YOU MAY BE AN ELITIST IF: Like Itchy and Scratchy, Gail Collins can tell which items are tacky and cheesy: // link // print // previous // next //
THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 2008
YOU MAY BE AN ELITIST IF: With a nod to Brother Foxworthy, you may be an elitist if: You cant figure out what is wrong with Gail Collins cheesy gun reference.
Before we get there, lets review the usual blather as Collins sneers, high-hats and eye-rolls her way through our current election. In todays column:
We learn that stealing the other guys slogan is tacky.
We learn that the soda was overpriced.
We learn that retired vice admiral Joe Sestak can sometimes make clumsy statements. (If we trust Collins quote, that is. We cant find through Nexis or Google.)
We learn that pro wrestling is fixed. (What a shame that Collins hasnt been!) We learn that a Tom Petty song is better than the theme song from Rocky.
As you know, this is the type of tedious drivel which drives every column by Collins. But then, we get to gaze at the soul of a malfunctioning, upper-class press elites. Collins knows all about tacky and cheesy. But she seems to be clueless on this:
To all appearances, Collins has no idea what memo Bill meant. She knows about the price of Sprite. But she doesnt know squat about this.
Did Obamas campaign play the race card during the early primaries? However you might answer that question, the memo in question is hardly a mystery. Unless you belong to a langorous crew which spends its time lolling about in a palace, offering remarks, like Inky and Scratchy, about which behaviors are tacky and cheesy. Whatever they think about his view, people who have followed this race know which memo Clinton meant. Paid a vast salary, Collins doesnt. But then, as palace dwellers all know, this race has gone on much too long.
Inside the palace, high-hats like Collins know one thinghow to sneer snidely. Which brings us around to her comment on guns. With appreciation to Brother Foxworthy, you may be a pseudo-liberal if you dont see the problem with this:
Darlings, in CollinsWorld, it was just cheesy! It was cheesy when Clinton discussed those lessons from Dad at the lake. You see, the lessons werent balletor piano. Therefore, they cant be discussed!
Some of you still may not see whats wrong with Collins High Judgment. Some on our team never will: Such people may be elitists! After all, it isnt like we havent seen this high class sneer in this manner before. Just remember the fatuous Rich, wetting his shorts when Brother Gore mentioned the rifle he owned as a child. (The rifle his father had given him. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/9/06 and 10/3/07.) In a similar vein, just remember the sneering Collins, mocking Gore when he dared to inquire about a sick, five-year-old child. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 4/3/08.
You may be an elitist if: You dont see whats wrong with these moments. In politics, noit isnt cheesy when you recall the things you did as a child with your dad. It isnt cheesy when you show some group of voters the ways in which you may understand the actual ways they may live. What follows isnt cheesy either, though Collins, hidden beneath her high hat, is too benighted to know it:
Darlings, it seems that may have been cheesy too! After all, that little newspaper is on the fringe, Collins snidely says.
Everyone knows about Brother Scaife, a major kook from back in the day. But wouldnt you know it? According to Burrelles, the paper in question isnt that little! Last year, it was third biggest paper in Pennsylvanianumber 68 in the nation. Sorry, but nothat just isnt little. Unless you dont care who wins.
Might we tell you what Clinton was doing when she discussed her father? When she went to that third-biggest newspaper? She was doing the things a person do if shes trying to win an election! This country is simply crawling with voters who are less fine than Collins, who knows how gruesome that theme song is. Their fathers taught them to shoot guns too. For the record, one of those people, mocked by Rich, now holds the Nobel Peace Prize.
But high-hat pseudo-liberals like Collins have been at this game a very long time. As any long-standing Dem might know, theyre masters at losing elections. In their hearts, what they love is the principled lossthe crushing 60-40 defeat, in which half-wits in high-hat Manhattan salons can see their vast superiority to the unwashed, gun-toting rubes who elected (sneer) Candidate X.
Theyve been at this game a very long timeand Democrats have the defeats to prove it. They know when the Pepsi was over-priced. Theyll take a moment to laugh at an admiral. And darlings, they simply abhor that song! But they dont know what memo Bill Clinton referred to. And theyll tell you Scaifes paper is little.
Collins has sneered her way through this race, rolling her eyes at all she surveys and complaining about those endless debates. (Nine years ago, she sneered at Gore when he asked about a sick child. Somehow, she forgot to say that her cohort had hissed and jeered for the full hour, in that press room.) But then, theyre in this game to sneer at the rubesto sneer at rubes wherever theyre found. Darlings! Its cheesy to talk about guns! To stop by that little rube paper!
TOMORROW: Keiths return
YOU MAY BE AN INSIDER PUNDIT IF: Meanwhile, you may be an insider pundit if: You understand this passage from David Broders new sleep-walking column. The Pundit Dean rattles two primal scripts. The first concerns straight-stuff McCain:
Two famous scripts are retyped here. They define a political era.
Lets start with the script about Clinton, in which the sleepy old Dean is barely speaking English. Clinton is a polarizing figure? If that means that many people hate her, Broders statement is accuratebut how does this reflect on her character? (Instead, might it reflect on all those kooks who typed up those murder tales?) Broder forgets to explain this. Meanwhile, well have to admit that we really dont know which obvious prevarications he means. Which lies does this tired old typist refer to? The one about the Cubs and the Yankees? For years, Broders cohort pimped it as her most famous lie. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 4/16/08.
But once a script has been locked into place, it virtually types itself. Nor is there the slightest need to justify what the script says. So it is with Broders statement that McCain is not assumed to be willing to sacrifice personal credibility to prevail in any contest. The Dean doesnt tell us who assumes thisnor does he say if their assumption is warranted. And this is odd, because lets be frank: John McCain basically lied through his teeth all through his last run for the White House.
He lied about the Confederate flaglater said that he had, for Gods sake. He lied about Bushs tax proposal. He ran a phone bank against Bush in Michigan, then openly lied about that. He reinvented his stand on abortion every time he opened his mouth. He kept telling a nasty joke about Gorea joke which was utterly bogus on the factual level.
Today, he lies about the things he said about Bushs tax plan back then. But a tired old man somehow hits the key which produces this praise for McCain.
Lets say it again: John McCain pretty much lied through his teeth all during his last campaign for the White House. Its in our archives, but you havent heard it, because Broders cohort prefers this taleand because fiery liberals at liberal journals have let Broders cohort recite it.
They also allowed all the lies about Gore. We hope their money spends good.