A NUT AND A CULT! Weve learned to push back at nuts like Liddy. Its time to push back at a Cult: // link // print // previous // next //
SATURDAY, MAY 30, 2009
A NUT AND A CULT: The lunacy of the past twenty years has been on vivid display this week. Finally, Crackpot Liddy spoke up, on his nationally syndicated radio program. He discussed the version of Judge Sotomayor which crowds his tormented, crabbed brain:
Truly, thats just stunning.
Weve long used terms like gender nut to describe public figures like Liddy. And yes, these people have played a very large role in our discourse in the past twenty years.
Liddy, of course, has seldom failed. We all recall his ludicrous conduct in the wake of the Mission Accomplished speech; he went on Hardball to ooh and aah about the appearance of Bushs manly parts in that form-fitting flight suit (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/4/09). By that time, the liberal world had recovered from the sleeping sickness of the 1990s. When Liddy behaved like such a buffoon, many liberals noticed.
But then, Liddy had played the gender nut on Hardball four years earlier. In November 1999, Matthews had Liddy on the show to recite the press corps scripted complaints about Naomi Wolf. (Wolf was advising the Gore campaign, as the press had recently learned.) Gender-nut Matthews popped the question to his crackpot, gender-nut friend: Can we believe Al Gore growing into this protean new person, this new today's man-woman, whatever the hell he's trying to become? Gore was becoming the new man-woman! Thus cued, Liddy knew the relevant scriptingscripting which was being repeated all over the mainstream press:
Everybody knew they must say it! Al Gore hired a woman (or a girl) to teach him how to be a man! Matthews quickly evoked Roseanne Roseannadanna and exulted at the way the press had been able to catch [Gore] with this girl. With their lunacy thus further inspired, the boys were soon saying this:
Imagine! Gore had worn a brown suitand the suitcoat had three buttons! Matthews, and the rest of his world, spent the month of November talking in these crackpot ways about these crackpot topics. (He told the joke about Albert the waiter on five separate Hardball programs.) By the end of the month, he was comparing Gores three-button suits to the buttons Navy guys wear on their pants, which he described as some sort of sexual come-on to women. Throughout the month, Wolf was attacked, in remarkably smutty ways, all over the mainstream press. (She looked like Lewinsky, of course.)
These people were blatantly out of their mindsbut just name the liberal who said boo about it! We know of two major pundits who defended Wolf during this sexual trashing. Their names are Safire and Kristol.
Ten years later, Liddy is playing the crackpot again. By now, though, the liberal world routinely takes note of such crackpot behavior. (The mainstream press still looks away.) That said, its stunning to see how demented these people areand to see how many are tragic non-survivors of mid-century East Coast Catholicism. (Growing up in Hoboken, Liddy attended Catholic schools right through his graduation from college.)
We grew up East Coast Irish Catholic ourselves. Most East Coast Catholics have moved beyond that eras unfortunate, confused gender culture. Unfortunately, the several dozen who didnt move on all play major roles in the media, with Maureen Dowd as their broken-souled regent.
Back to 1999: When they trashed Wolf for a month, the liberal world ran off and hid in the woods. Today, the liberal world stands and reacts to a great deal of such conductgender-based and otherwise. But how intelligently do we react? Last night, Ed Shultz moaned and complained because Obama was walking back Sotomayors commenther now-famous 32 words:
Thats great. But Obama comes from the side of the tracks where you end up a widely respected president. Presumably with Sotomayors consent, Obama merely stated the obvious: that one lone statement, as it was rendered, is pretty much hard to defend. (Thats why Sam Stein said she made her statement in a poorly formed rhetorical way. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/28/09.) Theres a great deal more to be said about that statementfor example, about the longer speech from which it has been so lovingly plucked. But when Schultz sees a bunch of loudmouth crackpots, he wants to get in a shouting match with them. He gets mad at Obama for saying the obvious, presumably with Sotomayors consentthat the statement, as rendered, doesnt express the way she has lived her life.
To his credit, Schultz has been running an adult, if pedestrian, cable program. To his vast credit, he talks about a range of issues, even those which effect the interests of average American people! But many Obama supporters dont seem to have the slightest idea why hes so widely respected. In part, Obama is widely respected because he does give the occasional inch. He gives the inch when giving that inch makes fairly obvious sense.
As they were rendered, Sotomayors 32 words are hard to affirm. Theres nothing wrong with saying that, as she herself will apparently do when shes asked to explain what she meant. But the real inanity continues to escape the people who run our public discoursethe inanity thats involved in our endless tolerance for The Cult of the Offhand Comment.
This week, The Cult has seized on 32 wordsout of a 54-year life. They rummaged all through those 54 years, looking for something to scream about; they seized upon those 32 words, then began to bellow and wail. Weve let The Cult play this game a long timethey used it to send George Bush to the White Housejust as we once let those gender nuts act out their sick, blatant lunacy.
Weve learned to challenge the gender nuts now. Its time to tell this moronic Cult that its days are numbered here too. This type of analysis is dumb beyond dumb. Its time to say this to the public.
Visit our incomparable archives: For a five-part report on the trashing of Wolf, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/10/03.