Sunday, February 12, 2017

Why Did the Washington Post Publish This Substance-less Drivel?

Ed Rogers wrote an opinion piece arguing that "Elizabeth Warren is a grandstanding phony." Except "arguing that" is the wrong description because there is no actual argument in the piece. Rogers doesn't like Warren, that much is obvious. He calls her "pretentious," "grandstanding," "phony," "egotistical," "artificial," and "selfishly driven." He labels her efforts to bring up Session's record of bigotry as "a personal harangue", "disparaging", "shallow", "pandering," and a "hypocritical attack." I get it, I get it. Ed really hates Elizabeth.

But there is no argument that anything Warren said about Sessions was wrong. Although he alludes to Warren's charges, Rogers doesn't even explain what they are, much less make any effort to examine them for accuracy or argue that the substantive points she made were wrong. Ed was just offended that the Massachusetts Senator had the gall to bring up those kind of charges (meaning charges of racism against a southern white guy). The only truly revealing bit in the mostly substance-free piece is this:
Speaking as a proud Alabamian, trust me when I say that people from the state hate being screamed at about being bigots by someone from Massachusetts. This is nothing new. Anytime the left feels backed into a corner by Republicans or are having trouble defending their own actions, they yell “racism” — especially if their target happens to be a white, Southern, Christian Republican. They go straight to race quicker than you can say “Pocahontas.”
So I guess Roger's beef isn't about the issue of whether Sessions is really qualified to be Attorney General, it's about the hurt feelings he gets when people find out he is from Alabama and assume he is a racist. Roger's primal scream is made even more ridiculous by his reference to "Pocahontas", which itself a racist attack against Warren. Way to defend the New South, moron.

(via Memeorandum)