home

Average Americans and the Conservative Faithful

Speaking of Joe the Plumber ... the conservative faithful continue to manufacture evidence to support a charge once aggressively advanced by the McCain campaign: that liberal Democrats and NBC News have an elitist's disdain for ordinary people like Joe.

Next to pictures of Joe the P, Miss California, and a couple of teabaggers, Fox Nation yesterday asked the front page question: "Why Does NBC News Attack Average Americans?" The question linked to a short post that links to a muddled Newsbusters rant -- parsed nicely by News Hounds -- accusing David Schuster of advancing an "attack campaign" against Carrie Prejean, the "average American" who recently expressed her support of "opposite marriage" to Miss USA judges and a broadcast audience.

John Hawkins at Pajamas Media similarly complains of the "intrusive, public scrutiny" given to Joe the Plumber, "a private citizen who merely asked an inconvenient question to Barack Obama." Ordinary Joe and Average Carrie: icons of the real America who are unfairly attacked by liberals. Come again? [more ...]

When ordinary, average people enter a public arena, they expose themselves to public comment. Whether Joe the Plumber posed his question to candidate Obama as a "private citizen" or as a Republican plant, he asked it in front of a camera at a public event. Now that Joe is a speaker much in demand at campaign rallies and teabagging events, it is unreasonable to argue that his words and actions are immunized from scrutiny by his claim to be average or ordinary.

The argument that "average American" Carrie Prejean, Miss California, merits no criticism is even less persuasive. Prejean enters competitive pageants expecting to be judged. She scarcely has cause to complain if the mostly incoherent answer she gave on a nationally televised network broadcast has been judged by its audience. Taking advantage of the publicity that her answer generated, Prejean, like Joe the P, hasn't shied from the public spotlight.

Just as it isn't unfair to criticize the political positions that Prejean publicly advances, it isn't elitist to notice that Prejean has difficulty articulating a rational position.

And when Van Susteren asks her "what kind of rights that you think that a man and woman should have that maybe two men, two women, shouldn't have," Prejean comes up empty: "Well, I'm not a politician, so I can't give you an answer to that."

Perhaps that's why the National Organization for Marriage, with which Prejean seemed to be forming a strong alliance, has now backed away from her with the uncharitable statement:

"She is a spokesperson for her own views, as anyone watching her can tell."

Convinced that the liberal media unfairly attacks ordinary people like Joe and Carrie for their expression of ordinary opinions, Hawkins holds a mirror up to history and declares that "the right needs to play as dirty as the left." Conservatives, he contends, have done themselves no good by being "above it all" and engaging in "fair play" in politics. Hawkins must be unfamiliar with Karl Rove. And the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. And Richard Nixon. And history.

Here's proof that Hawkins resides in Bizarro World:

Complaining bitterly about the Democrats’ “politics of personal destruction” or bellyaching that the media doesn’t treat us fairly ultimately accomplishes nothing. The public doesn’t care. Using the exact same tactics against the left that it uses against the right may very well be effective.

Hawkins urges the right to dig up dirt on the personal lives of Keith Olbermann and Maureen Dowd. He also suggests attacks on "poverty pimps like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the NAACP." Lovely man, Hawkins. You'd think the right would want to wash its hands of the Rovian tactics that turned off nearly everyone in the country, but Hawkins is certain that public apathy about conservative bellyaching justifies dirty politics.

Do you suppose ordinary, average, real Americans think smearing journalists with accusations about their private lives makes conservatism an attractive ideology? Someone should ask Joe and Carrie.

< A Call For More National Holidays -- But Not to Celebrate the Confederacy | Why We Are Sports Fans >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    if, by "ordinary", (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by cpinva on Sat May 02, 2009 at 09:44:06 AM EST
    you mean people who are loudly and publicly incoherent, then yes, i suppose i do "disdain" them. this would, almost by definition, be the vast majority of what passes for right-wing conservatives these days; they have no clue what they're talking about, but they don't know it when they don't see it!

