May 27, 2010

Patrick McIlheran's drooling idiocy

Simply won't stand for this slight against Glenn Palimbaugh

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's award-winning calumnist Patrick McIlheran complains that Leonard Pitts doesn't blame Democrats enough for their opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
[B]ack when King actually was marching, it wasn't political conservatives hating on him. It was Robert Byrd (D-W.V.), an ex-Klansman and the only current member of the Senate to have voted against the Civil Rights Act. And it was, by and large, Democrats who opposed the bill and civil rights.
In fact it was southern political conservatives of both parties, including Byrd and his, which Leonard Pitts clearly acknowledges:
[I]n the century after the Civil War, ... conservative Southern Democrats violently repressed would-be black voters, made a shadow government of the Ku Klux Klan, turned a deaf ear to the howling of lynch mobs and lynch victims.
You'd expect a journalist of McIlheran's stature could calculate that those 100 years extended even beyond the CRA's enactment.

(Depending on your construction of "stature," of course.)
The civil rights bill "would dictate to private businessmen who they must do business with," said ex-Mississippi Gov. J.P. Coleman. It "would further impinge on the right of private property in this country," said Georgia Sen. Richard Russell.
The latter are the corollaries to Rand Paul's recent sentiments, which were first announced to the editorial board of the Louisville Courier-Journal, not when "left-wing talk show hosts" were "baiting him."*

Both J.P. Coleman and Richard Russell were Democrats. Russell was a powerful leader for decades in the U.S. Senate,** and a white supremacist. Calumnist Patrick McIlheran, obviously, is the drooling idiot, who doesn't even read the articles he purports to criticize.

Then McIlheran cites approvingly Bruce Bartlett, who just said:
In short, the libertarian philosophy of Rand Paul and the Supreme Court of the 1880s and 1890s gave us almost 100 years of segregation, white supremacy, lynchings, chain gangs, the KKK, and discrimination of African Americans for no other reason except their skin color.
Look, there's those 100 years again. (Speaking of the Supreme Court, who wrote Shelley v. Kraemer? FDR-appointed liberals, is who.)

So it's fine and dandy for Bruce Bartlett to point that out, but not for Leonard Pitts,*** according to the award-winning Patrick McIlheran, all because Pitts insulted poor little race-hustling Rush Limbaugh.

* "Baiting" = posing a simple question. McIlheran's contempt for journalism is usually only manifested in his alleged practice of it.

** Where he actually has a building named after him.

*** Pitts is black, by the way; McIlheran is the oppressed white man.


capper said...

I remember when they used to charge people with fraud. In this case, PaddyMac would be arrested, and most likely convicted, of impersonating a journalist, and of impersonating a person.

illusory tenant said...

They could at least put him in the Cue section.

capper said...

Rather, "get a Clue" section.

At least with P-Mac, puppies and caged birds can practice their aim.

Ken R. said...

I just told the Journal Sentinel I'm not subscribing to their paper anymore. When the friendly telemarketer asked me why not, I answered "Patrick McIlheran."