The G Spot

The Rolling Stone McCain Profile, Pt. 2 - John McCain is a wingnut

By Kathy G.

For many years, John McCain has been the idol of a Kool-Aid drinking cult of elite journalists. This year, he's run such a disgracefully dishonest campaign that the number of adherents of that cult is rapidly dwindling. However, all those years of worshipful fanboy PR had its effect. McCain's adoring scribes peddled a pack of lies about him, and a large chunk of the general public still believes those lies.

Among the most brazen untruths those journalists repeated is that McCain is not "really" a conservative, that he's actually some kind of mavericky, free-thinking "independent," boldly challenging the conventional wisdom and the status quo. See here for a choice example of this order of horseshit.

But the reality is that John McCain started out as a Reaganite wingnut, and a wingnut he remains. Aside from a few high-profile but opportunistic, and largely cosmetic, exceptions, he has always stood with the hard right of his party. The Rolling Stone article gives a useful summary of McCain's career-long wingnuttery:

In congress, Rep. John McCain quickly positioned himself as a GOP hard-liner. He voted against honoring Martin Luther King Jr. with a national holiday in 1983 — a stance he held through 1989. He backed Reagan on tax cuts for the wealthy, abortion and support for the Nicaraguan contras. He sought to slash federal spending on social programs, and he voted twice against campaign-finance reform. He cites as his "biggest" legislative victory of that era a 1989 bill that abolished catastrophic health insurance for seniors, a move he still cheers as the first-ever repeal of a federal entitlement program.

McCain voted to confirm Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. In 1993, he was the keynote speaker at a fundraiser for a group that sponsored an anti-gay-rights ballot initiative in Oregon. His anti-government fervor was renewed in the Gingrich revolution of 1994, when he called for abolishing the departments of Education and Energy. The following year, he championed a sweeping measure that would have imposed a blanket moratorium on any increase of government oversight.

In this context, McCain's recent record — opposing the new GI Bill, voting to repeal the federal minimum wage, seeking to deprive 3.8 million kids of government health care — looks entirely consistent. "When jackasses like Rush Limbaugh say he's not conservative, that's just total nonsense," says former Sen. Gary Hart, who still counts McCain as a friend.

I urge readers to forward that passage along to anyone they know who still believes that McCain is going to govern any differently than the hard-right loons who have held this country hostage for lo these many years. He won't. He'll deliver the goods to the conservative base, as he always has (how else could you possibly explain the Palin pick?). He'll be dishing out the same crap that the Republicans have been serving up for years -- the only difference is that he'll spice it up with preening, self-aggrandizing rhetoric about what an awesome maverick he is.

What do you call a black man who's running for president?

By Kathy G.

I see that Mickey Kaus has the ginormous clanking brass balls to argue that Barack Obama was being "condescending" when he recently lectured African-Americans about the importance of staying in school.

Sorry, but my head is spinning faster than a dreidel at a kosher casino. I'd be hard-pressed to think of any other pundit who is more obsessed than Mickey Kaus is with the question of just how African-Americans should live their lives, or more persuaded that he himself knows exactly what the answer to that question should be. In fact, he write an entire book devoted largely to just this subject.

Indeed, throughout this election, Kaus has been engaging in a non-stop whinathon begging for Obama to stage a "Sister Souljah" moment in which he, Barack, very publicly and pointedly upbraids African-Americans -- see here, here, here, and here, for example. You see, when a privileged and powerful person -- preferably, a Democrat -- thunders from on high about the alleged moral deficiency of African-Americans, especially poorer and less well-educated African-Americans, it gives Mickey one of the those thrills up his leg he enjoys so much.

So, okay, Obama makes the kind of moralistic pronouncement Mickey has been calling for, and how does he react? He criticizes Obama for being "condescending." He might as well have just said "uppity" and gotten it over with. Face, Barack, you just can't win with these wankers!

Barack Obama and the white wimmin

By Kathy G.

Christ on a cracker, they're back to this shit again! Call it the Mandingo strategy, I suppose.

It's not exactly shocking that Karl Rove is Going There. And hey, it's worked before.

But Mickey Kaus? While I bow to no one in my contempt for the old goat-blower, even I am a little surprised that he, too, is gleefully peddling this crap. (No direct link available for this, but click here and search for "johannsson" and you'll see what I mean). Once again -- nice job, Slate!

Wake me in November, please.

Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you

By Kathy G.

Where have you gone, Dave Chappelle?

I ask this urgent question not only because I terribly miss his late, lamented Comedy Central show, which had some of the most gut-bustingly funny moments I have ever seen on television. I'm also asking him because we specifically need him now, at this particular moment in our history.

I count the general election campaign as having begun on June 3, the night of the final primary. That was only two weeks ago, yet already this campaign has jumped the shark, bigtime. I can't decide when the exact moment was. Was it the "terrorist fist bump" ? The Barack Obama monkey doll ? The Michelle Obama "baby mama" chyron on Fox? Mickey Kaus's asstastic musings on whether the election of Barack Obama would be "the end of bling"?  Or maybe, just maybe, it was this:

I can't decide. But the point is, if this is what the first two weeks were like, how the hell are we going to hold on until November?

That, Dave Chappelle, is why we so desperately need you. I did some searching around the web, but you seem to be MIA -- no movies or tv shows in the works, and not even (so far as I could determine) any tour dates, either.

But Dave, we have never needed you more. And dude, you just know the material writes itself. I mean, terrorist fist jab? Baby mama? The end of bling? With fodder like that, you can't go wrong! It's comedy gold, my friend, and you know it.

Come back to television, Dave. The only way we sane Americans will be to survive the batshit crazy racist bullshit coming down will be if we can laugh at it. And I know of no living person in America who has been more brilliantly, groundbreakingly hilarious about race than you.

Your country needs you, Dave. Your return to television would be the highest form of patriotism. Come back, before the entire goddamn country loses its shit.

For card check; against Mickey Kaus

By Kathy G.

Sorry I didn't post yesterday. I've been feeling a tad under the weather and somewhat depressed. Probably a bit of blogger burn out as well, to tell you the truth.

But I just finished reading yet another stupefyingly lame and ignorant union-bashing post by Mickey Kaus, and that definitely got my juices flowing. Yes, Ann Coulter's arm candy is at it again, making the same smug, ill-informed arguments he always makes on this topic. And actually, they're not even really arguments -- to describe those verbal burps of his as an "argument" bestows on them a dignity they in no way deserve. They're more like half-assed gestures toward an argument, really. Mickey don't do much intellectual heavy lifting these days, and that's putting it mildly.

When it comes to unions, Kaus's style of "argument" is as follows: he'll seize upon some random news story concerning (almost always) either the schools or the auto industry. If test scores are down or Ford or GM is doing poorly, it's always, always the union's fault -- and that's true whether or not the union was even mentioned in the story. He almost never considers alternative explanations or complicating factors. And he certainly never bothers to get off his lazy ass and look at what the social science research says about the subject.

Case in point: today's post, in which he trashes card check and bashes unions because the UAW is resisting a change in Ford's manufacturing system that apparently would improve efficiency.

And that's it. That's his entire argument. All right, he does throw in some bullshit about how card check destroys the sacredness of the secret ballot. And he extends his anti-union "argument" somewhat by implying that unions are inefficient in general and that "the Wagner Act is not designed for an era of continuous change and improvement."

The Wagner Act took effect in 1935. Is Kaus seriously trying to argue that there was no "change and improvement" -- no technological innovation or efficiency improvements, is what he means, I guess -- between, say, '35 and '45? Or '35 and '55? Or '35 and whatever year it was that we suddenly stopped needing unions?

The Hillary-ization of Michelle Obama

By Kathy G.

Before I get to the main subject of this post, I wanted to share my enthusiasm about my favorite new blog: Ta-Nehisi Coates. Though Ta-Nehisi's blog centers on politics, he is also the author of a fascinating-sounding new memoir, The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood. (You can watch an engaging video about the memoir here). He's had some especially smart things to say about the presidential race. Read this post, for example, about Hillary Clinton's instantly infamous "hard-working white people" remark, and why "the obligatory 'not a racist' defense" is irritatingly beside the point, and offensive to boot.

All this is by way of introduction to my favorite of his most recent posts, this expert takedown of Christopher Hitchens' recent nasty, dishonest, and embarrassing attempt at a hit job on Michelle Obama (which appeared in Slate, wouldn't you know. And just when I thought Slate couldn't possibly suck any harder). Ta-Nehisi has a much, much higher opinion of Hitchens than I do (I think the man descended into disgraceful hackdom long ago), but that doesn't stop him from seeing very clearly what Hitchens was trying (and pathetically failing) to do in that piece, and calling him on it. Among other things, Ta-Nehisi points out that if you want to smear someone for the non-existent radical views they allegedly had in college, it would help matters if you yourself don't have a lengthy and well-documented past as a Trotskyite Trotskyist, as Hitchens himself does. D'oh!

The Hitchens piece, contemptible piece o' shite though it is, a surefire sign that, now that it's clear Hillary's presidential campaign is all but over, the right is proceeding apace with its attempt to Hillary-ize Michelle Obama. We have, of course, all heard about how "unpatriotic" she is. Maureen Dowd has already cattily attacked her for not being sufficiently deferential to her husband. And now we're being treated to Hitchens' exegesis of how her college term papers prove she's really Stokely Carmichael in drag. Delightful! But hey . . . radical, unfeminine, unpatriotic -- remind you of any other right-wing caricatures of a certain prominent Democratic woman with a famous husband?    

Note to Jacob Weisberg

By Kathy G.

Dear Jacob Weisberg,

I'm really curious about something: did Ann Coulter's arm candy, Mickey Kaus ever save your life? Lend you a kidney, maybe? Or perhaps he is the sole possessor of certain letters and photos involving matters that, shall we say, might be considered sensitive?

Because unless you owe him something, bigtime, I can't for the life of me explain why you allow him to take up space on your bandwidth or keep him on your payroll.

Case in point: yesterday, Mickey was flogging the sleazy "John Edwards love child" tabloid rumor. Again. As he had done just two days before. As he has done at least 30 times since October.

You might want to take Mickey aside and gently explain to him that John Edwards has been out of the race for almost three months now. And while you're at it, you might also want to let him know that tabloids aren't necessarily your most credible news source. Because they would never just make shit up, right? Or publish trumped up stories planted by someone's political enemies? 'Cause that would be unheard of, as we know.

Of course, maybe you think that Slate's reputation is well-served if it becomes famous for laundering tabloid stories for mainstream consumption. But if that's the case, Slate is, sadly, falling down on the job. Why, just last week, one of the supermarket tabloids had a front page story on George W. Bush's secret love child. And this week, we are treated to tabloid headlines about two candidates who are actually still in the race: Barack Obama (who's "cheating") and Hillary Clinton (having a "gay affair", doncha know). Where was Slate on these breaking stories, I ask you? Enquiring minds want to know!

And hey, as long as we're talking love children, we might as well dig up that old chestnut about Bill Clinton's alleged African-American love child. Good times!

But if wall-to-wall sleaze isn't really what Slate is going for, well . . . let's just say Mickey's little hobby leaves a really bad taste in my mouth. As to what other contributions his blog is making -- well, you tell me. 'Cause really, I would loooove to hear it.

Dahlia Lithwick, I feel your pain.

Sincerely,
Kathy G.

Mickey Kaus's creepy obsession

By Kathy G.

Ann Coulter's arm candy, Mickey Kaus, is at it again.

Kaus is pathetically trying to pimp the "John Edwards love child" story One. Mo'. Time.

For those of you sensible enough to avoid reading Mickey Kaus (and I'm guessing that's most of you), the John Edwards mistress/love child tabloid story has been Kaus's number one obsession this primary season. He's mentioned it at least 29 times since October, as you can see here. And this for a blogger who doesn't bother to post more than a couple of times a week. It's an even more powerful obsession for him than the perfidy of teachers' unions or the world-historic evil of Ezra "command and control" Klein.

Mickey can't understand why the mainstream media ignored the story. How about, oh, I don't know -- that the story is bogus?  Anyone remember the "Kerry had an affair with an intern" bullshit that surfaced briefly in the tabloids and on Drudge during the 2004 primary? The story died because it lacked substance, and it seems likely that that's why the Edwards story died as well.

And besides that -- has Mickey noticed that Edwards is no longer in the race?

Mickey's latest excuse for dredging up this sleazy story is Elizabeth Edwards' op-ed taking the media to task for its mind-bogglingly vacuous and altogether craptastic coverage of the primary campaign. Mickey whines that it's unfair for Elizabeth to criticize the media because the press "cut her and her husband a huge break" on the love child story

A few responses to that:

1. So far as anyone other than the parties involved is concerned, there is no good evidence that the rumor is even true (unless Mickey has his own private stash of letters, photos, and taped phone conversations, which, given his level of obsession with this, wouldn't surprise me.)

2. Even if it is true, it's unlikely Elizabeth knows about it.

3. Even supposing that: a) it's true and b) Elizabeth does indeed know about it -- what is the point? Is Elizabeth responsible for her husband's allegedly wandering genitals? If she's a cheated on spouse, does that mean she has no right to criticize the media about anything?

I suppose Bill Clinton has no right to take the media to task, either -- because as we all know, there is a vast media conspiracy devoted to covering up the well-known stories of Hillary Clinton's voracious lesbian appetites.

Of course, Mickey never bothers to actually address Elizabeth's argument. Because this is something he almost never does. There's no evidence of intellectual heavy lifting on his blog, ever, about anything. He constantly makes smug assumptions that he assumes his readers must share, almost never offering up any supporting details. For instance, whenever he writes about unions, he decries union "work rules" that  allegedly hamper productivity. But he seems unaware that the best research shows that unionized firms on average are not any less productive than their nonunionized counterparts, not less.

Obviously, the reason why Kaus never addresses Edwards' argument is that he himself is a prime example of the vapid, pea-brained media coverage she deplores. Kaus's recent fixation with just how much of an arrogant snob Barack Obama is, is exhibit A of this tendency. 

Kaus's nasty smears concerning the love child story are especially rich given that just last week, he blasted Joe Conason for Joe's "sleazy" 1992 reporting on George H.W. Bush's alleged extramarital adventures. And Kaus has the balls to bitch about Elizabeth's "chutzpah?"

The lack of self-knowledge constantly on display by so many media types never ceases to amaze me.

Overall, I'd have to say -- good job, Mickey! Obviously, it's much more important that you to try to smear, discredit and humiliate Elizabeth than ever have to address the serious, troubling, and entirely sensible argument she makes.

I'm an inveterate matchmaker, and a brilliant idea just occurred to me: how about pairing up perennial  bachelor Mickey Kaus with perennial bachelorette Maureen Dowd? Their dinner conversations would be scintillating, I'm sure. Maureen and Mickey can take turns -- first she can talk about Bill Clinton's cock and then he can talk about John Edwards' cock.  They  can break it up occasionally by talking about how Hillary Clinton is a ball-busting bitch and Barack Obama is an effete latte-sipping snob.

It sounds like a match made in heaven to me!

John McCain is a wingnut -- Part 1 of a continuing series

One of the most annoying pieces of bullshit we'll be continually dealing with this election year is the deranged insistence on the part of John McCain's love-slaves in the media that he "isn't really a conservative."  These McCain groupies feel they have some super secret understanding about what the true feelings of St. Johnny are about a variety of issues, and guess what? He's really a centrist. Or a liberal on social issues. Or whatever they imagine is most flattering. 

But the public record of John McCain demonstrates otherwise. Apart from a brief flirtation with centrism in the early '00s, on all the key issues McCain has strongly, consistently done the bidding of the far right.

Today's example, via Pam Spaulding, concerns one of the most disgraceful features of McCain's record: his hostility to civil rights and his history of flagrant disrespect for the legacy of Martin Luther King. Says Pam:

John McCain is going to appear in Memphis today, on the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's assassination. That's worthy of a brass balls award as the Arizona senator has a long history of opposing civil rights legislation, including the federal MLK holiday, something he voted against as a Congressman in 1983.

Pam helpfully points to a fact sheet produced by Color of Change, which tells the real story. It's not a pretty picture:

Why I love Kate Harding

One of my very favorite bloggers is Kate Harding. Kate started her fat acceptance blog Shapely Prose about a year ago, and in the interim something remarkable has happened. As word has gotten out about her site, Kate has steadily built an audience. Melissa McEwan brought her on as one of the Shakesville  co-bloggers, and Kate herself has brought along some talented co-bloggers to her own site. Most remarkably of all, a real community has developed amongst the Shapelings (as they call themselves). And from that community has risen the promising beginnings of a fat acceptance political movement*.    

I'm far from the only one who's taken notice of Kate's blog. Kate has been featured in the New York Times and on the cover of a local Chicago paper**, and she's also landed herself a book deal. She deserves every bit of her success.

Why has Kate become an internet phenomenon? I think the answer is very simple: she's a witty, forceful, and remarkably honest writer and an exceptionally smart and deeply humane thinker. Here' s one of her most moving and powerful posts, called "The Fantasy of Being Thin."  And here's another one which brilliantly analyzes how fat-phobia is -- and is not -- like homophobia.

Although these days Kate mostly writes about fat acceptance issues, she's a damn good writer on other topics as well. See this wonderful post from Salon's Broadsheet on the album that made her a feminist: Liz Phair's Exile in Guyville. She completely nails why it is that if you were a single white female of a certain age circa 1993, that album was the soundtrack of your life. And yes, like Kate, I absolutely played that sucker into the ground. (Note: for another stylishly written take on Exile in Guyville from across the gender divide, read Spencer Ackerman. Why was the 14-year old Spencer an ardent Exile in Guyville fan back in the day? Hint: the answer is not unrelated to the lyric "I want to be your blow-job queen.")

Hell, Kate even manages to be a compelling writer when she blogs about her favorite freaking corkscrew, for chrissakes!