Daily Page | Zebrality | NCAA Pool | General Chat | Latest Comments

You are on an individual archive page

Click here to return to the main page


Wikipedia does good things. Reward them.

The Daily Links Page
Got a link to submit?
  • Refilling of Lake Delton about to begin
  • If acorns are poisonous, why don't squirrels die?
  • Will there be an Obama Derangement Syndrome?
  • USGS: 85.4T cubic feet of undiscovered, recoverable natural gas in Alaska
  • Obama set to introduce Clinton as Secretary of State Monday
  • Why the Fairness Doctrine isn't fair
  • The video that helped put a man in prison for 22 years for running a stop sign
       [ 1 comment ]
  • For Franken, a math problem
  • Ten Reasons Why Plaxico Burress Shot Himself
  • Reebok rewards Nike Marathon Winner the F.U.N. award
  • Lois Feldman Pic Surfaces After Metrodome Sex?
  • Iraq says 80 dollars a 'reasonable' price for oil
  • Update: Hawk fan says bathroom sex scandal 'ruined my life'
  • I.Q. Score Range By Occupation
  • Chris Rock and Modern Racial Comedy
  • Text of Constitution Bars Senator Clinton from Serving as Secretary of State
  • Was There a Realignment of American Politics?
  • Conservatism Has a Long Way to Go
  • Obamas chose private Sidwell Friends School
  • GOP Faithful Like Palin, Romney, Huckabee in 2012
  • 100 greatest singers of all time
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Taliban militants believed to be behind abduction of journalist in northern Pakistan
  • Palin hold press conference in front of turkey butchers
  • Citigroup May Get Government Rescue, Investors Say
  • Pembroke Pines teen who broadcast suicide had relationship problems, friend says
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Obama to delay repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell'
  • J.P. Hayes is as honest as we like to think we are
  • Al Franken challenging this ballot
       [ 1 comment ]
  • When you don't want to be Facebook friends
  • Early exposure to peanuts may prevent allergy
  • Suicide evidence likely out of MySpace hoax trial
  • Big Three CEOs Flew Private Jets to Plead for Public Funds
  • A Defense of Wisconsin...From Illinois
  • Gals: Six Tips for Meeting Guys
  • Mitt Romney: Let Detroit Go Bankrupt
       [ 1 comment ]
  • 500G painting rocks Antique Roadshow
  • SEC Charges Mark Cuban With Insider Trading
  • 40 Reasons for Gun Control
  • Christine Todd Whitman and Robert M. Bostock: GOP can't afford to remain hostage to social fundamentalists
       [ 4 comments ]
  • Melvin says Brewers will check in with Sabathia this week
  • The world has never seen such freezing heat
       [ 1 comment ]
  • The battle for Paul Bunyan's Ass??
  • Gay marriage propped on children's show
  • Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Would an Auto Bailout Lead to National Greatness?
  • 5 Myths About an Election of Mythic Proportions
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Dave Ramsey, Peter Schiff, and decline of U.S. Economy
  • Peter Schiff Was Right - 2006 - 2007
  • Kickball, with a dose of beer-infused nostalgia
  • Tolerance fails T-shirt test

     

  • An American Liberal in NASCAR Land

       September 12, 2005

    Eric, the Viking Pundit links to a LA Times article about a liberal venturing out in search of the ever-elusive "NASCAR dad".

    The writer, Jack Burditt says:

    Some of my real liberal friends talk about NASCAR as the personification of evil. I take a more inquisitive approach to politics. That's why last weekend I headed to Fontana, which I recently discovered is in California, to attend NASCAR's Sony HD 500.

    At first, Burditt finds a couple of guys who don't speak English and some scantily-clad ladies. Hmmm, I think, is this going to be an article about how NASCAR is far more diverse than just a bunch of good 'ole boys (never meaning no harm)? Well, not exactly.

    With the help of the aforementioned scantily-clad ladies, Burditt hooks up with some "real" NASCAR dads. Lo and behold, he finds that, after Hurricane Katrina, they don't like Bush either!:

    Another NASCAR dad, wearing an "I Fear No Beer" T-shirt, told me he enjoys the new respect for NASCAR fans. He said they used to be regarded as Confederate flag-waving yahoos who only went for the crashes. In fact, I think that used to be NASCAR's motto. Anyway, I found out he was a big Bush supporter but that he too was sorely disappointed with the president's hurricane response. Two men don't make a Gallup poll, but I found this interesting.

    Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the point here is that NASCAR fans are Confederate flag-waving yahoos, but that even Confederate flag-waving yahoos hate Bush now, sample of two be damned.

    I hate to be a naysayer, but are you telling me that at a NASCAR race, this reporter couldn't find a single person who approved of the President's performance? No one there said anything about the piss poor job of New Orleans' Democrat-led government? No one maybe mentioned something about how the idiots that decided to "ride this one out" should probably get a bill for their rescue? Not a single Confederate flag-waving yahoo bitched about their taxes going to bail people out who made the conscious decision to live in an area particularly susceptible to hurricanes? I listen to a lot of people, and I've certainly heard those sentiments expressed and if this reporter didn't it was only because he had his ears covered.

    I've seen this approach before. Back before the election, the LA Times sent a reporter out to Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin. Then, the reporter couldn't find a single western Wisconsinite who supported our efforts in Iraq.

    Writing about media bias gets old pretty quick. But, I don't think this is quite media bias. It's something else entirely. In stories like this the author finds these people from different, traditionally conservative cultures (hunters, NASCAR fans) and tries to humanize them for his urban, liberal audience. What I find so incredibly offensive is the way they try to do this. These writers try to humanize conservatives by taking away their conservative views. They can only relate to conservative NASCAR dads if those dads express displeasure with the President. A Wisconsin hunter is only not scary and worth quoting if he echoes the author's view on the war in Iraq.

    As a conservative, I know full well that whenever you express a liberal or libertarian view, they'll be at least three lefties telling you that you're not really a conservative and that you should give the Democratic Party a spin. It's like it's so drilled into these peoples' heads that conservatives are evil that if they find themselves having any sort of political or personal agreement with a conservative they need to conclude that that person can't possibly be a conservative. And so NASCAR dads are neutered and Wisconsin stereotypes are sanitized.

    I don't know about the rest of you, but I have friends and family all across the political spectrum (well, except commies, I don't know no stinkin' commies). We don't relate to each other just about politics. There's more to life than politics (gasp!). But, at the same time, I don't pretend that my liberal friends are really conservatives in disguise. To deny them their beliefs seems like the ultimate lack of respect. And, if nothing else, this LA Times article is just another piece of evidence of how some in the liberal elite have nothing but contempt for the conservative masses.


    Posted by kris at September 12, 2005 08:08 PM

        The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1078

     

    Trackback Entries

     


    Comments

    #  September 12th, 2005 9:24 PM      kilabe
    well, lets be fair. They were in Cali, and we know that cali is not really indicative of the rest of the nation. Even at NASCAR events. Let's send this "reporter" to Datona and see how he survives his day goes.  
     
    #  September 12th, 2005 10:04 PM      Daddy
    ...last weekend I headed to Fontana, which I recently discovered is in California...

    I thought liberals were supposed to be intelligent.

    Open a road atlas, jackass!

    He probably thinks he can dictate the policy of a land 10,000 miles away, but he doesn't even know the communities in his own state.

    Yeah, I know, he was trying to be hip, but...the price you pay for being hip is looking like an idiot.

     
     
    #  September 13th, 2005 8:32 AM      Semanticleo
    Yeah, I hate this one too. Looks like the flip side of Ann Coulter.

    But mostly I hate it because it creates more red meat for the 'liberal bias of the press' wingies and commophobes.

    Do you think the press of today are the same people of say, 30-40 years ago?

    You know, when journalists were paid beans and bread because there just wasn't no money in the game. Reporters saw the mean side of life from the inside. They saw every day what the powerful could do to the powerless and it pissed them off. Yeah they were liberal then because they had empathy.

    You think journalists today give a flying fart about the cost of gasoline?

    All they care about is their portfolios and preserving their 'upscale' lifestyle.

    Please stop this crapola about the 'Liberal' media.  
     
    #  September 13th, 2005 9:02 AM      JohnTant
    Love the backhanded characterization there: "Yeah they were liberal then because they had empathy." As if a conservative couldn't have empathy.  
     
    #  September 13th, 2005 9:10 AM      BVBigBro
    I think a better point would be they held a variety of political views then. Reporters today aren't liberal. They're democrats.  
     
    #  September 13th, 2005 2:52 PM      mbrlr
    I won't be backhanded. Based on the evidence before us, it would be hard to conclude that conservatives could have empathy. Even sympathy is stretching it.

    One of my main regrets about George W. and the movement he leads is that H.L. Mencken is dead.  
     
    #  September 13th, 2005 2:58 PM      BVBigBro
    Now that is funny.  
     
    #  September 13th, 2005 3:25 PM      mbrlr
    H.L. Mencken would have sliced both sides, conservative and liberal. His stuff from the Scopes trial, although a bit condescending to the native folks (and he was from Maryland --- he would have been considered one of those Southerners pre-Civil War), is amazing. He could jab with a pen better than just about anyone.  
     
    #  September 13th, 2005 3:58 PM      BVBigBro
    Mencken. Nothing like invoking a racist anti-semite. Mencken was a parody of himself. Given his inability to comprehend anyone who disagreed with him, maybe he's an apt reference after all.  
     
    #  September 14th, 2005 1:33 AM      mbrlr
    Sort of like Fox News...?

    Ah! A slight aimed in my direction. I fully agree Mencken wasn't a nice guy, to put it mildly, but I disagree with the notion that he was a parody of himself. He was talented, albeit flawed, and represents that era from a journalistic standpoint better than anyone else. Was he a racist, an anti-semite, and mean as hell to Southerners to boot? Yeah, but talented and fun to read...and on the money concerning the Scopes trial.

    Please understand that I do comprehend those who disagree with me, but I...well, I disagree with them. My recognizing Mencken's talent while disagreeing with his content and then getting slammed for it is a classic example of a certain problem the Republic has run into in recent years and illustrates the gulf between the parties. I was raised to believe that if you don't agree with fellow citizens, you try to express that disagreement in a civil manner. Do I always live up to that? Of course not, but I do try. One of the things that has troubled me most about the "new" philosophy on the right post-1964 is that civility seems to have vanished from the political landscape. Although I like this site quite a bit and the folks involved in it (surprised about that?), the name of the site is an illustration of the problem. Liberals have generally tended to work from the old rule book and we've gotten hit pretty hard because of an unwillingness to play by the new rules. I've been trying to think of a way to rearrange "Republican" or "conservative" in the way the site has made "Democrats" into "Dummocrats", but I haven't managed to come up with anything that really works as yet.

    Anyway, I acknowledge the slight but please know I always enjoy discussing the issues with you. While I disagree with the political trend you follow, I certainly acknowledge your right to believe what you believe. Please grant me the same and read Mencken's articles on the Scopes trial. They may be mean and intolerant, but they're funny as all get out  
     
    #  September 14th, 2005 8:06 AM      BVBigBro
    No offence, I simply felt the reference fit in nicely with the original article. I will, however, maintain that it is the left that has lost civility. It began with the 1960 election and continues to this day. If I only had $.10 for everytime Goldwater, Reagan, etc. were portrayed as desiring a nuclear holocaust, for instance. The left's total lack of humor is an equally disturbing problem. Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Clinton II. Not a funny bone between the bunch of 'em. Life ain't all gloom and doom. And I don't see FOX news, no cable.  
     
    #  September 14th, 2005 8:26 AM      BrianH
    BVBigBro,

    I dispute your assertion that none of the listed Dems had a funny bone. Pres. Clinton had a great sense of humor. It's probably one reason the country overlooked many of his faults (it also helped that he's probably the best public speaker I've ever seen). I agree that the rest of the bunch have no humor (including his wife the Senator). Fortunately, sometimes their complete lack of humor is in itself humorous. 8*)

     
     
    #  September 14th, 2005 8:35 AM      BVBigBro
    Clinton never did or said anything funny. He was the total opposite of spontaneous. I HATED his speaking more than any other human I've ever heard. His speeches were unrelated sound bites tacked on to the end of each other with pauses after every two sentences. Drove me nuts. Bush II is incoherent lots of times, but his speeches as least go in one direction without all the toing and froing.  
     
    #  September 14th, 2005 8:53 AM      BrianH
    I can't honestly think of anything funny he said, but he was always smiling or laughing. Nothing like the constant sneers on the other Dems. It may have been an act, but he pulled it off well.

    As for public speaking, I think we'll just have to disagree. He had a knack for making the audience BELIEVE whatever he said. Even when he had said the exact opposite thing the day before (and he would make you believe that maybe he didn't really say what you thought he said). He mastered the art of using "victims" in his speeches. Others attempt to use the same techniques, but no one else can pull it off.

     
     
    #  September 14th, 2005 8:53 AM      kris
    I HATED his speaking more than any other human I've ever heard.


    More than Dick Bennett?

