National Review Freaks Out

The National Review’s Harridan in Chief is not happy with McCain’s classy tribute to Obama at the NAACP convention.

This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Journalism, Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to National Review Freaks Out

  1. gage says:

    I remember liking John McCain very much in 1999, but was appalled at how he seemed to roll over for his own Rovian-style “swiftboating” in 2000. He is magnanimous in this clip and it reminds me of what I used to like about him. It’s unfortunate that he is so wrong on Iraq and, perhaps, Iran.

  2. BobbyG says:

    Civility is anathema to the Repu’ublicist Party.

  3. gage says:

    McCain might consider voting for Obama.

  4. Hugo says:

    Bobby G, civility is so foreign to you that you can’t even name the Party of Lincoln, one of the world’s oldest political parties, by its right name.

    gage: Rove had nothing to do with the “swiftboating” of 2004 (not “2000” as you suggest). I know, because I did have. Rove didn’t invent campaign fixing, and isn’t the compendium of all transgressions along those lines. If you want to take the trouble to track down particular Rove tactics and make them stick, then I’ll certainly respect that; I’m an historian. But the guy is like Michelin’s Bibendum — blown out of proportion. There’s a reason why President Bush dubbed him “turd blossom”.

    Jon, I can’t locate K.J. Lopez’s derision, from the links provided. Calling her “Harridan in Chief” may, I’m sure you know, get you into some hot water, as we never call, say, Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank, “Harridan in Chief”, etc. I should think that “Battleaxe in Chief” might do, except it’s not quite foul enough.

    So be it.

  5. gage says:

    Hugo, please reread my post.

  6. BobbyG says:

    @Hugo –

    Spare me, bro’ It’s snark, a play on “Ba’athists,” which is what the Bu’ush Repu’ublicists resemble in significant ways. Yeah, they’ve drifted so far from the principles of Lincoln, the don’t deserve to be called by their traditional name. Why is why I use the moniker I do.

  7. Hugo says:

    BobbyG, where’re you coming from with that. I’ve followed Carlin’s career pretty closely for 35 years, and a couple of the, say, half-dozen most apparent things about his observational humor, are: that he was one of the country’s most prominent atheists; and that his atheistic observations usually were based on his experiences of the perceived hypocrisy of the nuns who taught him. A favorite gambit, for him, was to tell stories of his flummoxing the nuns, of painting them into theological corners. If you don’t to what I’m referring, my friend, then you really got to catch more Carlin, because it’s a lot of his best stuff, going back years.

  8. Hugo says:

    gage, upon a rereading, I see that you are right and I was wrong to pick on one of your cleverly several meanings. I guess I just got into the rut of assuming that wherever the Internet or late-night television are concerned, the snidery always redounds to the least charitable interpretation.

    I apologize for my superficiality.

Leave a Reply