Posts Tagged ‘SE Cupp’

S.E. Cupp Criticizes Sarah Palin’s Voting Rationale

Friday, March 9th, 2012

It's What You Don't Know...

S.E. Cupp, the columnist and Glenn Beck associate who appears on his Internet-based TV network, GBTV, wrote an article published on CNNs site that ought to be debunked.  Cupp isn’t happy with Sarah Palin’s support of Newt Gingrich, but then again, I’m not so sure that she’s happy about much of anything.  She seems to think that Governor Palin ought to choose either Romney or Santorum, but abandon Gingrich since Cupp thinks there is no way Gingrich can win.  She goes as far as to suggest that Sarah Palin’s motives might be suspect, and that given her own career, the former Alaska governor ought to support anybody but Newt Gingrich.  I confess not knowing Governor Palin, but merely observing her at a distance, despite a few hand-shakes as just one more face in very large and frantic crowds in each case.  Still, what I know of her record, and Newt’s, suggests many good reasons for her vote in the Alaska primary.

Governor Palin has long been an advocate of “sudden and relentless reform.”  For S.E. Cupp, I suppose it’s hard to imagine Newt Gingrich in that light, but a few things of note come to mind when I remember that Governor Palin embarked on her own political career at approximately the time Newt Gingrich began in his own rise to prominence.  Watching from faraway Alaska, I’m sure the future governor must have been struck by the fact that Gingrich faced a media onslaught probably not replicated against any Republican since Goldwater or Reagan, that is, until she entered the national spotlight in 2008.

Of course, back in those days, S.E. Cupp was another of those who was a teenager in High School, so I don’t expect her to remember much of Newt Gingrich in the period except the media impressions she absorbed along with the history she has more recently learned.  Born in 1979, Cupp would have been only fifteen years old when Newt Gingrich led the Republican takeover of the Congress in 1994.  In her span of political awareness, Republicans in control of Congress has been a mixed affair, but for people of my generation, and the Governor’s, who had never seen a Republican Congress in their entire lives,  although we saw Republican briefly control the Senate for a few years in the 1980s, the House of Representatives had been so institutionally Democrat for so long that many wondered if that could ever change.

Newt Gingrich brought a plan to the task, and he set out to carry it into reality, and whatever else you might say about him, what he accomplished in the period of the mid 1990s is nothing short of unprecedented.  For those of my generation, or older, most will remember how Gingrich absolutely floored the media, and how he was able to stir up Washington DC into a hornet’s nest like we’ve seldom seen.  He went with specific promises, calling it the “Contract With America,” that Democrats mocked as the “Contract On America.”  While ultimately, not all of the items passed through the Congress, in the House, each measure promised was at least brought to a vote.  In this sense, what Gingrich tried to bring to Washington DC was most definitely an instance of “sudden and relentless reform.”

Cupp may be forgiven for not remembering that, young as she was at the time, but what she may not be forgiven is the failure to consider it in her prodding CNN op-ed questioning the former Alaska Governor’s motives.  She could have researched it, or reached outside her own knowledge, but instead, she offered nonsense like this:

“Instead, she doubled down Tuesday, telling Fox Business Network that she voted for Gingrich in the Alaska caucuses, where he finished dead last. And why? “I have appreciated what he has stood for,” she said. “He has been the underdog in many of these primary races and these caucuses.”

“Again, Palin’s free to like any candidate she wants, and those would be valid arguments, if they were true.”

Here, Cupp questions not only Governor Palin’s motive, but also the veracity of her claim that she “appreciated what [Gingrich] has stood for,” and that “he has been an underdog in many of these primary races and these caucuses.”

Is S.E. Cupp now a mind reader, able to detect that perhaps Sarah Palin had not “appreciated what [Gingrich] stood for?”  Cupp writes: “if they were true.”  How can Cupp pretend to know what Governor Palin has appreciated?  Of course, the dead giveaway comes in the next paragraph, as she explains why this cannot be true:

“What Newt has stood for, both during his political career and during this campaign, sits in total contradiction to what Palin has stood for since becoming a public figure. She’s for small government; he’s shown a disturbing penchant for big government solutions. She champions Washington outsiders and rails against the establishment; he’s the epitome of establishment, and has been firmly encamped inside the Beltway for decades. The very people who appreciate Palin should be the same people who despise Gingrich.”

Cupp doesn’t get it, but more, it’s clear to me that she’s toting somebody’s barge, or lifting somebody’s bale, and my guess is that his name is Mitt Romney.  Gingrich was an outsider even when he was in Washington.  He was never accepted by the establishment class there, and he’s still not, and back in 1998, after the loss of a few House seats, it was his own party that threw him overboard as Speaker in early 1999.  He resigned because of that, and not due to scandals, as some have dishonestly alleged, including the former Massachusetts governor.  The truth of the matter is that Gingrich was run out of town on a rail at the first opportunity.  The establishment never really liked the college professor from Georgia very much, anyway.

It’s also true to say that Gingrich was a reformer, at least in 1994, and he certainly did more to upset Bill Clinton’s applecart than anybody else at the time.  If not for Bob Dole’s surrender over the FY 1996 budget, because he was seeking the Presidency, Gingrich might have accomplished a good deal more, but the DC establishment crowd undercut him.  While Cupp may not remember all of this, those of us engaged or at least attentive to politics at the time could not have failed to notice what really happened.  Of course, not satisfied with that she goes on to explain why Gingrich hasn’t been the underdog:

“And he’s hardly been an “underdog.” With the backing of billionaire financier Sheldon Adelson and the benefit of serious name recognition, he’s enjoyed the money, media attention and opportunity that other GOP candidates didn’t. If Newt’s been an underdog, I’m sure Jon Huntsman and Michele Bachmann would have been happy to switch places.”

Apparently, Cupp didn’t notice that what Adelson has contributed over the last few months to the Gingrich effort is a pittance compared to the money spent against him by Mitt Romney.  The difference is staggering, and in South Carolina, where Gingrich had a stunning turnaround, it was despite the fact that Romney outspent him by more than two-to-one.  In Florida, where Romney prevailed, he did so spending more than five-to-one.  I don’t know where Cupp learned math, but in my view, that’s an underdog.  She mentions name recognition, but that isn’t always that large an advantage.  Just ask Dr. Samuel Mudd.  Of course, Cupp may not have heard of him, either.  Cupp came of age in an era when Gingrich had been portrayed as the “Grinch,” and that probably made something of an impression on her.  She turned twenty as Gingrich’s own party had just pushed him under the proverbial bus.

For Cupp to question Governor Palin’s motives or veracity is pathetic, particularly in light of all Cupp doesn’t know, apparently, but to finish with this flourish is a study in conceit:

“Maybe Palin’s got a master plan in which she makes a late run at the presidency and puts Newt on her ticket. Still, it seems like an incongruous pick and waste of her considerable influence among far-right conservatives.”

“But I’m sure she knows what she’s doing.”

For a woman who professes to know who is or isn’t “establishment,” Cupp certainly speaks their language like a veteran. I also notice that she manages to specify “far-right conservatives,” as though that is the entire core of Governor Palin’s support, but the truth is that her support is a little more wide-ranging from the center to the “far-right.”  Of course, all of this seems all the more incompatible with reality, as Governor Palin has frequently said she didn’t think endorsements were that important.  The last line is simply a parting shot at the Governor, and if Cupp’s nasty tone hadn’t been evident before, it shines through here.

S.E. Cupp probably has a long career ahead of her, but I’d ask her not to imagine that she knows so much as she seems to think.  History didn’t start when she became politically aware, and whatever her preconceived notions about Gingrich, she ought to be careful not to project them onto reality or into the consciousness of others whose knowledge of the period may be somewhat more complete and more detailed.  Part of the problem lies in the fact that what Cupp knows about Gingrich, she probably has learned from others, rather than having observed it first-hand, and in that sense it may be colored by the lenses of others but she should also know that before one remarks on the beliefs or motives of others, one ought to at least endeavor to see things from the subject’s perspective, or even read what the subject has written.  In this respect, Cupp failed miserably.

“But I’m sure she knows what she’s doing.”

 

Men in Media: What’s Wrong With You?

Monday, September 19th, 2011

Lacking What? Now, What Else?

I wish to apologize in advance for some of the graphic language in this post.  Unfortunately, this situation has left me few alternatives but to discuss the abrasive and disgusting tone of some in the media.  I do it as a necessity because I believe Americans should know the character of the people in whom they have placed their trust. Like Andrew Breitbart’s explanation in the movie The Undefeated, I’ve concluded that there is a real problem in our culture, and among many Republican men particularly, there is now a surrender of the values we once shared, and it is expressed in a general cowardice to be seen when conservative women come under sexist, vulgar attacks.  It’s not that conservative women in politics can’t defend themselves, but when allegedly conservative outlets begin to act like the worst leftist purveyors of filth, one begins to wonder about the character of people who claim merely to be reporting the news.  Frankly, it makes me sick, and it makes me angry.  What’s happening to we men that so many of us will say nothing about it? Now, I’m going to have my say, and I’m also going to show you the truth about some in the right-wing media.

I’m a middle-aged man.  I was raised to have a baseline respect for people in general, but particularly for my elders on the presumption of their wisdom, and for women on the basis of the assumption that they had already put up with more garbage from men than they ought to have been asked to endure.  It’s not to say that women aren’t equally capable of crass and vulgar behavior, as a quick tour of our culture will demonstrate, but I was raised with that nowadays primitive (and some say “sexist”) notion that my basic reflex as a man should not include treating women as another of the boys in a locker-room discussion.

Some feminists will insist that this is still a sexist view of women, and in one sense, I can see their point, but perhaps it is because the people I love most in this world are women, I tend to restrain my language in their presence lest I be considered a first-rate jerk.  What seems to have become the norm on both sides of the sexual fence is an increasingly crass tone to every disagreement, but that is not why I write this evening.  Instead, I want to talk to you men.  I realize that the younger you are, the more inclined you may be to talking to women like one of the fellows, but I’ve become tired of men using linguistic bombast that includes references to female genitalia when speaking to women.  You can call me a “fuddy-duddy,” or “old school,” or frankly anything else your courage permits, but in my world, you use that language in front of a woman at your own peril.

I realize some of you will complain that there exists no shortage of women who rush to verbally emasculate men with the immediate reference to their “penises.”  I’ve heard it, much too often frankly, and some of them should also be ashamed.  Having covered the excuse some men will use to justify their own vulgarity, let’s move on to what I observed Sunday evening that has caused me to boil over.  I was on Twitter, and Dan Riehl re-tweeted something another had tweeted and I could hardly believe my eyes:

@Nick_Rizzuto: Can someone please give me the 411 on why there are so many sandy vaginas over this @DailyCaller Tyson/Palin story?

I knew the name from somewhere, but I couldn’t quite place it.  I clicked into his profile, and was reminded:  Rizzuto works for GBTV and TheBlaze.  I was doubly incensed given the recent Brian Sack routine on GBTV, so I sent my own response, as did a number of others.

Let me explain something to you boys who think such language is cool, and yes I said “boys” because I fear some of you are barely beyond puberty, who think this is a really effective form of argumentation: You look like an ass when you do this, and for precisely the same reason the Carlson’s outfit looked like a bunch of asses the day before, and GBTV looked like a bunch of asses on Thursday:  Using this kind of language merely demonstrates that you view the opposite sex as nothing more than their genitalia, with the motive of dehumanizing them and dismissing them.  One might well expect a thug like Mike Tyson to use such language, because we already know what the ear-chomping, punch-drunk, has-been boxer thinks of women as demonstrated by his physical and verbal violence against them, but the reason you shouldn’t engage in this is because you aren’t (or should not be)that sort of sexist thug.  I can’t believe I’m having to point this out to the erudite Tucker Carlson, the pious Glenn Beck, or his staff member Nick Rizzuto, whose most recent tweets indicate he and his wife/girlfriend(no un-PC assumptions here) have recently had a baby.

Boys, this is garbage.  Carlson, in all honesty, after your publication ran with the post it did, and Beck, after GBTV’s ridiculous “joke” of Thursday, and yeah, you too Rizzuto, I don’t know what any of you could possibly believe you have to offer to a civil discussion about any subject after this.  You’re all embarrassments to manhood.  At least Rizzuto had the good sense (or at least a sense of CYA) to delete his post, and issue an apology via twitter.  That’s the sort of thing that got Carlson off the hook, somewhat, when he did a very similar thing back in March of this year.  Apologies are unlikely to help him now, however, as Greta Van Susteren is on his case after Dan Riehl pursued the story all day Saturday.  Mr. Beck has a special problem, and it’s one he’s yet to address:  Two of these three incidents involve people who work for him, and one took place on his new network.

I’m disgusted by this sort of conduct.  Carlson, your staff should know better too.  Beck, you ought to clear something up with your people.  I’m beginning to wonder about the sort of culture that pervades these institutions of allegedly conservative thought: Is it that you’ve now become the caricatures the left has drawn?  I simply don’t see any excuse for this.  Nobody is running stories about the unsubstantiated sexual improprieties of any of the other candidates.  Don’t pretend there are none.  Sure, they’re awful and tawdry and probably false, but that same characterization fits what’s been said to date about Sarah Palin. What we have here is a cowardly attack on Governor Palin, and it’s bad enough when the left does this, but it ought never to come from our side.

Worse, Carlson’s staff lets rip with a story about Mike Tyson’s commentary and his utterly foul and violent descriptions, and nobody at Carlson’s organization seems to think anybody has done anything wrong, except Dan Riehl for reporting on it on Saturday.  No, they were simply “doing their jobs” to report the news.  Ditto Beck’s own site The Blaze, which did a similar garbage pass-along story on Joe McGinniss’s salacious novel.  Then there was Sack on GBTV with his jokes over which even the studio audience groaned nervously.  Now Nick Rizzuto, from The Blaze and GBTV says this?

No way.  It’s not accidental, and it’s not merely “doing one’s job” to pass along stories as “News” the sole purpose of which is to further a smear, using people like Mike Tyson and Joe McGinniss as surrogates to deliver it.

Add to this Nick Rizzuto’s tweet, and what it looks like to me is a bunch of men who are using crude smears in order to dismiss another woman.  Why do this?  What could be their motives?  You tell me.

Monday morning, a colleague of Rizzuto’s, S.E. Cupp, also from GBTV, tweets:

@secupp: Pretty sure Tyson’s the pig here, not Tucker. RT @politico: Greta: Tucker’s a ‘pig’ for Palin story http://politi.co/pJAXSW
Now another Beck associate is piling on in this mess to defend Carlson?  I like S.E.Cupp, but I think she’s gotten this wrong.  Worse, I am beginning to wonder what flavor of Kool-Aid they’re drinking over at GBTV.  While all of this goes on, The Blaze runs a story about how Howard Kurtz is complained that his own network was ganging up on Perry during last week’s GOP debate. Well, at least I think I’ve figured out the flavor of the Kool-Aid.

Another conservative leaps into the fray questioning Carlson’s motives:

@marklevinshow: Mike Tyson is a convicted rapist. Why were his vicious words about Sarah Palin considered newsworthy? I think… http://fb.me/11CP0a4pf

Yes, thankfully, there are still some real men.

Added below is the screen capture of the Tweets in question from Sunday evening(Start at bottom and read up):

Tweets from 9/18/2011