Posted on 05/04/2005 5:59:04 AM PDT by OESY
I'll get to First Lady Laura Bush's bawdy stand-up routine in a minute. But I want to highlight a related new book out about how young conservatives are shaking up the dominant liberal media culture. It's called "South Park Conservatives." My name is listed on the cover along with many other (mostly) right-leaning pundits, websites, and bloggers, but I must confess to having mixed feelings about the honor.
The best-selling book's author, Brian C. Anderson of the Manhattan Institute, writes a fun, breezy survey documenting the rise of talk radio, FOX News, the Internet, conservative publishing, and college Republican activism. Anderson's chapter on the success of conservative talk radio and the abysmal failure of liberal Air America to replicate it is incisive. Another chapter on the blogosphere (alone worth the price of the book) gives readers a useful history of the explosion of news, opinion, and political websites that have smashed the left-wing media monopoly.
But how did such a wide-ranging list of individuals and organizations -- Anderson's book cover includes the names of conservative-leaning Internet pioneer Matt Drudge and center-left journalist Mickey Kaus, the libertarian Tech Central Station, the culturally conservative WorldNetDaily, political upstart Arnold Schwarzenegger and political chameleon Andrew Sullivan, plus Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and myself, along with a feature blurb from Jonah Goldberg -- all get lumped under the umbrella term "South Park Conservatives"?
Anderson argues that Comedy Central's cartoon series "South Park" embodies the "fiercely anti-liberal comedic spirit" of the "new media" from Kaus to Coulter. The cartoon, he writes, reflects a "post-liberal counterculture" that is "particularly appealing to the young, however much it might offend older conservatives."
Well, I'm 34 and no fan of "South Park." I have many good friends who are indeed huge boosters of the show, but I find that the characters' foul language overwhelms any entertainment I might otherwise derive from the show's occasional, right-leaning iconoclastic themes.
"South Park" may be "politically incorrect." But "politically incorrect" is not always a synonym for "conservative."
My discomfort with "South Park's" increasingly mainstream vulgarity is not a matter of nitpicking. We're not just talking about a stray curse word here or there. As liberal New York Times columnist Frank Rich points out, "South Park" "holds the record for the largest number of bleeped-out repetitions (162) of a single four-letter expletive in a single television half-hour." That's probably about the same number of profanities uttered at John Kerry's infamous New York City celebrity fundraiser last summer, which Republicans rightly condemned for its excessive obscenities.
Rich is wrong about most things, but he's painfully on target in noting the incongruous pandering now taking place by some in the cool-kids clique on the Right. Conservatives criticize Hollywood relentlessly, but as Rich notes, "the embarrassing reality is that they want to be hip, too."
Which brings me to Mrs. Bush. She demonstrated at the celebrity-studded White House Correspondents' Dinner this weekend that you can entertain without being profane. Most of her humor was just right: Edgy but not over the edge. But her off-color stripper and horse jokes crossed the line. Can you blame Howard Stern for feeling peeved and perplexed? And let's face it: If Teresa ("I'm cheeky!") Heinz Kerry had delivered Mrs. Bush's First Lady Gone Mildly Wild routine, social conservative pundits would be up in arms over her bad taste and lack of dignity.
The First Lady resorting to horse masturbation jokes is not much better than Whoopi Goldberg trafficking in dumb puns on the Bush family name. It was wholly unnecessary.
Self-censorship is a conservative value. In a brilliant commencement speech at Hillsdale College last year, Heritage Foundation president Ed Feulner called on his audience to resist the coarsened rhetoric of our time: "If we are to prevail as a free, self-governing people, we must first govern our tongues and our pens. Restoring civility to public discourse is not an option. It is a necessity."
Lighten up, you say? No thanks. I'd rather be a G-rated conservative who can only make my kids giggle than a "South Park"/"Desperate Housewives" conservative whose goal is getting Richard Gere and Jane Fonda to snicker. Giving the Hollyweird Left the last laugh is not my idea of success.
You sure do like that word needlebutt. I find that odd for a Christian. But I guess it's just un-Christian, even anti-Christian me.
And the Perpetually Disturbed are into Day 6, I see.
You just don't get it do you? There is no reasoned argument which would work for you. Precisely what you don't get is not that you believe yourself a good Christian but that you are perceived thusly. Instead of putting your lips in action, or letting you anonymous fingers fly on the keyboard, I suggest you put your hands together and pray.
Very much so.
Like I said, it's pure stupidity.
Your story about Truman:
ROFLMAO!
So I see; all the while wailing about ad hominem attacks, failing to take into account they're doing the same dang thing. Go figure.
That's quite scholarly.
Thank you for posting it.
My daughter asked me the same question ( She had heard the word "pornography" on TV)
So I gave her an answer much like yours.
She turned beet-red, made a face and said "Eeeeewwww! GROSS!".
She's easily embarrassed.
ROFL!
You're on a roll today!
Well, it's not really my story.
Reader's Digest was printing scatological filth like that more than 40 years ago.
A yes,
Reader's Digest.
My grandmother subscribed to that.
Grandma was pretty racy!
Day 6 and it's a tossup between being perpetually disturbed and perpetually stupid. Rush just played the joke and those who are offended aren't even mentioning the setup of the joke which was the Yale agriculture program (of which Yale has none). If one were going to live and earn the life of a cowboy or farmer, they wouldn't attend Yale, but they would attend a university such as Montana State University where they have one of the best rodeo teams in the country as well as one of the largest Ag Sciences program in the country. You can easily spot the Ag Sciences students at Montana State, they're all wearing cowboy hats, boots, and dusters.
It's important for liberals to keep this issue alive as long as possible to inflict the most damage upon the Bush family.
Regarding the horse joke, notice that the offense taken is sexual in nature. Now ask yourself: What kind of a human being can take the primary sexual component of a male horse's physiology and relate to it sexually?
To a well-adjusted human being, there is nothing sexual about a horse to which he can relate. The joke was about ineptitude and the fact that the joke's punchline consciously or unconsciously involves the mental image of an ignorant attempt at utilization of the horse's implement of reproduction for impossible purposes is nothing more than the absurd surprise which makes us laugh (assuming we have a sense of humor). But to suggest that the joke is improper within any context due to its purported sexual nature is evidence of sexual dysfunction or perversion within the mind of the suggester.
No sexually well-adjusted human being will take offense at the joke. Horses should relate sexually to other horses. Human beings should not, and anyone who can relate to a horse's penis in sexual terms needs to go to the doctor.
Conservatives are in overwhelming proportion healthy sexually and the idiotic left has once again overplayed its hand.
That was the line the brainless NOW-gang used against Clarence Thomas. Are you sure you want to associate yourself with it?
There is no reasoned argument which would work for you.
Try one. I haven't seen you try any reasoned arguments. On anyone. Yet.
Precisely what you don't get is not that you believe yourself a good Christian but that you are perceived thusly.
Hmmmm. I don't understand that line. I guess I'm stupid as well as anti-Christian. Could you re-phrase that?
Instead of putting your lips in action, or letting you anonymous fingers fly on the keyboard, I suggest you put your hands together and pray.
Thank you, Reverend Grunt, for that sagely anonymous advice.
(Although I do find it odd for a Reverend to use the kind of words you've used here, like 'needlebutt' three times within three sentences. And a few other choice terms more scatological.)
It happens I have to leave the keyboard for now. But I'd like to put these questions to all at FreeRepublic:
Is it ever acceptable for a First Lady (any First Lady) to tell blue jokes in public?Would we ever have dreamed we'd be asking this question, just a few years ago? Especially about Laura Bush?
I really like to see thoughtful answers (not spiteful taunts) to those question
Back later.
Did you hear Rush? He said basically that the only people who took this joke the wrong way were liberals. Hmm...
Oh, and he did say that they were the same people who were O-FFENDED by everything and that's it's ALL ABOUT THEM, sort of like when Clinton was in office: ME ME ME ME ME.
You just don't get it do you?You CANNOT be serious. One has nothing to do with the other.That was the line the brainless NOW-gang used against Clarence Thomas. Are you sure you want to associate yourself with it?
Rush is laughing at you today.
She basically said "Yeah, he's an idiot, but, I still love him".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.