service would probably have to restrain you. I’m not expecting your Super PAC to return (Maher’s) money. You’re going to need every dime to hang on to your presidency. I’m not even really expecting a call. But would it be too much to expect a little consistency? After all, you’re President of all Americans, not just the liberals.” Palin wrote.
First of all, Bristol, the President is no common thug, so restraining him probably isn’t within the realm of a scenario that seems plausible. But, wackadoodle suppositions aside, does she have a point? Let’s see. Sandra Fluke is a law student who was speaking to Congress about the need for contraception, and the junior Palin is most known for teenage pregnancy, an after-the-fact abstinence commercial (irony, she has it), a contentious relationship with the father of her child and the subsequent publicity he garnered at both their expense after being hoisted to the center stage by Palin’s parents, and finally for Dancing With the Stars.
There aren’t too many parallels to be drawn here with the exception that they’re both women, but to be fair, at the time when Palin was thrust into the spotlight her privacy should’ve been protected. And yes, she was an innocent casualty in the fallout that was heaped on her mother, which Obama at the time did disavow. However, there is something to be said for the fact that she wouldn’t have been in the position to be mocked, ridiculed, and criticized if first and foremost the people who were supposed to protect her privacy followed through. Those people would be her parents. The rest of the fallout came pretty much from choices Bristol Palin made on her own i.e. an “abstinence press tour.” You, Bristol, have made considerable coin during your time in the spotlight. No one’s forgetting that, ye of the so aggrieved. This does not excuse Maher from his more raucous commentary, even though he uses genitalia to describe both genders in his act, but well, if your own mother can and will use you for political gain, and will open the door to your life in such a magnanimous way, why would you expect better from comedians at large?
Fundamentally, there are huge differences between Bristol and Sandra, but it’s not hard to fathom why one may attract a bit more sympathy, even if it honestly should be doled out in more of an equal measure. Yet let’s be honest here, Bristol. Mom and dad fed you to the wolves, and then they wanted to cry foul when the country at large judged and scrutinized you and your family. Instead of lashing out at Maher, a shill and a one trick comedy act, granted, maybe you should ask Mama Grizzly what she really wanted out of the nomination and campaign, and if it was worth sacrificing the reputation and image of her family to get it.
Next up is Limbaugh, the overextended gasbag himself. This week he went after President Obama for singer Cee Lo Green’s use of the F-bomb in his song F-bomb You at an Obama fundraiser.
“[Cee Lo] showed up before Obama came out and spoke at this fundraiser and dropped the F-bomb in his song while Mr. Civility is backstage, waiting to go on I guess,” Limbaugh said. “This is getting nowhere near the attention it should get in the media. Mr. Civility, Barack Obama, is not being asked about this at all.”
Obama hadn’t arrived at the event yet.
“His daughters, Malia and Sasha. He thought about them,” Limbaugh said. “What about this guy Cee Lo Green? And Cee Lo Green can sing what he wants. I don’t care. But here it is at an Obama fundraiser on the same stage Obama will take not long after Cee Lo Green sings the tune.”
He continued, “Yup. Double standard, single standard, whatever. Pure hypocrisy. I know. But the point is it isn’t getting any press, nor is it getting any condemnation. But don’t doubt me when I tell you it’s noticed. It’s noticed. Just because the press, the mainstream press, state-controlled media doesn’t give it any attention doesn’t mean it’s ignored.”
What are you going on about? Are you really trying to equate Cee Lo singing this song, even the off-color version, that’s been all over the place, on that stupid show Glee even, and covered by Gwyneth Paltrow on the Grammys for Zeus’s sake, to calling a woman testifying in front of Congress a slut? The song, sir, was perhaps a poor musical choice. The slut label, you odious windbag, was a misogynistic firebomb. The fact that the difference escapes you is all the more reason why the media has placed the importance of these two events in the categories in which they have.
Later in the week, Republican pundit, Michelle Malkin took aim at actor Alec Baldwin for his comments about Republican Senator Jim Inhofe whose latest book, The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future which discusses his claims that only “God can change the climate, and it is pure “arrogance” for us to think otherwise.”
Incensed, Baldwin tweeted:
He’s referring to Inhofe’s work to block a measure to raise BP’s liability cap from $75 million to $10 billion in the wake of the massive 2010 Gulf oil spill. Of course Malkin and critics glanced right over the part about BP and are now calling for Capital One to drop Baldwin as their spokesman based upon the “Whore” part of the comment in light of their statement that they would no longer advertise with Rush Limbaugh.
When did Alec Baldwin rise to the same bombastic nature of Rush Limbaugh, and by extension, has had his political discourse ratchet up to the point where he is heralded as one of the single most influential political voices in media? Sure, Baldwin has recently launched a public radio talk show that he hopes will feature some political commentary, but as it stands the list is pretty full of celebrities. So, Michelle, if you want to take a look at someone who actually is in politics and full of random, inflammatory comments, look no further than your own much appreciated Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, who has a habit of offending people during his town hall meetings. The most recent? An Iraq War veteran and former Navy SEAL whom he called an “idiot” for all to hear. Maybe New Jersey should fire him as its spokesperson, eh? Oh, hypocrisy, hypocrisy, such a slippery slope. It’s so hard to monitor all the ramblings of various celebrities AND people in your own political party, no? No.
What, you thought we’d end this without Newt Gingrich?
Well, old Newt “dead-campaign-in-the-water” Gingrich waded in Tuesday with commentary that took a shot at Robert De Niro. Yes, that De Niro. Oh, Scorsese, I so hope you’re watching all this.
Apparently, De Niro said this to a room full of Michelle Obama reception goers on Monday night:
“Callista Gingrich. Karen Santorum. Ann Romney. Now do you really think our country is ready for a white First Lady?” De Niro asked. The report said the crowd roared and someone yelled “No!” as De Niro asked, “Too soon, right?”
To which, Gingrich responded:
“What De Niro said last night was inexcusable and the president should apologize for him. It was at an Obama fundraiser, it is exactly wrong,” Gingrich said. “On behalf of both my wife, and on behalf of Karen Santorum and on behalf of Ann Romney and that is I think Robert De Niro is wrong. I think the country is ready for a new first lady and she doesn’t have to describe it in racial terms,” Gingrich said.
Hoo-boy. Well, Robert De Niro has married only African-American women, so he may be a bit biased, but it was still a pretty risky thing to say in public, even if he thinks it in private. The White House backed away from the comment yesterday, “We believe the joke was inappropriate,” said Olivia Alair, Michelle Obama’s press secretary.
Sure, De Niro probably crossed the line, but is Gingrich really the best one to lead the charge on this one? After all, he’s said of his own wives:
“She isn’t young enough or pretty enough to be the President’s wife.” Talking about his first wife after divorcing her.
And:
“I read Men Who Hate Women and the Women Who Love Them and I found frightening pieces that related to…my own life.”
Let’s not forget about the second wife, who after cheating on her with his current wife, told her he wanted to have an open marriage, a question he asked within 48 hours of giving a speech about family values.
It seems a little silly for Gingrich to come riding in to defend wives, when it seems pretty clear he’s done more to offend his various wives than anything De Niro could say now and possibly forever.
So, in the Republican effort and zeal to ring the hypocrisy bell, or to now attempt to lob a “Democrats War on Women” chant Obama’s way, it’s important to remember that there’s a difference between a war of words between entertainers, reality stars, and political pundits, and a war of ideals stemming from real candidates hoping to win the presidency now, and those who may hope to capture the golden ring in 2016. When you talk about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, taking aim at abortion and contraception, and a woman’s ability to serve her country citing their “emotions” as a cause for women’s roles to be diminished — well, you tell me who’s really at war with the fairer sex.
Here is the Republican’s latest attempt at creating fiction:
