Sunday, December 05, 2010

Insults Are All They Have

I've been meaning to write for some time about a phenomenon I've noticed whenever rightwing commenters see a Democrat's name in a news article or blog post, which entails them flipping out and hurling personal insults at the Democrat, regardless of what the article said.  I mean, it'd be one thing if they made the slightest effort to refute the Democrat's point.  But they seem oblivious to the very concept, and instead hurl personal attacks with no attempt at addressing any issue whatsoever beyond the attack itself.

Like this column by John Kerry in which he totally spanks Mitt Romney in a debate over the new START treaty.  Now, what I'd expect to see from Kerry's critics is some level of rebuttal to something he wrote, even if it was error-ridden and insulting.  But no, it's all insults, like they couldn't comprehend the words Kerry wrote beyond his name. 

And so we end up with Kerry's intelligent argument being greeted with comments like these:
"It seems like the Captain of the good ship Isabel is panicked because he's about to suffer his second big defeat of the year. The first was his cap-and-tax proposal to increase energy costs. That went down in flames. Now he's about to see the Start Treaty sink beneath the waves. No wonder he feels the need to get personal with Mitt Romney. Romney's running circles around John Kerry."

"John Kerry cannot present an argument without demeaning his opposition. Today it's Mitt who isn't smart enough to understand while just a few months ago it was the MA voters he implied were stupid. What an arrogant man!"
As strong as my mind-reading skills are, I simply have no idea what these two guys imagine they thought they were writing.  The second commenter, in particular, seems to be writing only about himself.  It's obvious they know that personal insults are bad, as they're attacking Kerry for doing so, even though he hadn't.  Yet they just couldn't help themselves.  The pot not only called the kettle black, but insulted the kettle for insulting kettles; even though the kettle was talking about nuclear peace treaties the whole time.  Simply amazing.

Dancing with the Morons

I also read a story yesterday in which Margaret Cho claims to have heard from inside sources that Bristol Palin only went on Dancing with the Stars because Sarah Palin made her do it.  Supposedly, because Sarah felt that Bristol's pregnancy cost her the election, Sarah wanted Bristol to get America to love her, so she could win the next election.

Naturally, I have no idea if that's true.  Nor do I really care.  While I suppose it fits Sarah's MO pretty well, I don't really think it makes much of a difference with anything, as Sarah Palin is extremely unlikely to have any impact on my life; unless she inexplicably wins the Republican nomination in 2012, which would be great as it would ensure Obama's re-election.  But Margaret Cho also went on to say how pleasant Bristol was and how they really got along and was a decent person; even if she doesn't agree with Sarah Palin's political views.

Needless to say, the Republicans on that messageboard were ripping Cho a new one.  Why does it matter why Bristol was on that show?  And more importantly, if she's got an axe to grind and isn't reliable, as all the Republicans insisted she wasn't, then why did she say such nice things about Bristol?  If she's inventing stuff, why didn't she invent something damaging, or at least insult Bristol?

I don't know, and neither did the people attacking her.  All they know is that Cho "attacked" the Palins and that's good enough for them.  It didn't matter if what she said was true or relevant.  All that mattered was the attack.  Cho sent one of theirs to the hospital, so they're sending her to the morgue; rhetorically speaking, anyway.

Martha Coakley and the Proverbial Broomstick

And here's another odd incident I just read.  It's a news story about how Dane Cook's step-brother ripped him off and now owes him $12 million for what he embezzled from Cook.  Pretty harmless story, right?  But no.  The story happened to mention Martha Coakley, who was the dope Democrat who lost Ted Kennedy's senate seat to a Republican.

And because a famous Democrat was involved, we get incoherent comments like this, where a guy quotes the article which said:
A spokesman for Attorney General Martha Coakley told the Portsmouth Herald that the next step is for the court to tally the couple's assets.
To which the knee-jerk Republican responded:
Yeah, the only tallying Martha Coakley still can't win is her getting the proverbial broomstick up her a** via Scott Brown!!!!!!!
And, huh??  I get the idea of what this insult is supposed to mean, but...what the hell did he imagine this said?  I mean, you don't "win" tallies.  And to my knowledge, there is no proverbial broomstick that goes up asses.  And is he saying that she "wins" all the other tallies, except for the one which involves her getting a proverbial broomstick stuck inside her?  Is this something Scott Brown is still doing to her, and why?

But most imporantly, why is Coakley being insulted for trying to get Dane Cook's money back?  I'm no fan of Cook's by any means, and feel he "earned" this money just as much as his crooked half-brother did, but still, Coakley isn't doing anything wrong here.  If you're going to attack someone, attack the guy who wrote Good Luck Chuck, as that dude is totally deserving of derision.  But Coakley is the good guy here and the election was eleven months ago.  You won.  Get over it.

But for Republicans, none of this matters.  It's not even important to make a comprehensible insult, let alone one that actually fits the story.  All that matters is that an "infamous" Democrat's name appeared in a story and that's good enough for them.  And, of course, any Democrat they've heard of is "infamous," because they wouldn't have heard about any Democrat who didn't do something "wrong."

And that's the thing: These people don't care about ideology.  Even political stories are too much for them to handle.  All they care about is insulting the enemy.  That's why the term "hypocrite" never applies to them, as they never actually go against their own beliefs.  All they care about is the team and attacking the enemy.  Everything else is negotiable.

No comments: