A double standard? : Respectful Insolence

Who (or what) is Orac?

Orac is the nom de blog of a (not so) humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will. (Continued here, along with a DISCLAIMER that you should read before reading any medical discussions here.)

Orac's old Blog is archived at Archived Insolence.

Search

Non-Orac Insolence

Medicine

Science

Skepticism and critical thinking

Combatting Holocaust denial

Blog carnivals

Science and Surgery

« And there was much rejoicing! | Main | Acupuncture and polycystic ovary disease: A depressing case of science by press release »

A double standard?

Category: Humor • Politics
Posted on: September 5, 2008 12:00 AM, by Orac

As usual, when Jon Stewart nails it:

My goodness! Two political posts in a row. I'd better watch myself, or I'll become one of those dime-a-dozen political bloggers that I complain about. Not that I count this, given that it's just a Daily Show video clip. Still, it's so spot-on that I couldn't resist. Don't worry. Tomorrow it's back to medicine, surgery, and science.

For the most part.

Find more posts in: Politics

Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

Comments

But most people have double standards about double standards: they only notice - and are righteously indignant about them - when the other side has them.

Posted by: Colugo | September 5, 2008 12:48 AM

Kinda sad that all you need to do is show actual clips of Fox News and you will have the audience laughing their asses off.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 5, 2008 12:49 AM

Priceless! It would be hilarious if it wasn't for the fact that these people are serious, and currently in control of the White House.

Posted by: Scott | September 5, 2008 12:54 AM

Does Karl Rove know about Wikepedia? Wasilla is the 2nd largest town in Alaska?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska

Has he not heard of Anchorage? (largest, population of about a quarter million). Or Fairbanks? (over 31,000) Or Juneau, the actual capital? (almost 31,000 people)

While Wasilla is just about to get close to 10000 people (depending on who is counting who):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasilla,_Alaska ... "The census estimate moves Wasilla to the position of the fourth largest city in Alaska, after Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau, but the city's own figure would put it in sixth, after the aforementioned cities as well as Sitka and Ketchikan."

Sorry, I kind of stopped listening after the claim that Sarah Palin was the mayor of what he "thought was the 2nd largest city in Alaska"!

Especially since many of us just consider Alaska to be a suburb of Seattle. ;-) (some Alaskans are going to go after me now!, but where exactly are the Alaska Airlines headquarders?)

Posted by: HCN | September 5, 2008 12:59 AM

Proof that they laugh when the other guy's ox is being gored, and cry when theirs is. I'm not surprised at the hypocrisy.

Posted by: DLC | September 5, 2008 1:49 AM

I've watched that clip over and over, and it doesn't stop being funny.

Posted by: NPD | September 5, 2008 2:18 AM

Spot on!

Posted by: Mindy | September 5, 2008 8:36 AM

This clip was surgical. It performed cephalectomies on talking heads.

Posted by: TheProbe | September 5, 2008 8:57 AM

As Tom Paxton says, some people you don't satirize; you just quote 'em.

Posted by: Ahistoricality | September 5, 2008 9:00 AM

Among the top reasons I stopped blogging is that I WAS becoming just another political blogger. But the truth is, it's hard to think anything is nearly as important nowadays; our political system is being revealed as wholly unable to address issues in serious ways. Jon Stewart does a brilliant job. Rovian duplicity ought to be obvious and soundly rejected by a huge majority of people. But it's not, and it's not.

I get a good laugh from the severe beauty of Jon Stewart, but within moments I'm totally depressed again. Chinese food for the brain. And then there's the Sarah Palin gambit, and the response thereto. If it works, I may hang myself. Actually, I'm thinking hose, exhaust pipe, iPod, and a stiff Sapphire tonic. Consider this my note.

Posted by: Sid Schwab | September 5, 2008 1:35 PM

Jon Stewart *always* nails it.

Posted by: steve wolk | September 5, 2008 1:47 PM

Sadly, as one pundit who paraphrased PT Barnum put it, Karl Rove has never lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

Posted by: RAJ | September 5, 2008 3:12 PM

I know how you feel about becoming "just another political blogger." It's definitely infectious, I think; this upcoming election is just such a polarizing event that not only does everyone have an opinion but everyone feels compelled to share it. I told myself when I started blogging that I would try to avoid politics, but that isn't going very well lately!

Also, no matter how many people link this clip, it doesn't get old. It just doesn't.

Posted by: N.B. | September 5, 2008 5:00 PM

Dead on.

Dave Barry is funny also.

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/dave-barry/story/672195.html

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/qna/forum/dave_barry_for_president/index.html

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/dave-barry/story/670487.html

Posted by: Marilyn Mann | September 5, 2008 5:11 PM

Orac, you will never be a dime a dozen political blogger. A nickel a dozen is about the best you can hope for. :grin:

Posted by: Alan Kellogg | September 5, 2008 9:43 PM

To RAJ: It wasn't PT Barnum who was being paraphrased - it was HL Mencken.

Posted by: steve wolk | September 6, 2008 1:54 AM

The parts on Rove and O'Reilly were great. The third part was off, though. First, he didn't have Sarah Palin complaining about sexism, so it wasn't equivalent to Hillary Clinton complaining about it. Second, Hillary was complaining that it was sexist that she always got the first question in debates (which wasn't even true), whereas with Palin, the complaints were about people saying that she shouldn't have a career because she has children. How old are Obama's children? If one of Obama's children is sick, will he choose to neglect his job or his child?

And, funny as it is to hear Rove give such contradictory opinions, it's still pretty trivial. People's opinions are influenced by their personal preferences and beliefs? Political operatives can be somewhat partisan at times? Shocking!

Last, perhaps O'Reilly's point was that the mother of a pregnant 16 year old (and of another daughter who forgets to put her infant in a car seat, among numerous other problems) shouldn't be writing a book on parenting. Is Palin running for mother of the year?

Posted by: Ann | September 8, 2008 8:39 AM

Ann, you miss the point. Rove was holding up "facts" (a certain period of experience) as being the reason for his "belief" (that a person is or is not sufficiently experienced), when the "facts" have nothing to do with the "belief".

If Rove were an ignorant dumb$hit, then perhaps is would be understandable if he couldn't remember or be aware that he used the same "facts" to come to two opposite conclusions. Rove isn't a dumb$hit. He is a very smart man; a very smart man who is playing fast and loose with the "facts" to manipulate people who are dumb$hits. Those dumb$hits would be the rest of the GOP who read and then blindly follow the "talking points" that Rove puts out.

An honest analysis can't use the same "facts" to come to two opposite conclusions. Rove is clearly being dishonest with his "analysis". What Rove said isn't "analysis" at all, it is pure spin, pure manipulative marketing lies with only enough "facts" to pose a semblance of "analysis". With only enough "facts" to trick the dumb$hits he is talking to into believing what he wants them to believe. They want to "believe". That is the problem with the GOP base. They want to believe so badly that they will believe stuff that is clearly lies. Unfortunately the "leaders" of the GOP are all too willing to supply their base with the lies that they want to hear so they stay in power and enrich themselves.

Rove is slipping. Bush is such a dumb$hit that Bush is trivial to manipulate with lies that Rove got out of practice manipulating people who are not such complete dumb$hits.

So are you saying that all of Rove's opinions are trivial? Or that they are only "trivial" when he is caught in a blatant contradiction (aka a "lie")?

Posted by: daedalus2u | September 8, 2008 11:03 AM

First, I wasn't disputing that Jon Stewart absolutely nailed Rove on this. It was a contradiction, and an amusing one, especially in the way it was presented. And Rove was wrong, as HCN pointed out, about Wasillla being the second-largest city in Alaska. The part on Rove was by far the strongest of the three.

But it's still pretty trivial. You talk about "facts", but this is forecasting, and many, many factors go into it (you're cherry-picking only certain "facts", while ignoring others). I'm no expert, but from what I've heard, Tim Kaine just hasn't been all that great a Governor, whereas Sarah Palin really shook things up and yet in spite of (or perhaps because of) this, had high approval ratings. It's silly and suboptimal (even if it's "factual") to treat any set amount of time in the Governor's office exactly the same. That's why the Civil Service is so wildly inefficient - because rules prevent people from considering performance, abilities, or anything other than 'time served'.

So, "factually", are Tim Kaine and Sarah Palin to be ranked by only time as Governor, without any consideration of how well they used that time? Of course not! Thus, Rove had to make a forecast, and he might very well have made the optimal forecast - that Palin was an impressive reformer and Kaine was mediocre. If that was his point, he clearly didn't express it well, which is why it's such a great jab for a comedy show. But to try to turn this into a major scandal is over-reaching.

Posted by: Ann | September 9, 2008 12:00 AM

If that was his point, he clearly didn't express it well, which is why it's such a great jab for a comedy show.

If that was Rove's point, he expressed is abysmally, considering he didn't say a single thing about experience. You may be evaluating these two people based on their actions, but Rove was obviously evaluating them on their time in office. Perhaps he personally feels differently, but that is not the message he was trying to get across.

Posted by: Natalie | September 9, 2008 10:17 AM

Natalie -

Yes, I agree that, taking only these statements, they both talk only about length of service and contradict each other, which is why it's funny. But this isn't a case where Rove was asked to write a 20 page report, or was told to take as many hours as he needed on air, and he still discussed only time in office and nothing else for both candidates. He knew that he had to give short blurbs on each, but it's naive to assume that his thought process hasn't taken other things into account, simply because he wasn't given time to discuss many aspects.

Plus, of course, he's blatantly partisan. It's unfortunate but not unusual that he's more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to someone of his own party, particularly after she's the official nominee. Is anyone arguing that this only happens with Republicans?

Posted by: Ann | September 10, 2008 6:57 PM