Wednesday, September 17, 2008

John Fund on Bill Maher, Republican Mouthpiece, Human Evader

For a perfect example of the intellectually dishonest Republicanism that has taken over the once-proud party, the dodging of issues, the moral (yes I said moral) relativism, the speculation-in-place-of-facts, watch the performance of John Fund on this month's Real Time with Bill Maher. There, Fund performs all the tricks. In response to Janeane Garofalo stating that "Democrats, as people, are fundamentally more decent", says things like this:

"I have a theory that the side that most belittles and most underestimates their opposition in elections tends to lose...Saying that one party is fundamentally, inherently more not very tolerant."

Now let's just note in passing how absurd it is for someone who supports McCain to have this view. Notice the fair-and-balanced assumption that it simply can't be true that one side is more decent than the other (if you can't get your brain around this concept, think German politics circa 1934, or Russia circa 1922). This is the language of the thief who's first reaction to accusations of thievery isn't to deny the crime, but to claim everyone else is just as bad as he is. And finally, notice that Fund dodges the factual case, as he does throughout the video, and instead talks about who will get more votes as a result. It sounds like he is quoting Charlie Daniels from "What this World Needs is a Few More Rednecks":

"Now you intellectuals may not like it
But there ain't nothin' that you can do
Cause there's a whole lot more of us common-folks
Then there ever will be of you"

In other words, to Hell with what is true, more people agree with me. There's modern Republicanism in a nutshell. Later, he actually implies that Sarah Palin's gaffe about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being government entities was somehow correct because "it was inevitable" that they'd be taken over by the government. Maher rightly and frequently nails him for repeating stupid shit for the sake of votes. Speaking of which, try to choke this one down:

"I think they both want to take as much money from your wallet as possible, it's just the Republicans might feel a little bit more guilty about it."

Does Cheney looked choked up with guilt to you? Rumsfeld? And never mind whose pocket the money goes into as well. Fund then goes as far" as to claim that asking potential chief executives questions about policy positions is like running a "trivia contest". This is what the party of Bill Buckley has fallen to: excusing their ignorance by claiming it's just a trivia contest to know anything. Why not just say "We don't got book smarts, but we got common cents" and be done with it.

Fund then goes into Speculation Land and claims (I didn't verify this, but will grant it FTSOA) that whenever any question in the primary debates was asked about something like The Bush Doctrine, the candidates were given a description and, wait for it, had they not been, many of them wouldn't have known what it was either! [sigh] The Republicans have become the party of woulda, shoulda, coulda. Never use a fact when there is a speculation handy. Janeane's reponse was right on the mark: "That is such unbelievable bullshit!", but Maher delivered the knockout punch: He asked Fund which candidate wouldn't have known the answer, and of course Fund wouldn't answer with anything except to implicate himself in ignorance. Salman Rushdie asked the great question: "Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect [candidates for president] to read the newspapers?"

And as if to put a cherry on top of this giant sundae of shiftiness, Fund's reply to Maher's question of why Palin "doesn't know shit from shinola" was to note that she signed a deal for a natural gas pipeline. Garofalo's retort was priceless, writing on a piece of paper and saying: "Look, I just signed a deal for a pipeline! Woohoo!"

Then Rosanne Barr came on (Why Bill? Why?), which gave Fund a chance to play another trick: arguing that a racist implication can't be so if it isn't actually true. Sound stupid? That's because it is. Barr suggested that the demeaning comments the Republicans have been making about community organizers is veiled racism, and Fund claimed it couldn't be because most community organizers are white. Right John, and the arguments against welfare moms weren't racist because most mothers on welfare are white.

This is the Republicans game. They can't possibly defend McCain/Palin rationally with actual evidence, so they resort to changing topics, speculating, refusing to deal with straightforward questions, and clinging to lies that would make Bill Clinton blush. Maher summed it up, and it is the position we should all take with this crap:

"I don't believe you. John, take it as a complement that I say I don't believe you. You are way too smart for that."

It's time to call a spade a spade on this one (and to you people who don't understand what a metaphor is, that wasn't a racist dig at Obama. Please step away from the voting booth). People with IQs higher than a fence post who parrot this shit need to be called on it. They are LYING, simple as that. They don't deserve respect. They deserve to be called out, shamed, and ridiculed, for playing these ignorant fucking games with the most important decision we can all make. This isn't American Fucking Idol. In this contest, you don't vote for the cute incompetent girl just because you can relate to her background.

No comments: