Saturday, January 16, 2010

Republican Senate Candidate Cooly Strikes Back At Hard Left's Attacks

Story here.

The Hard Left Democrats are desperate and are doing what they do best:  Attack their opponent with scary descriptive words.  You know the tired old drill:  "Right-wing extremist", "radical right-winger", "teabagger", etc.

Well, Republican Scott Brown, well-ahead in polling and expected to win the Massachusetts Senate seat, isn't going to just let the hateful, brainless, evil-loving, dickdocking, rimjobbing, tribbing, watersporting, poopflinging moonbat freakazoid "Democrats" get away with it.

Oops- did I go too far?  Well, not compared to the "teabagging" slur word started by the teabagging Anderson Cooper (who, by the way, has lost so much of his audience since originally coining the slur, is no longer enjoying much of an audience, and neither is his employer CNN, who also, at least via at least one deranged, arrogant, incredibly rude and combative reporter, attempted to, in person and to their faces, discredit and demonize the Tea Party movement representing the mainstream, the majority of Americans).
Brown is hammering the Democrats, accusing the party of bringing out the machine to trip up his race. Asked about Schumer's fundraising e-mail Thursday, Brown called it "unfortunate." "I'm not into name-calling. ... so shame on Chuck," he said.
Chuck Schumer, hard-left as he is, not unexpectedly, considering the hard left's despairing desperation in the race, called Brown a "far-right teabagger".  What an infantile dickdocking, watersporting rimjobber, that Schumer, eh?

See, I can play their game, too, and I can beat them at their own game.  I admit I do relish doing so.  One thing the Hard Left really hates, amongst the many other things they hate, being the hateful haters they are, is to be force-fed a full dose of their own medicine!

Besides, Brown's Demmie opponent, Martha Coakley, is a Hard-Left Catholic-hater who believes Catholics should be banned from working in hospital emergency rooms.

I think it's clear who deserves to win.  Brown.  Yep, the Republican.  He's the only non-hateful, calm-spoken, rational, logical grownup with his head firmly planted on his shoulders, so...


Anonymous said...

This is meant as a factual correction, not a hostile post, and I hope it will be accepted as such. I hate to see a myth abound that has roots in prejudice.

Anderson Cooper didn't coin the term “tea bagging” or have any significant part in popularizing the word. He just been blamed for it because he's a gay male and because he’s a convenient cover for the true fact of the early tea party organizers’ own gaff in attaching the phrase to themselves.

The use of "tea bag" as a verb describing tea party activities started with some tea party organizers in expressions like "tea bag Obama!" (like on this blog: and and on signs they were photographed with like "tea bag the liberal dems before they tea bag you". Naturally when people on left wing sites noticed the unintentional double entendre they started making some jokes. It was picked up by MSNBC TV personalities who introduced it to TV audiences and who used it extensively in discussion of the tea party rallies in footage that was broadcast and posted as clips on left wing websites. After MSNBC personalities had already popularized the term, Anderson Cooper made a rather subtle joking reference to the label that was noticeable precisely because it had already been popularized.

The Newsbusters watchdog website that monitors left wing media recorded the first usage and subsequent growth of the term tea bagging as it was happening. In this April 15, 2009 article they note Cooper had at that time FOLLOWED others in the media by making a tea bagging joke: . As the article notes, Cooper made his remark on Tuesday of that week which was April 14th. In this older article from April 14, 2009 Newsbusters describes extensive usage of the term "tea bagging" that had been occurring already at MSNBC as their media personalities like David Shuster, Anna Marie Cox and Rachel Maddow used the term over and over in politically charged spiels: . As noted in the article, Cox and Maddow were using the term on air at least as far back as April 9th.

The right wing blogs and press have continually wrongly credited Cooper with coining the term "tea bagging" for protesters, bringing it to TV and popularizing it. He was immediately attacked when he used the term by right wing blogs saying explicitly it was a gay term he knows because he's gay, and they provided pics of him on the cover of the gay magazine the Advocate in their posts to drive things home.

Anderson Cooper was not showing political bias by making a double entendre joke with the word "tea bagging". He had previously participated in a skit that poked fun at Code Pink protesters on the Daily Show. The tea partiers had also, let's face it, brought ridicule on themselves by being the first ones to refer to what they were doing as "tea bagging". They unintentionally made themselves look silly in a way that made jokes inevitable even from onlookers with no counter political agenda.

If a liberal group had accidently made themselves look as silly by using unintentionally sexually dirty slogans like "blow Bush" or "we're going to give the republican elephant a donkey punch" people like you and me would have just said the left wing group brought it on themselves when both conservative commentators and neutral people like Cooper cracked some jokes about the debacle.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Hmm. Thanks for the clarification.

But one thing: Not sure as to whether there's "prejudice" against Cooper for whatever. There'd have to be strong, indisputable evidence for the rational person to believe that to be so. Circumstantiality doesn't prove "prejudice". People may have held the sincere belief that it was Cooper who started it, if they had heard repeatedly that it was him. That's not "prejudice", because "prejudice" implies some kind of deliberate malice.

Newsbusters examines Cooper and analyzes the things he says, which sound like coming-from-a-biased-leftist comments/manipulatively- leading questions:

Wonder whether Cooper has asked leading questions as to whether the Democrats are driving out moderates, which they certainly do appear to be doing? Hmm? If he hasn't, well, then I'm afraid it's difficult for the reasonable person to deem him "neutral" as opposed to "coming from a leftist viewpoint".

If someone in the media habitually asks leading, negative questions about the "right"/Republicans et al, but not about the "left"/Democrats et al, then the rational person will deduce that he's probably leftist.

Unfortunately, as I don't have cable at the moment, I haven't been watching any CNN. So the paragraph above will have to serve as a basic guide for judgement as to leftist bias or neutrality.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Ah! Here's a blogger who can't logically be accused of being prejudiced against Cooper based on private-lifestyle choice:

In this, perhaps the best analysis I have read of DHS document, John concludes, “this Homeland Security report is politically motivated, and reflects the authors’ political prejudices more than an objective evaluation of a significant terrorist threat. “

If Anderson Cooper really wanted to go beyond the headlines and tell this story from “many points of view,” he could have done a quick google search, uncovered those posts cited above (or others like them) and invited their authors onto his show.

It would have helped him live up to the blurb his network uses to describe his show.

Or maybe he had other goals in mind, like distracting us from the tea party message.

For some reason, I think there will be more people at today’s tea parties than who watch Cooper’s show.

So as to whether Cooper is "neutral" or "leftist", well, there's a third possibility: Perhaps he's lazy and incompetent and tends to err on the side of favoring the Democrats over the Republicans and the Tea Party People (who are actually the overwhelming majority of Americans, ie. those who disagree with any of the Obamacrats' policies). Hard to believe that he'd do that by accident, if he tends to do this frequently.