June 09, 2004

PARTY REPTILE RATES THE BIG-MOUTHS

P.J. O’Rourke on ...

Rush Limbaugh: "I usually agree with Rush Limbaugh; therefore I usually don't listen to him."

Bill O’Reilly: "We've all backed away from this fellow while vigorously nodding our heads in agreement."

Ann Coulter: "Ann Coulter, on the cover of Treason, has the look of a soon-to-be-ex wife who has just finished shouting."

Michael Moore: "Approached by someone like Michael Moore, a conservative would drop a quarter in Moore's Starbucks cup and hurriedly walk away."

And himself: "I'm so conservative that I approve of San Francisco City Hall marriages, adoption by same-sex couples, and New Hampshire's recently ordained Episcopal bishop."

(Via Tim at Novocastria, who is in the market to join a group blog. Contact him here.)

Posted by Tim Blair at June 9, 2004 02:30 PM
Comments

PJ O'Rourke was once a young leftist firebrand demanding free love and free dope.

Today he is a self-styled conservative who believes in free rides in fast exotic cars, whiskey and free lines of blow.

PJ O'Rourke believes in whatever movement won't make him put his toys away when he's done playing with them.

It's a sad commentary on the times when 50-something conservatives are having more fun than 50-something hippies.

I blame the Democrats.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at June 9, 2004 at 02:51 PM

Doesn't O'Rourke get that O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, and Moore are entertainers? This is political entertainment not political debate. If you want ideas read the National Review, Weekly Standard, or the New Republic. Who takes Rush Limbaugh seriously as a political philosopher? What the hell is he talking about?

Posted by: Kerry Is Unelectable at June 9, 2004 at 03:12 PM

Oh, PJ is simply striking preemptively at the competition....as he is an entertainer himself.

Posted by: Katherine at June 9, 2004 at 03:32 PM

Recommended: Not Funny Enough - Christopher Hitchen's review of O'Rourke travelogues reprinted in Hitch's For The Sake of Argument.

Posted by: Paul Pottinger at June 9, 2004 at 05:17 PM

To be fair: Rush gets a lot of Democrats on the show, so he engages in a debate. But as he himself says: he defends people. He's not in the debate business. He sets the debate.

Air America is about telling how dumb Bush is. As if their listeners didn't know that.

Evangelizing is hard. Perhaps a bit more respect for missionaries is called for.

Posted by: Berend de Boer at June 9, 2004 at 06:46 PM

It's a sad commentary on the times when 50-something conservatives are having more fun than 50-something hippies.

I blame the Democrats.

ROFL!

Posted by: rosignol at June 9, 2004 at 07:46 PM

He still makes me laugh more than anyone, my first, and still my favourite Republican writer.

Posted by: Emily at June 9, 2004 at 07:46 PM

...recommended: Not Funny Enough - Christopher Hitchen's review of O'Rourke travelogues...

Puh-leez.

Hitchens' contemptible Reagan obituary proves what we've always guessed- that he'll slander anyone, as soon as he has the legal protection of a deceased target. He's the new Kitty Kelley.

Posted by: Byron_the_Aussie at June 9, 2004 at 07:46 PM

...Ann Coulter: "Ann Coulter, on the cover of Treason, has the look of a soon-to-be-ex wife who has just finished shouting."...

Treason is a damn good read. Do I detect some envy, in PJ's sniping? Put down the martini and get some points on the board, amigo. Now's the time for sleeves-up work for the conservative cause, not dilettantism.

Posted by: Byron_the_Aussie at June 9, 2004 at 07:49 PM

Gee, you guys are awful sensitive to criticism of conservative pundits all of a sudden. I thought everyone had pretty much figured out (even among their fans) that Rush Limbaugh preaches to the converted, Bill O'Reilly is a populist haranguer, and Ann Coulter is a nutcase harridan who occasionally hits the target. The only problem I might have with this latest O'Rourke column is that it's kind of old news.

BTW, richard mcenroe: some people weren't as lucky as you to have always known the Truth.

As for Hitchens... I think I've figured out his real problem: he really resents it when people die. I mean, he attacked Mother Theresa of all people. I'm not sure why these peoples' dying brings out the meanie in him; maybe he had a childhood trauma involving a beloved relative or pet.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 9, 2004 at 08:37 PM

Something like this, possibly?

Posted by: tim at June 9, 2004 at 09:00 PM

..maybe he had a childhood trauma involving a beloved relative or pet...

You're insightful, Andrea, as Tim's link shows. But what depths of behaviour does Hitchens' personal tragedy excuse? I presume he has a cruel Pope John Paul II obit, awaiting in 'My Documents', but I doubt whether publishing it will have any cathartic value for him. My guess is Hitchens' mean streak is driven by some guilt he feels over his mother's death- something he's responsible for, that no-one else knows about.

Posted by: Byron_the_Aussie at June 9, 2004 at 09:52 PM

When P.J.O'Rourke starts complaining that Conservative Commentators are Over The Top, then you know they're somewhere beyond the Van Allen Belts.
He bemoans the lack of Debate. This could be because the moderate Left has been drowned by the Moonbats, so there's no-one of sense on the Left -er-left to debate with. Consequently, the strident, arid and angry Paleoright is the only group still talking who aren't pedalling the Bush=Hitler line. The PaleoRight may be more Right than Wrong, but we need someone of, say, Norm Geras' calibre to cross swords with. Or we too, like the moderate Left, will be wondering what the hell happened to our ideological humanity.

