Is Matt Drudge really expending his considerable political and “journalistic” clout … making fun of an 11-year-old? Why yes, yes he is:
The “BEING BORING” link goes to the photo page. The “Covering Your Mouth” link goes to a three-year-old Yahoo Answers page. BREAKING NEWS!!!
If I may translate:
Matt Drudge is a tool, I wish the world would start ignoring him (hint hint)
Then he’s also expending his clout making fun of … himself.
Yeah…I mean c’mon, everyone knows Drudge is not a respectable journalist like Sullivan or Markos……..
You can’t be serious with that comment.
Although really, this post was just an elaborate excuse to create and post the bottom graphic.
gahrie, my comment was about drudge and his newsworthiness, relevance, level of maturity, etc. I don’t follow Sullivan or the DailyKos, so i can’t really comment on them with any authority, but then, it shouldn’t really matter whether or not they are better or worse. This wasn’t a comparison, it was a straight forward criticism. If you like Drudge and want to defend him, fine, but don’t be an ass and bring up irrelevant points (as usual) simply because I picked on someone you happen to adore.
Methinks Drudge was making fun of Michelle Obama more than the girl.
Methinks you wouldn’t extend the same charitable interpretation to, say, the Huffington Post if it used an embarrassing photo of a Republican’s 11-year-old kid to make fun of the parent. (And what exactly is the joke, anyway? Ha ha, Michelle Obama doesn’t teach her children good charm-school manners? OH SNAP!!!!! OH NO YOU DIDN’T!!!!!! HI-FREAKIN’-LARIOUS!!!!!)
But again, I don’t mean to start World War III over this, it was really just an excuse to create and post the latest version of my silly Drudge-nuke graphic meme.
The joke, obviously, was that the daughter is yawning because Michelle Obama is “being boring.” The link to the Yahoo Answers page was clearly meant to suggest that the daughter has bad manners, but that is again more of a swipe at the parents than the kid. If it was a Republican’s daughter, the Huffington Post wouldn’t have used a picture, they would’ve made a HI-FREAKIN’-LARIOUS joke about statutory rape or the girl being a whore, depending on how far you extend the charitable interpretation.
Statutory rape? Pretty bold accusation there Joe Mama, can you actually back it up? I doubt it.
See Brendan @ 4.
Then prove it Joe Mama.
http://tinyurl.com/ya2y9ck
Uh, no, thats not how it works. If you make an assertion, especially a bold one like this one, then you prove it. Otherwise I can only conclude you are blowing it out your rear.
David, did you click the link and follow it through to the end of the animation? The result is a bunch of links to the Letterman-Palin kerfuffle, which is obviously what Joe is driving at.
The Letterman/Palin kerfuffle. In the world of politics as ping-pong, it was well-played for Joe Mama to exhume the hoary meme of Letterman suggesting Palin’s underaged daughter “dated” A-Rod. The elegant comparison is inescapable; you’ve got a conservative purveyor of infotainment (Drudge) calling out the underaged offspring of a liberal politician, but some time ago a liberal purveyor of infotainment (Letterman) did the same for the underaged offspring of a “conservative” politician.
There are a few differences that might trouble a traditional conservative. For one, the “conservatives” elevated their chagrin at Letterman’s goof into cultural WWIII, grievance-mongering to an extent that would surely have made one such as WFB blush. For another, by all accounts Letterman’s joke was a mistake, and he apologized for the error far beyond the call of duty. Again, a traditional conservative admires those who apologize and take responsibility for their mistakes, but I never sensed much of that from the MSM right-wing wrt Letterman either.
Indeed, for their non-stop complaining about Letterman, far beyond the point that Letterman attempted to fix the thing, the modern right sounded a lot like what a traditional conservative might have described as babies, or worse, liberals.
Which is not to say that Joe Mama or anyone else needs to adhere to traditional conservative values. Big tent and all that….
“Cultural WWIII” is quite the exaggeration, but if ever a grievance was justified, it was when the Palins’ rightfully took offense at Letterman’s
ugly joke“goof” saying their underage daughterwas knocked up by“dated” A-Rod. Sarah Palin accepted Letterman’s apology, which according to Jazz makes her a “traditional conservative.”Joe Mama, thanks for clarifying that Letterman’s joke involved A-Rod “knocking up” Bristol (as he thought he was telling it) rather than dating her. I had apparently forgotten that distinction.
Just to clarify, Sarah Palin’s handling of the matter was, for me, not at all what I would expect from a traditional conservative. I return to WFB often, but regardless of the icon, the (subjective) question is whether Palin’s handling of the issue – (apology….in addition to everything that came before) – was about what you’d expect from an icon of conservatism. My vote…no.
But this is surely a subjective matter. Big tent…
@Brendan – No I didn’t, as soon as I clicked the initial link and realized he was being an asshole instead of actually supporting his argument I went about the rest of my day. Having said that, his link pretty much fails to support his claim which was, i’ll remind you:
” If it was a Republican’s daughter, the Huffington Post wouldn’t have used a picture, they would’ve made a HI-FREAKIN’-LARIOUS joke about statutory rape or the girl being a whore, depending on how far you extend the charitable interpretation.”
So his response to making an accusation about what the Huffington Post would do is to point out something that David Letterman did? Last time I checked the two were completely and utterly unrelated. So yeah, his initial inflamatory and outrageous accusation was completely off base, but beyond that, assuming he’d said David Letterman initially, its still a stupid comparison.
Drudge is a news blog site, people go there for, IMO biased, news. He has, unfortunately, media clout and people consider what he “reports” on to be important and sadly accurate. Drudge acts as if he were a serious newsman.
Letterman is a comedian, people go there for, IMO bad, comedy. No rational person considers the Late Show to be a source of serious news. Letterman has never acted or claimed to be a source of serious and accurate news.
Its about as accurate as countering criticism of Michael Steele by pointing out that a Chris Rock comedy routine can be offensive.
No I didn’t, as soon as I clicked the initial link and realized he was being an asshole instead of actually supporting his argument I went about the rest of my day.
LOL….this is what makes David so friggin’ great — he “realized” that I wasn’t supporting my argument without even knowing what I was pointing to to support my argument! Perfecto!! Now I’m going to be an asshole…
So his response to making an accusation about what the Huffington Post would do is to point out something that David Letterman did?
Exactly right, jackass. HuffPo was just the example Brendan chose for his hypothetical. To support my assertion that liberal jokes about a Republican’s underage daughter are likely to be much more offensive than Drudge’s lame attempt at poking fun above, the Letterman-Palin kerfuffle is entirely friggin’ on-point. The only way HuffPo and Letterman have to be related to support my argument is for both to reflect more or less conventional liberal sensibilities, which they indisputably do. That one is a talk show host and the other a news website is a totally bullshit distinction that you are now relying on to save face after looking stupid. In fact, among the contributors to HuffPo are liberal comedians like Rosie O’Donnell (a former talk show host), Bill Maher (another late night talk show host, like Letterman), Harry Shearer, Larry David, Al Franken (I’m using the term “comedian” loosely), etc, so the artificial line between HuffPo and comedy that you’re relying on, in addition to being irrelevant, is specious to begin with.
“he “realized” that I wasn’t supporting my argument without even knowing what I was pointing to to support my argument! Perfecto!! Now I’m going to be an asshole…”
You posted a link that wasn’t something that supported your argument, but a smartass weblink response, so yeah pretty much.
Finally, um, no. The Letterman Palin thing has NOTHING to do with this. Brendan pointed out how the would be from the right if this were a similar post on Huffington Post, which is similar although not exactly like Drudge. You then made a direct accusation about how the HuffPo would react, a rather outrageous one at that. I countered saying you were blowing smoke out your rear and that you couldn’t actually back it up. You backed up your claim about HuffPo by pointing to something David Letterman, COMPLETELY UNRELATED did.
And your justification? They uh, have political beliefs on the same end of the spectrum.
Well fan-freaking-tastic. That means I can now attribute to you anything said ever by ANYONE on the right wing.
Or you could admit that you were wrong.
Until then, I guess I can call you a racist because some people at the tea parties are racists. I can call you a neo-nazi because some people who are neo-nazis vote republican. I could even call you a child molester because somewhere some right winger is a child molester.
Gee, this is kind fun.
You posted a link that wasn’t something that supported your argument, but a smartass weblink response, so yeah pretty much.
Pretty much what? Even granting your ridiculous premise that the resulting links at the end of my “smartass weblink response” that poked fun at your obtuseness don’t support my argument (which they clearly do), how could you know that without even looking at them to see what I was referring to, which you friggin’ admitted you didn’t do precisely because you “realized” that they didn’t support my argument?! Are you retarded or something? Do you seriously not see the huge gaping hole in the logic of what you’re saying, or are you just too stubborn to acknowledge it?
Of course, nothing could be more relevant to my claim that if the shoe were on the other foot liberal jokes about a Republican’s underage daughter are likely to be more offensive than the Letterman-Palin kerfuffle. You keep getting your thong in a wad over the reference to the HuffPo in Brendan’s hypothetical, which in your mind makes the Letterman-Palin thing “completely unrelated” because hey, that was just Letterman the comedian, and no one at the estimable HuffPo would say such things. Assuming that’s true, it’s entirely beside the point. My statement about how the HuffPo would make fun of a Republican’s underage daughter was obviously not an “accusation” against the HuffPo specifically because, like I said, HuffPo was just the example Brendan chose for his hypothetical. It was completely incidental to the topic at hand. Brendan could have said MSNBC or DailyKos and it wouldn’t have made the slightest difference because my point — that the underage daughter of a Republican could expect much worse from the Left than just a mildly unflattering photo — is exactly the same, and the Letterman-Palin kerfuffle is still just as supportive. Perhaps this is a more subtle point than you’re used to contemplating.
Further, my “justification” is not simply that both Letterman and HuffPo are “on the same end of the spectrum.” That is your own gross oversimplification. Rather, what I actually said was that both “reflect more or less conventional liberal sensibilities.” Letterman isn’t some extremist crackpot on the Left akin to racists or neo-Nazis on the Right — he’s clearly a mainstream liberal guy. So you can go ahead and have fun with asinine guilt-by-association smears that have nothing to do with anything, but they will be based solely on you own flawed reasoning, not on anything that I said.
Well you are wrong on a number of levels.
First, you claimed that HuffPo had behaved in a certain way and were indignant when I questioned that claim. As proof you brought up something said by David Letterman, in no way associated with HuffPo.
Second, you might believe that Letterman represents the general attitude, but you have nothing to back that up because, no one else has said anything like that.
Third, when Letterman said it he wasn’t greeted with a groundswell of support, he faced some pretty heavy heat not just from the right either. I’m no fan of Palin by FAR but I thought the “joke” was abysmal. It wasn’t funny or warranted regardless of which daughter of Sarah Palins he was talking about.
However lets go back to what you ACTUALLY SAID:
“If it was a Republican’s daughter, the Huffington Post wouldn’t have used a picture, they would’ve made a HI-FREAKIN’-LARIOUS joke about statutory rape or the girl being a whore, depending on how far you extend the charitable interpretation.”
You weren’t making some statement about what “the left” would do, and even if you did, you’d be pretty much completely wrong, but getting back to what you said, you accsued a news/opinion site of something when it was a comedian who said it. Dennis Miller is a comedian and a conservative. I wouldn’t equate what he said to what Drudge says just because they might agree politically. I wouldn’t claim Drudge had done something or would do something and use as proof something Miller had said.
You claimed something about the behavior of one group of people and used as proof something said by someone completely unrelated who you THINK falls in the same general bucket in political views. Again, this is basically you saying that as long as people have similar political views its ok to equate actual behavior between them equally regardless of any other details. Thats both stupid and wrong.
Why not just admit your wrong? You are you know. Dead wrong.
First, you claimed that HuffPo had behaved in a certain way and were indignant when I questioned that claim. As proof you brought up something said by David Letterman, in no way associated with HuffPo.
I said that HuffPo (read The Left) would behave worse towards the daughter of a Republican based on how Letterman behaved towards the daughters of a Republican. You’re just repeating that Letterman and HuffPo are unrelated. I already explained above why that is irrelevant.
Second, you might believe that Letterman represents the general attitude, but you have nothing to back that up because, no one else has said anything like that.
I do believe Letterman represents the general attitude among the Left regarding Sarah Palin and her family. There is no need to “back up” what I used to “back up” my original argument.
Third, when Letterman said it he wasn’t greeted with a groundswell of support, he faced some pretty heavy heat not just from the right either. I’m no fan of Palin by FAR but I thought the “joke” was abysmal. It wasn’t funny or warranted regardless of which daughter of Sarah Palins he was talking about.
Finally a rebuttal. I knew you could stumble upon a valid point if I kept at it long enough. That Letterman was roundly criticized and forced to apologize supports the argument that what I said would happen in Brendan’s hypothetical might not actually happen (again). That is certainly possible, although I’m probably less optimistic than you. Letterman clearly thought that his offensive jokes (they weren’t just “abysmal,” unfunny or unwarranted, they were offensive) were not beyond the pale when he said them. I suspect that he still thinks so and was pissed off that he had to apologize, but that’s just my opinion and I have no way knowing or proving this. In any event, there is no denying that there is very recent precedent for the children of Republicans to be the butt of extremely ugly jokes, the likes of which are just not made at the expense of the children of Democrats (but I’m open to learning about them if there are any out there I haven’t heard or don’t know about).
You weren’t making some statement about what “the left” would do,
Of course I friggin’ was! Even if that wasn’t clear from my initial comment, I explained myself several times to you since. What the hell is the matter with you?
and even if you did, you’d be pretty much completely wrong
Do tell.
Dennis Miller is a comedian and a conservative. I wouldn’t equate what he said to what Drudge says just because they might agree politically. I wouldn’t claim Drudge had done something or would do something and use as proof something Miller had said.
I’ll take this as your explanation for why I’d be “pretty much completely wrong” to make a general statement about what “the left” would do. I’m not sure what you mean by “equate,” but you could certainly make the valid point that the Right in general is likely to make fun of Democrats in ways similar to what Dennis Miller has said in the recent past. Miller isn’t quite as mainstream as Letterman (and much less hateful, but I digress), but I’d say he’s a good barometer of conventional conservative sensibilities, at least when it comes to what is within the bounds of tasteful humor, which is the relevant point here.
You claimed something about the behavior of one group of people and used as proof something said by someone completely unrelated who you THINK falls in the same general bucket in political views.
What does that mean? Are you seriously going to argue that David Letterman’s political views are substantially different than most other contributors to the HuffPo?
Again, this is basically you saying that as long as people have similar political views its ok to equate actual behavior between them equally regardless of any other details. Thats both stupid and wrong.
That’s not what I’m saying. That’s what you’re saying, and I agree with you that it’s stupid and wrong.
Why not just admit your wrong? You are you know. Dead wrong.
If I were to give in to your childish pleading, it would be a disservice to thinking people who comment on blogs everywhere. I noticed that you dropped the silly notion that you knew the links I provided did not support my argument before you even looked at them. Good. If I were less secure in my reasoning, I might beg or implore you for an admission that you were wrong.