Laura Ingraham Calls Meghan McCain Fat, Those Who Did the Same to Limbaugh Cry "Foul!"

... this whole thing would stop. And to suggest that talking about people's weight is a Democrat thing? Come on. You know better than that.

Maybe the conservatives are afraid of Meghan McCain because her views aren't as extreme as they'd like. She's not a lock-step kind of girl and that never plays well with the right. And she's clearly got more on the ball than Ann Coulter ever will.

PunditMom ( http://punditmom1.blogspot.com )
Politics & News Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/punditmom )

Also at The Huffington Post  ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joanne-bamberger )

1. I hate Ann Coulter, but I think Meghan McCain's criticism of her was sort of pointless. Even if she's right, it's like "oooh Coulter is too extreme? Shocker!"

2. I don't really want to defend Meghan McCain, but she's doing a pretty good job of using that last name to her advantage. So I guess you have to at least give her credit for that. Even if she doesn't have anything useful to say.

3. Meghan McCain is not plus-sized and Ingraham is an idiot for jumping to "oh yeah? well you're fat" which is just evidence that she has nothing of substance to offer to the discussion.

4. I think that Rush Limbaugh has said so many offensive things about women - particularly about their appearances, that at this point, I don't care who calls him fat. (And yes, he actually is fat, unlike McCain, who is probably the size of your average American woman). 

5. Speaking of Rush Limbaugh... a week or two ago, you wrote about him ( http://www.blogher.com/dear-world-rush-limbaugh-no... ) and said you would respond to the alleged quotes provided by Erin if someone could offer you PROOF that they were real... We gave you audio, so are you ever going to keep your word and finally respond, or not?

~Lilith

The Evil Slut Clique
( http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com )

EvilSlutopia ( http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com )

Why, yes, excellent point.  I've even seen our esteemed author poke fun at Nancy Pelosi's dress in Twitter. Maybe not her weight, but certainly her dress.

I guess if we don't have something of substance to criticize, we turn straight to snark.

"Until this point, making fun of people's weight was a tactic employed
exclusively by the Democrats who invoked this tactic with Rush
Limbaugh, the Palin family, the Bush twins, Cindy McCain, etc."

Ah yes, unlike Republicans, who have never ever ever made any nasty comments about the appearance of women like Hillary Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, Janet Reno, Nancy Pelosi, etc. Please.  

And hey, the great thing about Twitter is that you don't have to follow anyone you don't want to follow, which means that Meghan's "umpteen-frillion" Twitter updates shouldn't be any bother for you at all.

~Jezebel

The Evil Slut Clique
( http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com )

EvilSlutopia ( http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com )

but it ignores fundamental elements.

First, getting loans to low income people in no way shape or form came with a mandate to lower underwriting standards (by the way, I am quite familiar with insurance underwriting standards, but in this case, I talk loan standards.)

We all saw the endless barrage of mail from sub-prime lenders begging people to refinance through them. What made that possible was lax underwriting, because risk could be shifted downstream to the big players, who then disseminated the risk around the world - and why the world is so damn ticked at us now.

Keep in mind that in 2003, the chairman of the financial services committee was Bachus, not Frank.  

The problem isn't there, Norma. It just sounds good, but it doesn't wash. 

An industry focused on immediate profit at the expense of long term prudent underwriting, coupled with a lack of government oversight, got us here.

There are low income borrowers who would meet underwriting standards, but what we buy has to be contingent and relative to our earnings - it has to be sustainable.

Barney Frank did not create adjustable rate mortgages and balloon payments. He didn't market the loans and overlook and mislead. He didn't create no verification loans - surely someone had to see red flags when we reached that point?

I've been through the p&c cycle a couple of times, and can pretty much lay out how it works, the inevitable expansion, the inevitable contraction, and the hurts that go along with this. It wasn't Barney; the failure reaches across parties, to everyone, some with more involvement, some with less. 

If this collapse came on the left's watch and the country was shooting at the left, I would probably scramble for something to seek my teeth into to say 'see, look at what the right did!' That is human nature, we all probably do this to some extent...

but really, solutions are the way to go, and that means some of us, enough of us, have to find a way to cooperate, and not blame.  

llhaesa ( http://llhaesa.org/ )

and that is good, when we talk. There is inevitably common ground, somwhere.

With conservative principles, as with liberal principles, there is shifting. You mention size of government and lower taxes, but what is the size advocated at any one time? What things does government do and not do? Those things are fluid, and they change with time.

In the run up to WWII, conservatives were dead set against involvement in the European war. Contrast that with how conservatives view the world now and our military's place in it.

And even on taxes, look at old rates compared to now, there is fluidity there, just as their is on the left. All of this, as with language, is inevitably fluid, not rigid. We might think rigidity in terms of say... a five or ten year period, but when we start moving out across decades and such, the differences on any given side appear.  

llhaesa ( http://llhaesa.org/ )

Please read this, llhaesa. Yes, it's from Investors Business Daily, but it explains what happened. There is no disagreement with this...just people ignoring it in favor of their own political agendas.

" For Frank, perhaps more than any single individual in private or
public life, is responsible for both the housing market mess and
subsequent bank disaster. And no, this isn't partisan hyperbole or
historical exaggeration.

But first, a little trip down memory lane.

It was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two so-called Government
Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), that lay behind the crisis. After
regulatory changes made to the Community Reinvestment Act by President
Clinton in 1995, Fannie and Freddie went into hyper-drive, channeling
literally trillions of dollars into the housing markets, using leverage
and implicit taxpayers' guarantees.

In November 2000, President Clinton's Housing and Urban Development
Department would trumpet "new regulations to provide $2.4 trillion in
mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million families." The
vehicles for this were Fannie and Freddie. It was the largest expansion
in housing aid ever.

Still, from the early 1990s on, many people both inside and outside
Washington were alarmed by what they saw at Fannie and Freddie.

Not Barney Frank: Starting in the early 1990s, he (and other
Democrats) stood athwart efforts by regulators, Congress and the White
House to get the runaway housing market under control.

He opposed reform as early as 1992. And, in response to another
attempt bring Fannie-Freddie to heel in 2000, Frank responded it wasn't
needed because there was "no federal liability there whatsoever."

In 2002, Frank nixed reforms again. See a pattern here?

Even after federal regulators discovered in 2003 that Fannie and
Freddie executives had overstated earnings by as much as $10.6 billion
in order to boost bonuses, Frank didn't miss a beat.

President Bush pushed for what the New York Times then called "the
most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry
since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."

If it had passed, the housing crisis likely would have never boiled
over, at least not the extent it did, taking the economy with it.
Instead, led by Frank, Democrats stood as a bloc against any changes.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial
crisis," Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services
Committee, said. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more
pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of
affordable housing."

It's hard to say why Frank did all this. It could be his close ties
to the Neighborhood Assistance Corp., a powerful housing activist group
based in Boston, which controls billions in loans. Or that he received
some $40,100 in campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie from 1989 to
2008. Or that he has been romantically linked to a one-time executive
at Fannie during the 1990s.

Whatever the case, his conflicts are obvious and outrageous, and his
refusal to countenance reforms of Fannie and Freddie contributed
mightily to today's meltdown. If you're looking for a culprit in the
meltdown to prosecute, no one fits the bill better than Frank."

Deregulation was indeed the problem. The regulations were opposed by Dems, not by the GOP.

I didn't see this comment when I responded below.

I think I may be a month or so older than you, but I, too, have closely followed politcs my entire life.

I disagree with you to the extent that I don't think conservative principles change...first and foremost they include limited government and lower taxes. (In fact, it always amazes me, having been in college during the Vietname era, that the people who protested most vociforously against the war are many of the same people that today trust the government. My takeaway was not to trust it.)

However, I do agree with you on a couple of points. Politicians claiming to be conservatives are fluid with regard to their principles. We don't need to look far back to see that. Also, I believe the marriage of conservatives with religion is folly. I am not at all socially conservative. I believe in a woman's right to choose. I actually believe in gay marriage. (Maybe once it's granted, they'll mobilize around the marriage penalty tax. I'd love to see that.)

Pols bend with the wind. Principles don't.

I hope you're right...that the center will pull the current administration back from the left. I'm not so sure this time around.

Anyway, I missed seeing this post before responding below. As always, you are thoughtful and informed.

I cannot agree she is a nitwit, any more than I was willing to accept that judgement of Sarah Palin by the left last fall.

As for the global financial meltdown, there is certain plenty of room to see errors on both sides along the way, but is the right ready to acknowledge the error in its own advocacy?

I just mentioned to someone elsewhere I'll concede a Dodd and maybe even a Frank (no love lost between me and Barney, for very lgbt reasons, but I will not sell him under because I dislike his actions in lgbt issues) but I wish to see the right start realising that deregulation was over the top and excessive, that it encouraged small government and free movement of capital such that risk taking took place with precious little reserving in what amounted to things that bordered on insurance.

My first loan in 1984 was through a bank that employed a loan officer who evaluated everything to do with us financially. The loan stayed with that bank. By the 1990s, we have loan originators, brokers, and bundling of mortgages that in effect became speculative instruments.

I see some like to call this out as the left encouraging loans to lower income folk. Nope, that won't sell, because it is not accurate.

The left and the right are not perfect. Errors are made on both sides. What is an essential in running a company, in managing a department, etc? It isn't enough to put policy in place, it has to be monitored, it has to be adjusted where necessary, and if it doesn't work, then another plan has to be put in place.

Well, the left didn't do this when it had its long Congressional run, and the right didn't do it when it had its 14 years of fame.

If we let this become an exclusively ideological debate, not a damn thing of consequence will get done in finding solution. 

Back to running a company or managing a department... your staff is meeting, and two employees are having at it over differing philosophies, which one cause whatever to happen when, and you as the person in charge, is it the history and blame that interests you - or is it getting them to focus on presenting solutions?

We are in the 'we need solutions, folks' stage. Yet all too often, what I see is left and right ready to rip each other's throats out. Please don't set it on that road again. 

llhaesa ( http://llhaesa.org/ )

llhaesa--I'm sorry, but I don't see any viciousness in my post. Meghan McCain is a nitwit...I really think we can arrive at general agreement on that. Some people do themselves no favor by currying public attention.

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were directly responsible (among others) for the global financial meltdown and I'm tired of them pointing fingers at other people.

Keith Olbermann is a type of political commentator who relies upon viciousness as his stock in trade. Matthews has followed the liberal political bent on MSNBC, sacrificing what used to be a fairly balanced show, one I used to watch almost every night. Harold Fineman and Jonathon Alter have followed his lead.

I stand by my remarks about the various newspapers and I think it is instructive that while the Times is in deep trouble, Investors Business Daily and the WSJ are not.

Robert Gibbs babbles. He does. Really. That's not vicious.

I've enjoyed reading your posts on various topics. You have a balanced and informed point of view, but please bear in mind that provocative doesn't always cross the line into viciousness. I really try not to.

consider your pov, but the nastiness in there is bound to call the troops in to a flaming. Can we ratchet that down to politics and not viciousness? 

llhaesa ( http://llhaesa.org/ )

You're right, Dana. It's not Laura's style to personally attack even the most egregious nitwit of which Meghan McCain is an particularly egregious example.

She heads the list of people I wish would shut up. They include Barney Frank--Investors Business Daily got it exactly right. We do want the people who created this mess to go to jail, beginning with Barney Frank closely followed by Chris Dodd. I am truly sick of mealy mouthed piety from these two.

Other people I wish would shut up include that truly dreadful man Keith Olbermann. Youtube has some hilarious tapes of John Gibson on the subject of Keith as"bathtub" boy. Chris Matthews should take a breather and I am a little tired of Jonathan Alter and Howard Fineman.

People who should keep talking and writing include you, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Investors Business Daily and the Wall Street Journal's editorial pages are rich and reliable information sources...although in fairness the NYT can still produce a good in-depth article on SoHo decorators.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs should definitely keep babbling. I loved his "house on fire" analogy. It didn't make sense...had no relevancy...and he kept repeating it.  Babble on, buddy. Sooner or later people will see through you and the destructive nonsense this administration has foisted on a troubled country.

I disagree.

First off, who is to say whether Meghan has staying power, and who actually wishes to evaluate her intelligence, political savvy, etc from her nascent foray into political discourse?

Quite frankly, Meghan is on to something. I will not say she is right, because in choosing where we are in the range of political ideology, there really is no right and wrong, just differences. Right and wrong can hypothetically spring up in specifics, not in overall slotting.

I've been around a while. Eisenhower was in his first term, 22 months in, when I was born. I've watched JFK and every president since, with interest. Nixon and Ford and Carter and Clinton... are damn close in overall placement on the ideological spectrum (setting aside doings and misdoings, and measuring this as of when they served.)

So too was Nelson Rockefeller, and with Nixon and Ford, were prominent 70s Republicans.

While you may claim conservatism is the root of the party, conservatism is not static, it is fluid, no different in that regard than liberalism.

There is an ebb and flow to where either party is on this spectrum at any given time. If a party moves too far left or right, they inevitably get called back to the centre by the electorate. Now I am left of most, and I recognise for Democrats to succeed, they need to hold that middle ground.

Now the middle shifts as well, somewhat, depending on overall conditions, and in bad economic conditions, expect that shift to be <---------- that way.

Right now, in our current conditions, if the right wishes to hold tight to the ideology of the right of the last three decades, expect a Democratic run akin to 1933 to 1953. If the right recognises who plays well in America right now, it will move toward Christine Whitman, and then the party again becomes a player.

If it does not, it will be a long time before the right goes far in national elections. I fully expect the left to lose seats in 2010, but not enough to lose control. And it will waver in that strong to midland range for quite a while - unless the right... moves left.

llhaesa ( http://llhaesa.org/ )