Letters to the Editor
-
Girly-boy pubs.
Indeed, as this Mark Hemingway "sissy mary" outburst illustrates, the opposite is almost always true. The gap between the Mythological Right-Wing Male Leader and the reality of their actual leaders is virtually infinite.
They're evidently overcompensating for something, possibly that utter lack of masculinity, and perhaps embarrassingly small genitalia. Maybe both.
Makes you wonder just how many of these guys should be on the child abuser lists. We do know that the Republicans are the Party of Perversion:
Stop Republican Pedophilia!
-
Stop Republican Pedophilia!
It's a national problem. Maybe even a problem for the girly-boys at National Review:
Republican Hypocrisy Revealed
http://www.armchairsubversive.org/
-
John Wayne a draft dodger?
No, another convenient lie. He was rated by his draft board 3-A, "deferred for [family] dependency reasons."
He was married and had children. Simple as that.
-
What makes a "real" man?
Thanks to Glenn for another interesting topic, and thanks to everyone else for a--mostly--civil discussion on a touchy subject.
I think one distinction I haven't seen mentioned here (sorry if I missed it) is that there is a difference between what Republicans say makes a real man and what really does make a real man.
Democrats would argue that actual manliness means honesty, responsibility, courage, caring for your family, etc.
Manliness does NOT mean bullying, name calling, or ANYTHING to do with personal appearance. Republicans (and their media followers) insinuate that your appearance does matter--see comments on Romney, Edwards, etc.
Glenn's point, as I see it, is that Hemingway and the others have NEITHER of these sets of characteristics.
They aren't real men, according to the actual, true definition I listed above. But furthermore, they aren't even "real men" according to the bogus characteristics outlined by the "macho" Republican crowd.
The implied logical argument (for those of you who want one) is that the characteristics mocked by Republicans--such as showing some emotion when it's called for or showing concern for those less fortunate than oneself--are NOT inconsistent with being a real man, according to the true definition I mentioned above.
-- Jeff
-
All Codpiece and No Cattle
Glenn, I'm sure you'll recognize the first subtitle as the title of one of your columns back in March, so I dunno if this counts, but here are my suggestions:
NEO-CONFLICTED: The Right-Wing Cult of Contrived Masculinity
or
NEO-CONFLICTED: Ersatz Masculinity and the Conservative Right
-
@ Anonymous
If he'd waited an hour or two, he could have walked on board. Not much fun in that, though, huh? Not much propaganda value either. You never saw Eisenhower dressed up like a paratrooper or a field marshall during his presidency, did you? Or wearing one of those stupid Commander-in-Chief jackets either. And it wasn't because he had other priorities, either.
-
Hemingway is as queer as a Republican Congressman
So are the rest of the bloviators.
-
Kitt
None of those guys in the pictures have the ridiculously big bulge that Bush has.
None of the rest of them needed a diaper either. Draw your own conclusions.
Bush must have had a guacamole salad for lunch, judging from the contents of his flight helmet.
-
anonygetaname
So much for your theory that it was all image and theater, but as I said, you're all so willing to fall for simply lies.
--Anonymous
All codpiece speculation aside, for you to call us ignorant due to us seeing that whole idiotic spectacle as anything but "image and theater" is one of the most ironical statements I have ever heard. It was image and theater. And the doughboy payed for it in the end. Mission Accomplished, indeed.
-
Hemingway was not just making fun of Souter's actions...
Again, Mr Hemingway’s never mentioned anyone’s physical appearance (as far as i know), he merely questioned their actions.
No, he did more than question Souter's alleged actions. He said, "Of all the Supreme Court justices, I always suspected he was the sissy mary." He didn't just claim to believe this AFTER hearing that Souter may have cried. He ALWAYS suspected it. Souter's actions had nothing to do with Hemingway's suspicions, except to, suppposedly, confirm them.
Now, perhaps Hemingway picked up the belief in Souter's sissy-mary-dom after a careful reading and in depth analysis of Souter's various legal opinions. But I seriously doubt it. I doubt he's capable of any in depth analysis. Hemingway is merely making a juvenile joke based on Souter's appearance, because he doesn't have the emotional maturity to do anything else.
And add me to the group that thinks that it really isn't a masculine- feminine thing that has these idiots confused. No, its a juvenile-adult hang-up. They are all examples of arrested development. That's the reason for the juvenile sissy-boy talk. None of them are emotionally adult men(or women, in Coulter's case) because they never progressed past the junior high psyche.
-
Junior High, Huh?
I haven't read through all 265 responses to Mr. Greenwald's fine column, so it's possible someone already pointed the following out: Back in Junior High, when the bad mouthing caught up with the little punk responsible for it and he got thrown against the wall for it, wasn't his first response something like "It.was.just.a.joke....Honest!'
Memo to Democratic candidates: Don't stop with just throwing your rethuglican opponent against the wall.
-
Matthews/Buchanan
The irony of Matthews' praise for Buchanan's "cross dressing Democrats" comment at the '92 Republican convention is that it was that type of schoolyard banter at the convention that went a long way to costing the Republicans the election that year.
I also remember Al Franken and Arianna Huffington (in her Republican phase - ha!) on Comedy Central predicting the same thing as Buchanan was speaking.
-
Not image and theatre?
So much for your theory that it was all image and theater...
So, say we give you the benefit of the doubt on the codpiece issue, because your description of all the straps and how things are supposed to fit - or not fit, as the case may be - seems to have merit, then how is the "Mission Accomplished" banner not theatre? What about the rubber Thanksgiving turkey?
Whether or not Bush stuffed his shorts - and the fun we've had speculating about it - is just icing on the cake. It is always about the "image" and "theatre" with this crew.
-
Whose C-in-C??
It's not the clothes that the man wears, but rather, it's the man who wear the clothes . . . .
"You never saw Eisenhower dressed up like a paratrooper or a field marshall during his presidency, did you? Or wearing one of those stupid Commander-in-Chief jackets either."
It's the militarization of America, stupid. Gary Willis writes, "When Abraham Lincoln took actions based on military considerations, he gave himself the proper title, “commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” That title is rarely — more like never — heard today. It is just “commander in chief,” or even “commander in chief of the United States.” This reflects the increasing militarization of our politics. The citizenry at large is now thought of as under military discipline."
In fact, George might indeed be the C-in-C, but only of the military, not of us poor slobs who are civilians . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/27/opinion/27wills.html?ex=1327554000&en=5b8f7083944b1473&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss