Brave Sir Silky: You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists Fox News
posted at 3:41 pm on August 2, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Like everything he does, down to the last anti-Coulter fundraising e-mail, it’s cynical calculation wrapped in progressive faux principle. On the eve of Yearly Kos, with Hillary’s lead widening, he’s floating a moronic non-issue to incite the nutroots faithful and put her on the defensive before she tried to win them over. It’s a transparent distraction, in other words, which is both smart politics and rancid hypocrisy insofar as this is precisely the sort of thing he was complaining about last week.
It’s almost too cliche to even mention at this point but follow the link and note the parallels between the rhetoric he uses to describe Fox executives and their employees and the rhetoric, say, Bush uses to describe the Iranian regime and its citizens. Obama will meet with Ahmadinejad — but he won’t meet with Chris Wallace. Your Democratic Party.
I leave you with this, courtesy of Andrew Wilkow’s producer, Nick. Wilkow was inspired by Silky’s recent declaration that the fightin’ nutroots must continue to fight They who would silence them — so he invited Silky on his show to make the case. The response:
Hi Nick it’s Andrea Frist calling from the Edwards campaign, returning your call about your request for an interview unfortunately we’re not gonna…we are not interested in doing it but thank you for calling and offering…
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Seems like it would’ve been easier to make a grab for the small-but-dedicated Truther vote.
And hell, that’s simpler than converting to Islam. All you have to do is close your eyes, click your heels together three times and say “fire can’t melt steel, fire can’t melt steel, fire can’t melt steel.”
John from OPFOR on August 2, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Hypocrisy? John Edwards? Naw, you have got to be kidding me. He, his motives, his associates, and his entire big web of friends and associates are all as pure as the wind-driven snow. He speaks up for the little guy, and there for has
Absolute
Moral
Authority
/sarcasm
gryphon202 on August 2, 2007 at 3:52 PM
This is what a presidential hopeful (in his own mind) acts like when the slow swirl in the bowl begins.
swami on August 2, 2007 at 3:53 PM
Shoot.
You missed your chance, Silky!
John from OPFOR on August 2, 2007 at 3:53 PM
I would have liked to listen to Wilkow beat the snot out of the surrender monkey.
georgej on August 2, 2007 at 3:54 PM
not…gonna…do…it.
(All I can hear is Dana Carvey doing his Bush 41 impression)
KelliD on August 2, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Silky made a pile of money as a blood sucking lawyer advocating “us vs. them”. Us vs. them is the central theme of his two Americas speech. His latest rant actually used the universal “they” as the his enemy. Now Fox news is standing in for the hated “them”.
Can anyone say one trick pony?
His act probably worked in court where his position as attorney demanded respect, even when his positions on the issues were not respectable. Oh, and there were no blogs dissecting his arguments.
TunaTalon on August 2, 2007 at 3:57 PM
I think Silky knows he’s in deep manure, and is desperately trying to demagogue anything he can in an effort to pander to the nutroots. It ain’t gonna work, but its interesting to watch as his campaign tries to salvage itself.
Bad Candy on August 2, 2007 at 3:59 PM
We are not to judge the actions of the Silky one because, you know, his heart is in the right place.
Zetterson on August 2, 2007 at 4:01 PM
I can’t wait to see what is going to happen when Silky has to tack toward the political center. It will be like when Dylan went electric.
Zetterson on August 2, 2007 at 4:03 PM
I personally think this entire “show” is about the election in ten years!! Numbuts will be young enough to run again, but in the meantime, isn’t there some law that allows presidential candidates to keep their fund raised money and ultimately use it personally? After all, that’s why so many of these nutters run term after term…it is the money, stupid!
sharinlite on August 2, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Fox News kills its competition in the key time slots. Is there any wonder why the “rats” refuse to show up and discuss the issues? They don’t get the free ride and softball questions of the mainstream media. In other words, no “rat” is going to discuss border security with Bill O’Reilly or healthcare with Brit Hume when there are propogandists like David Gregory, Larry King, Katie Couric, and CNN.
highhopes on August 2, 2007 at 4:11 PM
His wife seems to be unusually silent recently. Is he on some kind of mission to try and prove his “toughness”? Not working for me. Any Dims that I happen to know, aren’t far enough left to even be considering this guy. One even told me he’d vote Republican if Edwards got the nom.
PowWow on August 2, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Although it is great sport to make fun of Silky’s complete lack of masculinity or toughness, the most alarming aspect of his candidacy is his feeble intellect. This wimp has one thing to sell and it’s victimhood.
I believe Tuna is on the mark. He made a living selecting juries for their stupidity (and anyone who fell for the “channeling ploy” is first-class stupid) and he really believes his jury selections were representative of the population.
While I am convinced voters would never elect an emasculated show pony like Edwards, I find it disheartening that liberals have not disqualified him based on intellectual destitution.
Alamo on August 2, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Alamo, you remember when Cheney wiped the floor with Silky during the debates?
Bad Candy on August 2, 2007 at 4:24 PM
Edwards is Hillary on estrogen.
Sergei on August 2, 2007 at 4:36 PM
true story: We have neighbors who (legally) immigrated from Romania and when they discuss the “democrat” candidates, they call them COMMUNISTS. On a wide variety of issues, from Hillary’s corporate oil profits grab to socialized medicine, they point out that Democrats aren’t “progressive”….They’
re Repressive.
liberals = progressives = COMMUNISTS
Keith_Z on August 2, 2007 at 4:43 PM
Yeah BC I remember it well. He was completely dismantled. And given a back and forth thoughtful exchange any competent conservative (or liberal for that matter) can crush this guy.
I guess what concerns me is the MSM’s continuing attempts to dumb down the debate format (the YouTube “debate”, case in point) so that silly platitudes and canned responses are all the electorate will have to consider. Who knows, with the media’s complicity this guy may actually be electable in 4-8 years. A frightening prospect. All I can say is stockpile ammuniton and MREs and be ready for the class war.
Alamo on August 2, 2007 at 4:44 PM
I can’t wait ’til the primaries are over and we can pretend this douche never existed.
If it weren’t for the fact he stands no chance, I’d be extremely furious over the fact that the media never busts this “anti-war candidate” of all candidates, for being the pro-war one last time around. When all the other Dem candidates were turning on the war in the 2004 primaries (again, because they need negative and bad things to happen in order to win, because they have no ideas or plans or offer anything anyone agrees with), Edwards stood fast. While Chris Matthews BEGGED Edwards to say Bush misled him, “went it alone”, etc. Edwards stood his ground saying he was not mislead, he saw the intelligence, he saw the clear threat, he would have acted the exact same way Bush did at the UN, etc. etc.
Okay, I guess I am still furious about it, because I can’t stand the fact that NO ONE in the media roasts his nuts on that one. That alone should thoroughly destroy this clown because his entire campaign this round is about pretending he’s the new Howard Dean or something, and the primary focus (outside of “2 Americas”) his newfound anti-war position.
RightWinged on August 2, 2007 at 4:59 PM
Does Silky actually think he can win the nomination by pandering to the far, far, far, far left? I think not. He has an ulterior motive somewhere …
darwin on August 2, 2007 at 5:01 PM
I remember someone saying after the debate, if you want to sue someone go with Edwards.
PowWow on August 2, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Very good observation. We should point it out in TV ads when the vice presidential debate nears…
Christoph on August 2, 2007 at 5:10 PM
His once burnished suit is now empty unless he can channel JFK.
Wait! …
Randy
williars on August 2, 2007 at 5:14 PM
It’s what his wife wants. She’s the one who wears the real skirt in the family.
NellE on August 2, 2007 at 5:52 PM
The nutroots on Kos forgive Edwards his war vote, because he has apologized and it’s like…. so 20 minutes ago!
God what a bunch of maroons!
ArmyAunt on August 2, 2007 at 6:53 PM
I have a question for goods folks here at HA:
Why is it that when Rudy and Fred make their way on to Fox News, they’re always receiving their softball questions from every Republican’s “good friend,” Sean Hannity.
They should at least have the “melons” to take questions from the puppet, Alan Colmes, even if their too afraid to take questions from non-media Americans, i.e. YouTube/CNN debate.
Still lashing out at the insignificant Edwards? Sad.
sandman on August 2, 2007 at 6:53 PM
I don’t think Silky really thinks he’s gaining much additional traction – he’s primarily treading water, hoping for mutually fatal crossfire at the top.
That’s sorta the point. Actually they want jurors literally ignorant of the facts of the case. But most trial lawyers take it a step further, as when a trial lawyer once told me in their firm they work to keep obviously smart people off juries: “Smart people listen to the evidence. I don’t want them listening to the evidence. I want them listening to me.”
eeyore on August 2, 2007 at 7:28 PM
It may be because Alan doesn’t usually ask questions, but rather gives talking-point rants that are only a few clicks short of Rosiedom. I frequently have to turn the channel when Alan asks a question – not because it’s so searingly probative that my arguments crumble before its brilliance, but because it’s just a rant that makes a normally taciturn guy want to smack him in the puss.
eeyore on August 2, 2007 at 7:47 PM
How can a candidate for President of the United States run from the American People and still expect to win an election?
It’s just plain irrational!
desertdweller on August 2, 2007 at 7:55 PM
Once upon a time in the good olde U.S of .A. I was an expert witness in a patent infringement case and asked the litigator “In what type of case would you want an analytic jury and in what type of case would you want an emotionally driven jury”? He looked at me as if I were crazy. He always wants to appeal to emotions.
Silky (one trick) Pony still lives in that world.
TunaTalon on August 2, 2007 at 7:58 PM
Fop.
jaime on August 2, 2007 at 8:22 PM
Obama will meet with Ahmadinejad — but he won’t meet with Chris Wallace. Your Democratic Party.
Great line!
God help us if any of these wussies get into the oval office on anything but a visit.
Teddy on August 2, 2007 at 8:30 PM
why do i have a mental image of silky whipping his hair back giving a two snap and a little hip shake ….
“You go girl.”
Mojack420 on August 2, 2007 at 8:33 PM
Oh so silky…
eanax on August 2, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Hey doofus, how come Colmes interviews his liberal friends and Hannity can’t ask them questions? (the problem is that Comes is so inept that few want to be interviewed by him)
Answer: Because some of these newsmakers only have a limited time to be interviewed so they go with people who support them.
right2bright on August 3, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Comment pages: