Awesome St. Louis blogger Dana Loesch reports on the utter cluelessness or (more likely) the despicable dishonesty of Missouri Representative Jeff Roorda, who smeared conservative activists on the floor of the Missouri legislature last week as "teabaggers." When called out by activists, who demanded an apology, Roorda claimed ignorance:
I did indeed use the term “teabagger” on the House Floor during the debate on HCR 18. I know nothing about any sexual connotation attached to the term but I do know that the term is widely associated with the anti-healthcare movement. I used the term because everybody knows who I’m talking about when I use it. There was no intention to derogate members of the so-called “teabagger” movement. My intention was only to satire the fact that the Missouri House spent an entire legislative day debating a non-binding resolution telling Congress that we are against a bill that is still in the process of being written. I make no apologies for pointing out that the Missouri House could have spent it’s time talking about more important issues overwhich the State Legislature has some control.Interestingly, while claiming ignorance on the grotesque meaning of the sexualized gay-slur, Representative Roorda still refused to apologize.
Thank you for writing,
State Rep. Jeff Roorda
And that's to be expected, considering how mainstream "teabagging" has become to those shocked by the political power of the tea party movement. As Meryl Yourish points out, the Associated Press put the term in quotation marks in an article citing "tea-bagging" activists:
The fact that they put the epithet in quotes indicates that they know full well that “teabagger” is a vulgar term. I never knew it existed before the so-called objective media types (we mean you, Anderson Cooper) were calling Tea Party activists “teabaggers.” It is a deliberate insult. It is not the way an objective news organization should describe the millions of Americans from all walks of life who attended rallies and town halls to protest the expansion of government by this administration and congress.But leftists somehow continue to dodge the vulgar meaning of the slur, pointing to MSNBC's lying hatemaster Rachel Maddow as "evidence." But no one's fooled by such rank hypocrisy. Last year, when Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi attacked Michelle Malkin in his essay, "Teabagging Michelle Malkin," he left no doubt the meaning leftists assign to the term:
I have to say, I’m really enjoying this whole teabag thing. It’s really inspiring some excellent daydreaming. For one thing, it’s brought together the words teabag and Michelle Malkin for me in a very powerful, thrilling sort of way. Not that I haven’t ever put those two concepts together before, but this is the first time it’s happened while in the process of reading her actual columns.So, there's really no doubt. But if conservatives were to attack Obama backers with similarly derogatory sexual slurs, you'd be hearing yowls of "raaaaacism" faster than you could say Jeremiah Wright!
Previously Michelle Malkin’s writing was on the edge of unreadable; she’s sort of like Ann Coulter, only without that tiny fraction of P.T. Barnum/Mick Jagger-esque self-promotional flair that makes Coulter at least vaguely interesting ....
Now when I read her stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth. It vastly improves her prose. See for yourself ...
No comments:
Post a Comment