Posted by: Alan E Brain at June 10, 2004 at 01:25 AM

Andrea — I was just trying on O'Rourke's tone of voice — it's fun!

And I've been reading O'Rourke since we wuz both young snotnoses and he was writing for National Lampoon and I was reading it. I too have taken the long day's journey from left to right... but I deny absolutely there's any bitterness because no one ever offered me cross-country Bugatti trips and coke along the way, nope, not a smidgin, the bastid...

But that is pretty much how I see O'Rourke;'s worldview. He's more of a libertine/libertarian than a social conservative.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at June 10, 2004 at 02:02 AM

Well, OK, I was reading it for Dirty Duck and Vinny Shinblind, the Invisible Sex Maniac, but hey, I was reading it...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at June 10, 2004 at 02:04 AM

He's more of a libertine/libertarian than a social conservative.

Well, yes. He's a freedom-and-small government conservative, not a "social conservative".

Posted by: Eric the .5b at June 10, 2004 at 05:13 AM

Ann Coulter lost me in Treason when she wrote in factual errors for which the true facts are easily found. For example, she says twice that the US-ROK-UN forces were attacked by the Chinese after the former crossed to the north of the Yalu River. This is false, since the attacks came south of the Yalu, and our troops never crossed the river. North of the Yalu was Chinese territory, and if our army had crossed the Yalu the Chinese would have been perfectly within their rights to resist.

After seeing that I put the book down and read no more. If she can get simple facts so wrong, what can I rely on in her book?

Posted by: Michael Lonie at June 10, 2004 at 11:21 AM

I liked O'Rourke's conclusion. "We don't have time to make ourselves obnoxious. We need professional help."

Posted by: Michael Lonie at June 10, 2004 at 11:29 AM

Byron dear boy

You wanna maybe read it first? Happy to e-mail you the pieces. Just because Hitchens hasn't joined the general rending of garments over Reagan's shuffling off, hardly akes him Kitty Kelley.

For mine, O'Rourke's gonzo schtick started to wear thin not long after Hunter S. Thompson's.

Posted by: Paul Pottinger at June 10, 2004 at 11:42 AM

Tim -- so he really did have a trauma, only not in childhood. I had no idea -- I was just guessing. Still, it's odd that two authority figures who died got boot-up-the-keister-style obits from him.

And as for Mr. Pottinger and his clever repartee... Paul, your particular brand of snide, know-it-all "shtick" got old from your very first entry here. "[D]ear boy" indeed. Can you go be a patronizing git on some other blog for a while?

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 10, 2004 at 11:57 AM

Well, Michael, P.J. says in the intro to Eat the Rich that it is 'more true than factual'... but then, at least he knows enough to own up to the fact that, er, he doesn't know enough.
I get the impression that a lot of right-wingers have problems with Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly - Tex and Wickstein, for example.
Then again, being an Australian who has only heard about them from second-or-third-hand, I'm not really in a position to judge!

Posted by: TimT at June 10, 2004 at 01:22 PM

You're only criticism is of my ever so slightly affected locutions? How exceedingly tiny-minded of you.

Suggest you:

a)look up the derivation of the expression schtick

b)develop a keener aesthetic

c)read more widely

d)find soemthing to say

Posted by: Paul Pottinger at June 10, 2004 at 01:23 PM

Dude, you flubbed the word "your". Find a rock to hide under.

Posted by: Sortelli at June 10, 2004 at 01:41 PM

Or "soemthing."

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 10, 2004 at 02:10 PM

Oh yeah... and dickheads who insult me are banned. Put it down to me being a delicate, sensitive flower. Who can ban your ass.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 10, 2004 at 02:12 PM

Sorry, html for those links was buggered up.

Tex

Wickstein.

Posted by: TimT at June 10, 2004 at 02:33 PM

Oh come onnnnnnn, people ...

I was late for lunch and bashed out my missive in a hurry (had to get to the pub before all their steak sandwiches were knocked off). All you can fault is a couple of literals?

So sub me already.

Andrea - may I call you Andrea? - can't quite grasp what this talk of "ban your ass" is about. What say I continue to use only half my wits in order to play fair with you, er ... dude?

Posted by: Paul Pottinger at June 10, 2004 at 03:44 PM

Actually Paul I googled to see if I could find the Hitchens essay on the net. I'd be interested in reading. Won't change my opinion of O'Rourke, I think he's a fan-bloody-tastic writer, (though admittedly his foreign journalism isn't always as brilliant as his more humorous pieces...)
Can you send it through?

Posted by: TimT at June 10, 2004 at 05:17 PM

Sure, mate.

I'll dig it out, though I too can't seem to find the thing at the moment. Hang on there.

And I don't entirely disagree about your man PJ - it's just that I think he too readily goes for the cheap punchline.

Posted by: Paul Pottinger at June 10, 2004 at 08:52 PM

"can't quite grasp what this talk of 'ban your ass' is about."

Want to find out?

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 11, 2004 at 11:42 AM

Dear Andrea

Oh do grow up, you silly sausage.

Dear Tim

You know, I can't find the damn thing on the net either. For what it's worth these essays, and many other of equal insight and hilarity are published in For The Sake of Argument (Verso, 1993). Essentially he argues that in O'Rourke's travel pieces we see examples of "travel narrowing the mind".

Everywhere he goes, it seems, resembles Southern California.

Posted by: Paul Pottinger at June 12, 2004 at 12:04 AM