Monday, December 11, 2006

Racist Rosie

Rosie O'Donnell has been quick to attack those she thinks are racist or homophobic but she recently offended Asians and refuses to apologize. Check out Michelle Malkin's response--especially her video clip on hotair.com.

9 comments:

john said...

Were you and Michelle equally outraged by racially divisive comments that have been made by Trent Lott, Rush Limbaugh, and others on the right?

You seem to think Rosie speaks for a large number of people (judging by the fact that you categorized this post under "The Left"). Wouldn't that be like someone categorizing comments by Fred Phelps under "The Right"? Sure, they belong to that part of the political spectrum, but they are extreme and don't exactly speak for everyone on that side of the aisle.

Dennis said...

No, I wasn't "equally outraged." But that may be because of my perception (with which I'm sure you'll strongly disagree) that whenever someone on the Right makes a misstatement, members of the Left attack them like a pack of Piranha in a feeding frenzy, but when those on the Left say stupid racist things, they largely get a pass (no one even remembers the name of the Democratic politician who publicly implied something about killing our President!)

Frankly, I didn't see the big deal about Rosie's stupid joke, and it was an education for me to see how hurtful this was to Asian Ameicans.

So because of how hurtful it was and because of how quick Ms. O'Donnel has been in the past to call others racist or homophobes for similar misstatements, it does strike me as a bit hypocritial that she won't even apologize.

I'm glad Rosie doesn't speak for you, John, but her stupid remarks are often met with approval by her co-hosts and thunderous applause by the audience (apparently there are some in the TV audience who approve too--they keep tuning in by the millions). So yes, I think she speaks for many more on the Left that you may want to acknowledge.

There are people on the Left with whom I have profound disagreemts but whom I nonetheless respect greatly as sensible people of integrity. As far as I can tell, Joseph Lieberman is one of those people.

One of the big problems with the Left though (much more so than the right) is that it seems to me that almost every fringe, wacko group in the country has attached itself--like leaches, to the Left.

Somehow, the sensible Left needs to separate itself from the wackos--like Rosie, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Al Gore, John Kerry (OK, I threw the last two in just for fun). But when someone like Joseph Lieberman gets ostracized by the Left for being too conservative, I don't hold out much hope and I start to think that maybe Rosie is much more mainstream Left than you want to admit.

john said...

I would agree with you that in some instances reactions seem disproportionate depending on the person or the circumstances. There are certainly exceptions, though. I'm sure Michael Richards is no conservative, and the press isn't exactly doing him any favors.

Of course, my point wasn't to defend Rosie, so I won't disagree with your criticisms of her (although you do seem to take "The View" more seriously than anyone I know - especially any man. :)

You wrote: One of the big problems with the Left though (much more so than the right) is that it seems to me that almost every fringe, wacko group in the country has attached itself--like leaches, to the Left.

There are plenty of wackos to go around, on both sides. But why you expect "The Left" to constantly denounce them is beyond me. Does Denny Hastert get up on the House floor and say, "Well, that Fred Phelps has disgraced us again"? Does Sean Hannity go on his show and point it out when Pat Robertson goes on one of his rants?

john said...

By the way, I forgot to address one other point.

You wrote: But when someone like Joseph Lieberman gets ostracized by the Left for being too conservative, I don't hold out much hope and I start to think that maybe Rosie is much more mainstream Left than you want to admit.

As you probably know, this happens on the other side of the aisle as well. Conservatives complain, often bitterly, about other Republicans they call RINOs (Republicans in Name Only), whom they have deemed to be not conservative enough. To say this only happens on the left simply isn't true.

Dennis said...

John wrote: "To say this only happens on the left simply isn't true."

I never said that! My goodness, John, as if you can't find enough with what I DO say to criticize, you criticize what you imagine I've said as well!

You actually made my point for me when you wrote: "Conservatives complain, often bitterly, about other Republicans they call RINOs (Republicans in Name Only)."

Conservatives DO distinguish themselves from the "Republicans in Name Only." I don't see sensible Democrats doing much to distance themselves from the wackos.

john said...

Well, the implication was that there was something especially wrong with the Left because they "ostracize" members of their party for not being in lock step.

And I don't think you understood my point. "RINOs", as they are called, are Republicans who are more moderate and willing to do such horrible things as actually work with Democrats to get things done or disagree with the President once in awhile - hence the frustration they cause conservatives by not being conservative enough. They are by no means wackos. If you think moderate Republicans are wackos then you're even more extreme than I thought.

Dennis said...

John wrote, "Well, the implication was that there was something especially wrong with the Left because they "ostracize" members of their party for not being in lock step."

No, John, it was no implication. Let me be clear--there IS something wrong with the Democratic party for not distancing themnselves from the far left waco fringe that has taken over the party!

I never implied in any way that RINO's were wackos (where did you get that idea?). I disagree with them on many social issues, but I never implied that they were wackos.

Every left wing lunatic fringe group in the country has attached themselves to the Democratic party and the Democratic party, as far as I can tell, has done virtually nothing to distance themselves.

It would be as IF the Republican party began to be taken over by David Duke followers, the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists or those who advocate violence againt abortion providers--and the Republican party did nothing to distance themselves from these wackos.

Maybe its all an inaccurate perception on my part, but I really don't see much difference between what I hear from the Cindy Sheehans, Rosie O'Donnels, or Michael Moores, on the one hand, and the Nancy Pelosis, John Kerrys John Edwards, Ted Kennedys, Cinthia McKinneys or Charles Rangels on the other.

Anonymous said...

You think Cindy Sheehan, Rosie O'Donnel, Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, John Edward, Ted Kennedy, Cinthia McKinney and Charles Rangel are the equivalent of David Duke, the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and those who advocate violence againt abortion providers?

And you think that's not extremist?

john said...

Once again you have misunderstood what I'm saying. I was referring to the fact that you criticized Democrats for taking issue with Joe Lieberman (and other moderate Democrats) - that's what I meant by those not in lock step, not the "wackos". My point is, if the Left "ostracizes" members of their party for being too moderate, so does the Right (with the "RINOs").

You wrote: I never implied in any way that RINO's were wackos (where did you get that idea?). I disagree with them on many social issues, but I never implied that they were wackos.

Maybe this quote had something to do with it: Conservatives DO distinguish themselves from the "Republicans in Name Only." I don't see sensible Democrats doing much to distance themselves from the wackos.

And I think "anonymous" pretty much responded to the rest of your post correctly.