    "joe" and carrie are merely the latest itterations of a phenomenom that began with richard nixon's "silent majority" (perhaps silent because they didn't have a clue?), finally percolating into the moral decay that is charles krauthammer.

    it is my duty, as a good american, to disdain these people. perpetually and willfully ignorant as they are, i would be horribly remiss, in my citizenly obligations, were i to do otherwise.

    just because someone is loudly stupid, doesn't mean i have to take them seriously.

    Well, (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by bocajeff on Sat May 02, 2009 at 10:15:19 AM EST
    There have been studies and polls (look em up) that show that journalists do not reflect the readership. Journalists tend to be more single, childless, non-practicing religious, liberal leaning, and more college educated than their readership. They don't live in fly-over country.

    So, no matter how hard they try how couldn't their be some disconnect toward 'average' Americans.

    I've always maintained that by simply having the mass media move from the coasts and be based in Omaha you would see the news change.

    It's all in your assumptions (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by ricosuave on Sat May 02, 2009 at 10:27:28 AM EST
    You assume that "ordinary americans" are defined based on some mathematical averaging, and that the beliefs or opinions of ordinary americans are somehow derived from that.

    Conservatives start with a set of beliefs that they decide are ordinary (they would say "natural" or "american" or "hometown" or "mainstreet" or whatever).  Anyone who holds those beliefs is an ordinary american, anyone who does not is either elitist or foreign.  It doesn't matter if, in actuality, there are only a handful of people who hold those beliefs.  It doesn't matter if the person who holds those beliefs is a multi-billioniare, trustifarian immigrant.  If they hold the beliefs, they are "ordinary" and "average americans."

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by TheRealFrank on Sat May 02, 2009 at 01:09:27 PM EST
    When conservatives say "the average American" they mean "anyone who agrees with us".

    Using terms like "elitist" to describe people who disagree with you is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

    It's like when conservatives like to talk about "European elites" (meaning the democratically elected leaders in Europe). It doesn't mean anything, it's just a general derogatory term for them. It's especially funny when they complain about tax increases for the rich, and "redistributing the wealth". Wait a minute, aren't the rich the "elite"?


    Parent

    Does the ordinary American have (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by oculus on Sat May 02, 2009 at 10:32:14 AM EST
    breast implants.  And, if the answer is yes, are the pd. for by a beauty contest?

    Average Carrie is just as real (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by scribe on Sat May 02, 2009 at 11:02:55 AM EST
    as the fake bust the California pageant committee bought for her to help her win, and just as ordinary as all the rest of us who have expensive medical care foisted upon us at no charge.

    As to Joe the Plumber, it needs be remembered that he was a plant, likely sent out by someone close to (though not necessarily of) the McCain campaign, and is related (grandson by marriage) to Charles Keating (great friend of McCain).  I wouldn't let him fix the pipes in my worst enemy's house, 'cause he's likely as incoherent with a wrench as he is talking.

    Fake Bust? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Slado on Sat May 02, 2009 at 12:04:51 PM EST
    You make a very unserious slander against her to make what point?

    About 45 of the 50 girls up there had fake breasts from the footage I saw.  I actually watched some of it with my dad who is a plastic surgeon and he pointed out the likely candidates for what is called a breast augmentation in the medical community.  He was not making any judgements mind you just offering his professional opinion.

    When did liberals start making judgements on the choices women make towards their bodies?

    Parent

    of course, (none / 0) (#33)
    by cpinva on Sat May 02, 2009 at 03:17:53 PM EST
    when someone who, however incoherently, derides something as being not real, turns out to be not-so-real herself, then she practically invites criticism of her appearance.

    Parent
    Well. (4.57 / 7) (#1)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 02, 2009 at 06:46:44 AM EST
    Joe and Carrie are ridiculous. And using them as examples of this charge is ridiculous.  However.

    I must say that liberals do indeed often have "an elitist's disdain for ordinary people" if "ordinary people" is a euphemism for what I think it is. This was one of the top lessons I learned during this presidential election.

