Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Found this on youtube somehow. Thought it was funny to see Newt Gingrich get all moral:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yf_0...acFOAAAAAAACAA

He's absolutely right. Is this the most pressing issue in the presidential race? Hardly. Why is it asked then? To take out another target liberals fear.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

He's absolutely right. Is this the most pressing issue in the presidential race? Hardly. Why is it asked then? To take out another target liberals fear.

This is the man who was cheating on his wife while leading the charge to impeach Clinton? The man who got his wife to divorce him while she was riddled and weak with cancer? The idea that this man puts on the mantle of unadulterated purity, of some kind of virtuous defender is just silly.

We all err. It's not the end of the world. And I get it: some people sometimes fall out of love and fall in love with someone else and can't figure out how to deal with the marriage that has now ended because they fell in love with someone else. But when you are a member of a party that portrays itself as "moral," as defenders of some "Christian morality" or something and then you too err, you can't expect others to just accept your act and righteous plea for privacy and understanding.

Newt is known for not exactly being chaste and going after Clinton. That's the thrust of my having posted the video. I found his act funny. It was well written. It was also cynical.

I should have been clearer about my intentions. Then again you probably surmised them but hey, anything to perpetuate the idea that conservatives are persecuted.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

This is the man who was cheating on his wife while leading the charge to impeach Clinton? The man who got his wife to divorce him while she was riddled and weak with cancer? The idea that this man puts on the mantle of unadulterated purity, of some kind of virtuous defender is just silly.

We all err. It's not the end of the world. And I get it: some people sometimes fall out of love and fall in love with someone else and can't figure out how to deal with the marriage that has now ended because they fell in love with someone else. But when you are a member of a party that portrays itself as "moral," as defenders of some "Christian morality" or something and then you too err, you can't expect others to just accept your act and righteous plea for privacy and understanding.

Newt is known for not exactly being chaste and going after Clinton. That's the thrust of my having posted the video. I found his act funny. It was well written. It was also cynical.

I should have been clearer about my intentions. Then again you probably surmised them but hey, anything to perpetuate the idea that conservatives are persecuted.

Good points. Like many other beacons of christian morality (catholic priests who sexually abuse little boys, Falwell, etc) he's a hypocrite. I knew during the Lewinsky thing that it was more about getting Clinton out of office than morals and I was against the GOP trying to impeach Clinton over BS like that. I'm not concerned with who Clinton receives sexual favors from, and I'm not concerned with who Gingrich divorces or marries. It has nothing to do with balancing the budget or my freedoms or about anything I want the government to improve on. Which, again, is why it was ridiculous to open a presidential debate over jr high bs like that. There's real issues to discuss.

[Enoch Root]

Reginald D Hunter (an American comedian) on Batman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l1PMVvfjDM

[TracyCoxx]

RIP Andrew Breitbart,
you will be missed!

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

RIP Andrew Breitbart,
you will be missed!

I wish an early death upon no one, but it seems to me that anyone who would miss the provocateur Andrew Breitbart's uncivil, vitriolic, and patently false "contributions" to public discourse is revealing things about herself or himself that I would think that person would want to keep private.

Alex Pareene, writing on Salon.com, categorizes Breitbart's "contributions" quite well:

• Scalp-hunting

Pareene describes this as "the elevation and demonization of some usually obscure liberal figure done in the hopes of getting them nationally shamed and fired." As an example, he cites the Shirley Sherrod video -- which "blew up in Breitbart's face -- and notes that this kind of false demonization is so much more successful when you do it "with dead people, like Saul Alinsky" (whose famous book, notably, is required reading for many of the Tea Party leaders, and not to "know one's enemy" but as an organizing guide).

• The false "proof"

Pareene notes, "It is a sad fact of online publishing that some ridiculous portion of readers only read the headlines and look at the pictures before moving on." He describes how Breitbart's websites exploit this fact: "'OBAMA MARCHES WITH NEW BLACK PANTHERS,' or something like that, goes the headline. The story can?t support the claim. It doesn?t matter. The headline means it?s true for the majority of the readership."

Notably, Breitbart's last, great "contribution" to our political discourse has just hit the streets. It's the video that he boasted would take down the president. In it, Obama -- then the president of Harvard Law Review -- is speaking at a peaceful rally on the Harvard campus in support of Derek Bell, the first black professor at the Law School. The rally was called in support of getting Harvard to offer tenure to black professors.

The full video was shown on Sean Hannity's show on Fox "News" Channel. He had Breitbart.com editor-in-chief Joel Pollak on as a guest. Pollak described Bell as the "Jeremiah Wright of academia."

You see, once you've said that, and counting on no one to pay much more attention, you've got the "headline" Breitbart was after. It's a headline that throws a bomb into civil discourse and upsets real discussion about real issues.

Yeah, Tracy Coxx, you should be very proud of your view that he will be "missed."

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Notably, Breitbart's last, great "contribution" to our political discourse has just hit the streets. It's the video that he boasted would take down the president. In it, Obama -- then the president of Harvard Law Review -- is speaking at a peaceful rally on the Harvard campus in support of Derek Bell, the first black professor at the Law School. The rally was called in support of getting Harvard to offer tenure to black professors.

Harvard should absolutely not deny tenure based on race. At the same time, they should not grant tenure based on race. Both those actions are by definition, racist.

But anyways, I'll grant that it's important to Obama that a black professor have tenure. It's interesting that he throws all his support behind this guy though. Is it because he identifies with prof Bell, or is it just because prof. Bell happens to be the only choice at the time and any black professor would do?