    But seriously, doesn't anyone remember Clinton's speech at the '88 Convention. He got a HUGE round of applause when he said "and in conclusion...". That's how bad it was.  
     
    #  September 14th, 2005 9:06 AM      JohnTant
    Near the end of Clinton's last term he did a video that kind of poked fun at his last days in the White House:

    http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blclintonfinaldaysvideo.htm

    It showed him basically being alone in the mansion with some kid, messing around with the vending machines, trimming the hedges, and other silly stuff. I gotta say, it was pretty funny in and of itself.  
     
    #  September 14th, 2005 9:07 AM      BVBigBro
    I agree, Clinton is not unpleasant, but he's not funny.  
     
    #  September 14th, 2005 9:40 AM      mbrlr
    I apologize if I took that wrong. It was a late evening and both my boys were sick, so I was probably a bit ready to take offense just out of being tired, if that makes any sense at all.

    As for Clinton's sense of humor, it's real. Although not up to Bumpers or Pryor perhaps, his sense of humor was respected here and never doubted. Even Mrs. Clinton, once she got over her yankee transplant days (and then she felt she had to go to New York to get elected...I really don't doubt that she could have been elected here) took part in the general dry wit that surrounds Arkansas politics even in our worst periods. Clinton could not have been reelected here without a sense of humor; even Orval Faubus, scum that he was, relied on his sense of humor to connect with the voters. Politicians used to be --- it seems to be changing --- required to have a sense of humor or at least make a good show of having one in Arkansas and most of the South. I think, though, that much of the Arkansan aspect of Clinton's humor just went by many folks. That's not a slam, just a cultural observation.  
     
    #  September 14th, 2005 9:44 AM      mbrlr
    BTW, more than any other human you've ever heard? Lord have mercy. Didn't you ever hear Spiro Agnew speak or Dan Quayle attempt to put a sentence together?  
     
    #  September 14th, 2005 9:46 AM      BVBigBro
    It's not anything Clinton says. It's the scripting, the disconnected part, and the constant pause for applause. I like speakers who can ramble along coherently and unscripted. I like the questions to the PM in England just for this reason. I think Blair is a good speaker.  
     
    #  September 14th, 2005 10:01 AM      BrianH
    OK, I get it. You don’t like well prepared and scripted. Clinton had definitely prepared his speeches and it showed. He followed all the public speaking rules. The first rule in speech class is to PRACTICE. He had that practice. He used all the other speech class techniques perfectly plus the “victim” technique that if he didn’t invent, he at least perfected. No he wasn’t big on spontaneity, nothing at all like Reagan.

     
     
    #  September 14th, 2005 10:08 AM      kris
    Heh, I think Reagan was a great speaker, but I certainly would never think of him as spontaneous.  
     
    #  September 14th, 2005 10:10 AM      BVBigBro
    It's not just the scripted part. It's the speeches that were collections of unrelated sound bites pasted togehter with no logical transition. The something for everyone idea. All done for later TV use I'm sure, but terrible to listen to.  
     
    #  September 14th, 2005 10:12 AM      BVBigBro
    Reagan had lots of spontaneous humor and the like. You had the bombs falling comment, I paid for this microphone, etc...  
     
    #  September 14th, 2005 4:34 PM      mbrlr
    I agree that question time is pretty cool and helps those who serve as representatives in a representative democracy learn how to think on their feet; I wish we had something similar, but I'm not sure how that could operate in our system.  
     
    #  September 14th, 2005 4:38 PM      mbrlr

















    Well, I'm about to call on him again. Lord, have mercy. There was very little spontaneous about Reagan, up to and including the paid-for microphone line. Whatever you thought of his acting career, one of the lessons he learned quite well was to have the lines down.

    As for Clinton, his discussions and speeches were well within the Southern liberal (and yes, there is and was such a thing) tradition and fit that pattern.














    -  
     
    #  December 1st, 2005 10:52 AM      mbrlr
    If you want a hint of Clinton's sense of humor, look --- really look --- at his library here in LR. Although I don't think the outlander architects intended it to look this way, it looks just like the stereotypical PWT trailer that's been gussied up a bit. I will believe to the end of my days that he saw that the instant it was shown to him and he decided to go with it because he knew it was a joke the "home folks" would get.  
     

     

     


    To leave a comment you must be logged in.
    Log in here
    or Get an Account here.