    If there was anything I learned in this (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Anne on Sat May 02, 2009 at 10:18:17 AM EST
    presidential election, it was that Barack Obama is not a liberal.

    At least, I'm assuming that the "elitist" attitude you refer to is one you are assigning to Obama, and tieing to the ill-considered remarks about the bitter people clinging to their guns and religion, which sort of spilled over into the West Virginia primary, and so on.  You might even be assigning him that label based on the attitudes so clearly on display that showed his contempt for women - I don't know - all I do know is that those attitudes were not and are not liberal attitudes.

    I still see some tendencies by Obama to condescend to people he thinks might not be as smart as he is, or who dare to question his wonderfulness.

    To me, that says something about him, and his personality and his mindset; it does not say anything about liberals.  I would argue that the real liberals were the ones who came to the defense of the people about whom Obama seemed to be speaking - they had open minds and could see that geography and economic status and gender were not reasons to demean people or demonize them or condescend to them.

    The Obama defenders were, in my opinion, just following Obama's lead, taking the position that anything he said and anything he did had to be defended at all costs.

    When Joe the Plumber and Carrie Prejean stepped into the spotlight and voiced theor opinions, people responded, for and against, and in some cases, with indifference.  Conservatives, en masse, saw an opportunity to turn up the wattage on the spotlight and make them representatives for their points of view.  

    Well, here's the thing: being a liberal may mean I am more willing to listen to all points of view, and be open to what others think and believe, but it doesn't mean I have to agree, and it doesn't mean that on every issue I have to adopt a piece or a part of another view in order to prove I am a liberal.  I may, as I listen to a range of views, come to tweak my own, but I do that when it makes sense to me, when it fits with my core beliefs, and not because I have a misguided understanding that I am required to in order to maintain my standing as a liberal.

    This guy who has his back up over the treatment of Joe and Carrie has made a nearly incoherent argument.  It isn't surprising that he has made it about attacking the critics - that's a standard tactic - nor is it surprising that he places the blame on liberals, who now "deserve" to be investigated and smeared; what does surprise me a little is that people are falling for it.


    Parent

    No, I wasn't talking about Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 02, 2009 at 11:08:30 AM EST
    I was talking about the many 'progressives' I encountered during the presidential campaign that thought it was OK to trash poor, uneducated, working class people and make fun of them - instead of helping them. I consider that a very elitist attitude. Many liberals have this attitude I've learned.

    Parent
    The 2008 election was indeed eye-opening. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by lucky leftie on Sat May 02, 2009 at 02:02:07 PM EST
    What a shock, to learn that some liberals are as biased and intolerant as their right-wing counterparts.  At the same time, some voters I believed would never support a woman or an african-american candidate did.  I was disabused of a few of my own cockamamie biases, and that's good.  There are good decent people on both sides of the political spectrum (and in both parties) whose views aren't necessarily represented by publicity hounds like Joe and Carrie.  

    Parent
    Completely agree! (none / 0) (#25)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 02, 2009 at 02:09:22 PM EST
    If there was anything I learned (none / 0) (#36)
    by jondee on Sat May 02, 2009 at 03:32:00 PM EST
    during the primary,it was that being combative towards a political opponent regardless of their gender and beyond-iconic status, does not necessarily signify a "contempt" for a monolithic swathe of humanity; thats a reckless, embittered generalization that goes even beyond semi-careless remarks about Americans and their guns and old time religion.

    Parent
    The bit about people (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jondee on Sat May 02, 2009 at 03:43:11 PM EST
    many of whom only supported Obama because they thought he had the best chance of keeping the neocon thugs away from the button for four years, all buying into this mythic, infallible "wonderfulness" is another stupid generalization, that I thought had gotten played out six months ago.

    Parent
    sure - reckless and embittered. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 02, 2009 at 03:35:28 PM EST
    right.

    we should probably add humorless.

    Parent

    I agree (4.50 / 8) (#3)
    by jbindc on Sat May 02, 2009 at 08:01:34 AM EST
    I always thought "liberals", by their very definition, were open to more than one point of view, but after the last election, I have realized that they are no more open to other ideas that don't fit in with their "PC" view of the world than conservatives are.  No one is saying we shouldn't educate and advocate for what we believe is the better world view, but I've seen many "liberals" on blogs, on TV, and in real life who make fun of conservatives and call them names, or adopt the Olbermann / Maddow technique (made famous by 7th graders everywhere)of using the "teabagging" comment and thinking they are being clever.

    I'm not sure when name calling and looking down on people with different beliefs started passing for political discourse or liberal values, but it has now. What's funny is so-called "liberals" stroke out when conservatives look down on people who look different than them, but feel it's ok to look down on people who think differently than them.

    Parent

    Maybe that's because (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by oldpro on Sat May 02, 2009 at 10:30:56 AM EST
    people can't help how they "look" but there is no excuse for willful ignorance...not among ordinary people.

    In this country, we ordinary people have access to an education, lifelong...to books, television, film, theatre, art, dance, sports, music, newspapers, bloggers, friends and neighbors.  We continually make choices which either expand or contract our views of the world.

    Deliberately and continually making bad choices is nothing to celebrate.

    "How people think" is often about their values and their religious upbringing.  When ordinary people let themselves be conned into victimhood by the religious right, the bankers, the Republicans, against their own economic interests, hard not to disdain them.

    So, yes.  And no.

    I cop to impatience with stupidity and willful ignorance.  Explains why I left the Catholic Church at age eleven.

    OK...pile on....

    Parent

    Well (2.00 / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Sun May 03, 2009 at 07:00:31 AM EST
    ...people can't help how they "look" but there is no excuse for willful ignorance...not among ordinary people.

    If you remember watching the coverage of the many, many never-seen-anything-like-it Obama rallies, and listening to many of the supporters being interviewed, you saw the same thing. (Remember the lady on MSNBC who was so happy that Obama won because it meant her mortgage was going to get paid?) Of the many supporters you saw being interviewed, how many could really identify the issues or Obama's positions on them? (Not many).  They just knew he was "cool" and was "change" from the rest of the candidates.

    Ignorance pervaded on both sides this year.....

    Parent

    Do you feel the same way (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 02, 2009 at 03:13:34 PM EST
    about the urban poor and uneducated?

    Parent
    No. Nor do I romanticize them. (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by oldpro on Sat May 02, 2009 at 04:04:44 PM EST
    No doubt some of the urban poor are willfully ignorant, although I think most are undermined by other problems, compounded by gangs, urban violence and too-big schools where kids get lost or bullied.  Just imagine how hard it would be to buck the homies if they gave you a bad time for 'acting white' if you got an A in English.  Pretty tough.

    Parent
    And by "bad time"... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Thanin on Sat May 02, 2009 at 04:14:21 PM EST
    you mean beating the sh!t out of them or outright killing them.

    Parent
    Sure. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 02, 2009 at 05:31:12 PM EST
    All I'm saying is that the problems (and behaviors) of the poor, uneducated, and ignorant are largely the same regardless of color and regardless of the whether they are urban or rural. Yet, liberals seem keen on their elitist stereotyping of rural poor folks in ways they would never do to urban poor folks. Just something I've noticed lately.

    Parent
    The people doing these things... (4.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Thanin on Sat May 02, 2009 at 07:33:28 PM EST
    arent liberal.  Kos isnt liberal... you see, just being anti republican doesnt make you liberal.

    Parent
    Yup....and kos was a Republican (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by oldpro on Sat May 02, 2009 at 09:36:18 PM EST
    before he was a Democrat.  Sheesh...

    Parent
    I agree. And as I grew up (none / 0) (#49)
    by oldpro on Sat May 02, 2009 at 05:51:49 PM EST
    rural and poor, I think about that.  Still, rural and poor we were NOT city savvy or streetsmart.  I found you needed different skills to survive, depending on place and background.  But in either place, the route out was education...and still is.

    Parent
    false equivalence (3.50 / 2) (#34)
    by Thanin on Sat May 02, 2009 at 03:29:27 PM EST
    Theres a difference between a poor AA growing up in a slum and a middle class white Christian heterosexual male, whose never once felt discrimination spouting limbaugh talking points of anti choice, anti equal marriage, anti equal pay BS.

    Parent
    not what I was equating (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 02, 2009 at 03:34:34 PM EST
    but thanks for playing.

    I was asking whether the commenter felt the say way about poor, ignorant urban folk and poor, ignorant rural folk in terms of their 'taking responsbility' to educate themselves no matter what.

    Parent

    Its hard to condemn kos and olbermann... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Thanin on Sat May 02, 2009 at 04:07:44 PM EST
    for being insulting when you yourself are condescending to posters that offer posts counter to yours.

    Parent
    That's funny coming from you Thanin! (none / 0) (#45)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 02, 2009 at 05:29:24 PM EST
    Thanks for making me laugh.

    Parent
    Your welcome... (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Thanin on Sat May 02, 2009 at 07:24:03 PM EST
    of course Ive never condemned anyone for insulting republicans.  You on the other hand are trying to take the moral high ground and condemn others for being insulting.  Its just hypocritical is all... so apparently being a hypocrite is ok with you, as long as youre the one doing it?

    Parent
    I draw the line, Molly, at (none / 0) (#48)
    by oldpro on Sat May 02, 2009 at 05:47:17 PM EST
    "no matter what."  And in either location, urban or rural.  But as another posting on IQ/intelligence from BTD pointed out, what one practices (and practices and practices) becomes the norm, the skill, the talent of that person.  And choices must be made.  Or not.

    Trying to remember Monroe and Goldman's book...Brothers (Black and Poor...) about 12 young black men in a Chicago project and the various choices they make and where those choices lead them...one to Harvard.  Reminds me of another book whose name I cannot remember...written by a college-educated brother about his incarcerated brother and his attempts to understand how they could have the same background and turn out so differently.  The jailed brother, as I recall, told him that the difference between them was his own inability to defer gratification.

    Rings true.  There's a skill that should be focused on in educating poor youngsters.

    Parent

    Well, then, we're in agreement I think. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 02, 2009 at 05:52:34 PM EST
    BTW, how did the horseback riding go?

    Parent
    Ummm....sorry....the horseback (none / 0) (#62)
    by oldpro on Sat May 02, 2009 at 09:34:43 PM EST
    riding was someone else....

    Parent
    Disagree (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Repack Rider on Sat May 02, 2009 at 10:30:57 AM EST
    Failing to ridicule the ridiculous would be a sin of omission.

    How could one NOT point and laugh at the pathetic Astroturf attempt at teabagging?

    What's funny is so-called "liberals" stroke out when conservatives look down on people who look different than them, but feel it's ok to look down on people who think differently than them.

    Because "liberals" (i.e. "strawmen") make fun of people who don't think like them, they are equally as bad as conservatives, who apparently are never guilty of that crime.  And to prove your point, you make fun of people who don't think the way you do.

    (Mr. Burns voice)  Excellent!

    Parent

    i think i know (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by skippybkroo on Sat May 02, 2009 at 11:43:33 AM EST
    i'm not sure when name calling and looking down on people with different beliefs started passing for political discourse

    i believe it started when rush limbaugh began using the term "femi-nazi" and when michael savage starting saying "liberalism is a disease" and when ann coulter suggested the 9/11 terrorists should have smashed into the ny times building...etc. etc etc.

    i'm also tired of righteous indignation on the part of the hardly-ever-right wing that rises up simply because the left snickers at the right's ignorant useage of a dirty phrase to describe themselves (and make no mistake, the right were the ones who first used the phrase "tea-bagging" when talking about their top-down organized demonstrations).

    Parent

    No, it didn't start nor end there. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 02, 2009 at 01:08:59 PM EST
    Kos, Olbermann, and their minions are mirror images of Limbaugh, Coulter and their minions.

    It's prevalent on both sides. And wrong on both sides.

    Parent

    Well. (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 02, 2009 at 02:41:03 PM EST
    You know what they say about opinions - like other things, everyone has one.

