Howling at the Moon

Rick Esenberg recently commented about a post by Mike McCabe (some Democratic party guy ... I don't really know all their names) that, Esenberg said, ranted a bit about the listening audience of Charlie Sykes' show, and, presumably, talk radio in general (I have no link because one was not provided and anyway, that's not really what this post is about).

I found this paragraph at the end of Esenberg's post interesting.

I am gobsmacked by the fact that a presumably sophisticated and intelligent public figure actually thinks that talk radio's audience is made up of bible thumping young earth creationists. If you really think that folks you don't agree with must be a bunch of mouth-breathing morons, I suppose you never will encounter any ideas but your own and will continue to commit howler after howler in your isolation. If you think that you and your friends are oh-so-much-smarter, why take anyone else seriously? Why take the time to make sure that you know what you're talking about?

Aside from Esenberg playing a little bit of the victim game (oh those darn libs think they are so smart), one cannot help but wonder whether he feels as gobsmacked by the fact that four of the Republican candidates for president have admitted to disbelieving evolution in favor of the notion of the 6,000 year-old Earth (Sen. John McCain, Sen. Mike Huckabee, Sen. Sam Brownback and Rep. Tom Tancredo).

Oh those creationist-believing Christian candidates, they think they are so much more inteliigent by design than the rest of us. Talk about howler after howler just to capture votes.

Why We Love Jess

"What's with the weird obsession most of the Lefty Blogger Guys in Milwaukee have with Jessica McBride? By comparison John Hinckley had a take-her-or-leave-her attitude about Jodie Foster. I really don't get it. "

This question was broached by Tom McMahon in a previous post and I thought it deserving of an answer because, unlike what J-J-J-Jeff Wagner said about those of us who follow McBride ("the kook fringe ...insanely jealous of her..."), we are all relatively sane individuals.

So why the attention?

For myself, McBride deserves the attention because she is an embarrassment claiming to be a professional journalist. She mocks the history and the role of the press every time she puts fingers to keyboard. She disregards Thomas Jefferson who said: "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." She misses the point of Napoleon Bonaparte who said: "Three hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets."

Journalists are not here to cater to the party line, which McBride unfailingly does; they are the bulwark of our freedom. That's why she annoys me so much when she so freely besmirches this respectable institution and yet claims to be a card-carrying member. Her forays into commentary contain a disregard for fact and decency that begs for attention.

Bill Christofferson and Mike Plaisted also agreed to comment. Christofferson said:

"It's why Willie Sutton said he robbed banks; "that's where the money is." McBride is an easy and inviting target because she is so wrong so often. You might disagree with (Charlie) Sykes, for example, and challenge him on his view on issues, but you won't catch him making inane comments or stupid mistakes on a daily basis. That is what sets McBride apart.

"She is in a class by herself -- a self-centered ditz, with very little knowledge, who got built up and promoted way beyond her ability and capacity. Her commentary might be tolerable from a teen, but not from someone who presents herself as an insightful adult."

And from Plaisted:

I agree with Bill that one reason she gets so much negative attention from us is because she is such an easy target. Much more so when she had the radio show -- she was such an outrageously bad radio personality, listening to her was like watching a train wreck -- horrible, but somehow engrossingly bad.

I try to give her as little thought as possible. However, when I do, I envision her as Margaret Holihan, played by Sally Kellerman in the original M*A*S*H. Donald Sutherland as Hawkeye described her as a "typical Army clown". I think that's as apt a description for McBride -- inserting wing-nut for Army -- for the same reasons.

We do have to be a bit cognizant, it seems to me, that part of her target-worthy status is because she is a woman. Although the WISN radio geeks don't have vanity blogs, a minor nitwit like Jay Weber is just as insignificant, intellectually offensive and politically vapid as McBride.

But somehow, the same sort of nonsense coming from a smug, elitist woman has much more of a fingernail-on-the-chalkboard quality to it and is so much more fun to criticize. I don't think this is sexist -- she just stands out from the white-boys who usually run the GOP talking points. Her (literally)air-brushed self-image wrapped up with her nose-in-the-air sanctimony and the fact that she is so marvelously wrong all the time just makes her too wonderfully bad for words. It would be blogger malpractice not to take on her glamour-puss at every opportunity.

Now Tom, are you going to ask the same question of those who find every word written by Eugene Kane fodder for comment?

Shallow Jess

Jessica McBride's lack of intellectual depth is really sometimes stunning. Her most recent plunge into the shallow end of the pool regards an article in the New York Times, written by Adam Liptak, and titled, "For Libby, Bush Seemed to Alter His Texas Policy." She claims in her post titled, "The Libby False Analogy," that Mr. Liptak has provided a false analogy in the article by comparing Bush's pardon of Libby to a lack of pardons in capital crimes when Bush was governor of Texas. She huffs:

The critics say that Bush's action in the Libby case is wrong becaus he didn't commute the sentences of many death row inmates in Texas.

For starters, obviously, the death row inmates committed capital crimes. Actually, that's the end of the argument. They are murderers with special circumstances.

So: No story.

She concludes by saying the New York Times finally comes up with reasons that prove the analogy doesn't hold water, but these are buried ... bad New York Times.

I have read and reread the article and can only come to one conclusion ... McBride's treading water and barely staying afloat when all she needs is to put her feet down to touch bottom.

The article had nothing to do with what critics of the Libby action may be saying. The article is entirely a discussion about the history of Bush's policy toward clemency, which has been (essentially) if you're guilty of the crime, you pay the consequences. Liptak writes:

In Mr. Libby’s case, Mr. Bush expressed no doubts about his guilt. He said he respected the jury’s verdict, and he did not pardon Mr. Libby, leaving him a convicted felon. And Mr. Bush acted before the courts had completed their review of his appeal.

Liptak then ponders whether Bush has changed his standard for clemency because it has been documented that clemency, for Bush, was reserved for cases of "demonstrable actual innocence," a far different cry from his decision in the Libby case. The article concludes with this:

In June, before the Libby commutation, The Austin American-Statesman reviewed Mr. Bush’s record on clemency as president and governor in a front-page article. The headline said, "Bush history gives Libby little hope for a pardon."

The article simply explores this seeming discontinuity of Bush's action towards Libby ... at no time making a statement about the right or wrong of Bush's decision.

That is a far cry from the insinuations by McBride ... insinuations that have no basis in fact. But then, McBride has never been one to let facts get in the way of a partisan hack piece. Quick, someone throw her an inflatable doll, she's sinking fast.