    My perspective on what's equivalent is different than yours. IMO, Keith and Markos and their ilk are just as ridiculous as their opposites. No need to invoke High Broderism or any other covering semantic.

    Parent

    Um, clutching of pearls? Those weaker of mind? (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 02, 2009 at 05:34:09 PM EST
    Yeah, OK, I suppose your way is thoughtful and compelling - well, not to me I guess. To each his/her own. I guess your mind is too strong for me to understand. Bye now.

    Parent
    I can see why you like Olbermann so much (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 02, 2009 at 06:19:33 PM EST
    You sound just like him, oh strong-minded and logical great one! ;-(

    Maybe a special comment is a-comin'?

    Parent

    Definitely didn't disappoint. (1.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 02, 2009 at 06:57:46 PM EST
    I think you're definitely in the running for Keith's spot! Should he ever keel over at some point and spare us from his hyperbolic, self-important screeds and vacuous nonsense, that is.

    Have a great evening DA!

    Parent

    Hmm, ad hominems attacks. Impressive... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Thanin on Sat May 02, 2009 at 07:28:51 PM EST
    darn, (1.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 02, 2009 at 07:48:26 PM EST
    and here I was trying so hard just to impress you thanin.

    :) good night!

    Parent

    You so silly. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Thanin on Sat May 02, 2009 at 08:11:20 PM EST
    It depends on the (none / 0) (#30)
    by JamesTX on Sat May 02, 2009 at 02:51:00 PM EST
    context. Right now, liberals are "right" because conservatives have an unfair advantage and have manipulated the institutions of the society to an unfair bias. Limbaugh is "wrong", because he excessively supports more of the same -- moving further in the direction that alienates half the population and serves the peculiar interests of the half that support it. Kos and Olbermann are
    "right", because the are pushing back against that bias. If our society's institutions were balanced, then your evaluation would be valid. But the point here is that conservative excesses have biased the system to favor only half of the population, so right and wrong in the way you are using them have a more relative meaning. Anything that reduces the bias which has resulted in roughly half of the population getting their way at the expense of the other half is "right".

    Much of the rhetoric that is attributed to liberals is really the construction of right-wing propagandists. They are straw man tactics. The real difference between liberals and conservatives is their contrasting views on authoritarianism. By keeping the debate centered less fundamental issues like PC-ness and other liberal "causes" which are actually created and sustained by the conservative media machine, the real underlying differences are rarely brought to forum. Instead, our capacity for discourse is kept occupied by "causes" which are not really first on the liberal list, like "PC". The strategy works, because we never actually get to the things that matter.

    Parent

    The discussion has become convoluted. (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 02, 2009 at 02:58:41 PM EST
    My only point was that, yes, I see and hear a lot of liberals that are indeed elitist (not in the way the repubs use the term perhaps). They are elitist in a different way than conservatives are. But they are still elitist in my opinion. Anytime I see the top progressive blogs talking about rural working class people in terms like 'trailer trash' and 'crackers' then, yes, I'll say they're elitist. And they did this in spades. And they think it's funny. This is no different than stereotyping and generalizing about 'urban' folks as ignorant or criminals, etc.

    That's all.

    Parent

    no populous is devoid of contempt for populouses (none / 0) (#65)
    by of1000Kings on Sun May 03, 2009 at 02:39:05 PM EST
    other than their own...

    it's almost natural, perhaps, for human beings to have an affinity for others like themselves, a polarity, even...

    it goes without saying that in order to favour one populous over another you must  have a bit of contempt for the 'other'...

    contempt usually shows up in elitism, at least in my social experiences.

    Parent

    Hmm! (none / 0) (#13)
    by Politalkix on Sat May 02, 2009 at 11:00:48 AM EST
    Some (not all) "liberals" do indeed have "an elitists disdain for ordinary people". Some of these "liberals" and "feminists" also spent the greater part of the 1990s trashing Paula Jones and Linda Tripp for their "looks".

    Parent
    Looks like the conservative media (4.25 / 4) (#2)
    by snstara on Sat May 02, 2009 at 07:55:57 AM EST
    are having their "Leave Britney aloooooone!!!" moment.  

    And Dr. Molly, you have a good point.  Appalachia & West Virginia come to mind...

    These days, Is Bob Somerby... (none / 0) (#11)
    by EL seattle on Sat May 02, 2009 at 10:40:59 AM EST
    ... considered to be part of the conservative faithful? His recent writings (start with his latest entry and then get caught up on your back issues in his archives) suggest that many contemporary liberals/progressives might consider him to be not-one-of-us.  

    Or maybe it's true that there are a lot of rubes out there on both sides of the political spectrum.

    yes. (none / 0) (#17)
    by cpinva on Sat May 02, 2009 at 11:27:16 AM EST
    Or maybe it's true that there are a lot of rubes out there on both sides of the political spectrum.


    Parent
    Joe the plumber really makes my mind fly. (none / 0) (#12)
    by joze46 on Sat May 02, 2009 at 10:55:32 AM EST
    Please forgive me for rambling on, but this stuff with Conservatives and the legal stuff in term of actions by some reasons Joe the plumber really makes my mind fly. I am a rookie at this legal stuff. I am sure Joe is too. Plus my daughter started to take an interest in the forensics science drawing me in too, really getting interested in this legal blog.  

    Anyway, an issue currently in motion is the selection of a Supreme Court justice. But further how is the Chief Justice selected? It seems they do not always promote from within. One wonders about that.  

    Something I really did not know.

    The Constitution does not specify formal qualifications for membership on the Supreme Court. Yikes, you mean Joe the Plumber could be our next Chief Justice if the Senate and Congress wanted too. Sheesh...

    From the beginning, though, justices have all been lawyers, and most pursued legal and political careers before serving on the Court. Many justices served as members of Congress, governors, or members of the Cabinet. Watching CNBC on a rant about Legal lawyers as big business it appears the average pay is around one hundred and thirteen thousand dollars annual salary. So, whats in your wallet? The Supreme Court pay is around two hundred and fifty thousand? But they didn't say maybe their wife's, cousins, uncles, or friends get million dollar directorships or so much grease the price oil goes up. Chuckle.  

    Supreme Court justices are appointed for life and hold the ultimate authority to decide U.S. law, including many issues affecting the daily life of Americans.  This last part is good; I would like to know what the process is to select the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I find out that selection of potential justices is therefore a closely scrutinized and important process. Perhaps secret? You mean as in ear marks, lobbyist money and just plain heaps of soft money in plain brown paper bags, this is the reason for our credit shortage? So, the president nominates the person and the Congress and the Senate completes the process. Is that right? For legal stupido's  like me it would be an interesting blogging experience.  

    So if we have a loaded right wing Congress and Senate that parades as being Conservative but is not, and a neo-con Conservative president that is not conservative, asking for a trillion dollars before he leaves office, in this case Bush,  and claims or else we are doomed. With an enduring complicit Mainstream Media like Joe Scarbough Patrick Buchanan in a locking debate who goes bankrupt but carefully worded sometime to the measure what seems like being careful not to say what the electorate could find out as discussing putrid, so dance around the truth and confuse the hell out of everyone while sipping coffee all morning.

    Reminds me of Jim Carey in that legal Movie "I can't Lie" wild legal stuff some of it extreme but a lot of it expressed inner feelings. With that said it's a good chance America could fall into an Arcemidies right hand screw sliding into an abyss currently in progress. With Zombie banks created with the Contract with America, Newt Gingrich's special Swindle Stapled Derivative Dixie Dockets a commercial corporate corruption collection of regulated unregulations for the electorate tax dollar by secret ballet and Jekyll Island secret bank deals. With toxic assets we don't need, and predator loans all the fault of the electorate according to Cavuto Voodoo economics.

    Yes, just for fun and professional understanding and to see what is current here I am going to get a copy of Eric Boehlert's new book, "bloggers on the bus: How the Internet Changed Politics and the Press". Warning I am a slow reader. But most of the time big tent is on target. It was interesting to read some of the stuff on the current play called "Godot" I have no clue whats going with this play. However good or not it would be interesting to seat those gitmo detainees through repeated episodes of the play instead of water boarding. The only way to go home would be to answer the questions correctly and they could pass go. Sort of like Groucho Marx, say the secret word and you win a free trip home. Surely they could find out what is in their head.  

    U.S. Constitution, Article II, (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Sat May 02, 2009 at 11:19:48 AM EST
    section 2 (excerpt):

    [A]nd he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.


    Parent

    Joe and Carrier are just (none / 0) (#19)
    by Slado on Sat May 02, 2009 at 12:01:27 PM EST
    people with an opinion who had 15minutes of fame being run through the 24hr news cycle.  No different then the Cindy Sheehans of the world during the Bush administration.   Publicly critical and publicly criticized. .

    While I feel sympathy for the way conservatives are sometimes treated in the media I also wonder what did these people expect.   The media thrives on controversy and examination of people so when you say something publicly that doesn't confirm with a set of beliefs you should do so knowing that there will always be a reaction.

    Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing but it doesn't entitle us to put our views out there with no consequences.  

    Just like when the Dixie Chicks had records burned, or people made fun of Tim Robbins when conservatives speak their mind they should expect a backlash from the opposing point of view if not the public at large.

    I am just as bewildered by these conservative complaints as I was when The Dixie Chicks posed in air brushed photos claiming censorship.  

    No, digging up dirt on journalsts will not (none / 0) (#26)
    by lucky leftie on Sat May 02, 2009 at 02:27:04 PM EST
    win people over and neither will online rants.  The judge who cussed out sweet, unassuming Carrie on the internet did his cause no good.  

    I know that it's hard to remain calm in the face of someone who calmly and self-assuredly stands at a microphone and voices her support for discrimination.  But the incident has become a disraction from the real issue and has given opponents a weapon.  Next time, kill 'em with kindness.  

    public figures (none / 0) (#29)
    by candideinnc on Sat May 02, 2009 at 02:42:46 PM EST
    No one was looking in Joe the Plumber's garbage for evidence of personal wrongdoing.  No one was digging up gossip on the brain dead beauty queen.  No one forced Palin to inject her "family values" into the presidential campaign and expose her pregnant, unwed daughter, red neck boyfriend, and various other family members to public scrutiny.  These people did it to themselves.  Their foolish public actions and idiotic public comments were what subjected them to ridicule.

    Rethugs don't like the criticism, and as is typical of anti-intellectuals in America, when they display themselves as know-nothing boobs, they complain that snobs are looking down their noses at them.  It is a "shoe fits" scenario.

    They may not have been looking in his garbage (none / 0) (#44)
    by wagnert in atlanta on Sat May 02, 2009 at 05:15:23 PM EST
    but, by God, they were looking everywhere else.  Read this from the Cleveland Plain Dealer and tell me the information society didn't run amuck on Joe.

    Parent
    It's so sad (none / 0) (#54)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat May 02, 2009 at 06:39:52 PM EST
    So many of the posts demonstrate exactly the kind of elistism that is being charged. And they don't see it, because the thing it's the way things "really are."

    Any good liberal (none / 0) (#66)
    by Honyocker on Sun May 03, 2009 at 06:12:36 PM EST
    should have been outraged at what was done to Joe the Plumber...regardless of whether he was a plant or not.  Indeed, government officials in several state agencies used the vast amounts of information that the modern state collects and stores concerning its citizens to look for dirt to discredit this guy...for asking an inconvenient question of a presidential candidate.  If you think what happened to him was okay, then you are not a liberal..you are a party hack.  Several people in state government lost their jobs over the Joe the Plumber incident, and there are lawsuits moving forward. Any actual liberals left in the Democratic party should be aghast that this could happen to an American citizen exercising his rights.

    As for Miss California, her views on gay marriage are no different than the position of President Obama, something else any actual liberal should be outraged by (outraged at the president, anyway).