GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Andrew Breitbart, from grave, puts Bill Maher on defense

by

In his interview with Bill Maher posted this morning, ABC News’ senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper offering a bit of commentary in posing his first question to the former funny man:

So with all the criticism of Rush Limbaugh for his comments about the Georgetown Law student, conservatives claim that there’s a double standard, with President Obama, Democrats and the media far more tolerant of offensive language when wielded by liberal or progressive media figures against conservative women. Is that a fair comparison? You have certainly used offensive words to describe some politicians you don’t like.

A leading journalist (and a good one) in the legacy media addresses an issue long reserved to right-of-center editorial pages and conservative blogs.  Bill Maher, perhaps for the first time, has been been forced to defend his mean-spirited anti-Republican rhetoric — for more than just one news cycle.  Instead of acknowledging that he may have overstepped the line or apologized (as Rush did) for an error of judgment, he whines that he’s just a comedian, trying to score a few laughs

Hugh Hewitt finds that Maher’s conclusion where the HBO host claims he had defended Rush’s “right to stay on the air” reeks of “self-importance” and “smashes Maher’s ‘comedian’ defense if it had any substance for anyone to begin with.  Simple comedians don’t take to the ramparts to defend anything.  They tell jokes.”

In playing defense, however, Maher reveals the hypocrisy of his position.  Taking note of Maher’s response when “Tapper presses him on the similarities between what he said and what Limbaugh said“, Allahpundit gets at the essence of the matter.  Maher, that conservative blogger reports,

. . . distinguishes them by saying, “[H]e went after a civilian about very specific behavior, that was a lie, speaking for a party that has systematically gone after women’s rights all year, on the public airwaves” (my italics). That’s the crux of this, as I’ve noted before — that if you back the left’s social agenda, especially on abortion, you’re pro-woman no matter where your rhetoric carries you.

In this case, Hugh quips, “Maher has himself become the joke”, thanks, I would add, in large part, to the ideals of Andrew Breitbart, bringing to light the nasty rhetoric of the American left.

RELATED: PALIN: BREITBART IS HERE

UPDATE: Writing about the interview, Jacob Sullum takes apart Maher’s attempt to distinguish his slurs from Limbaugh’s:

Fluke made herself a public figure by campaigning for “reproductive justice” at Georgetown and testifying about the Obama administration’s contraceptive mandate before members of Congress. That does not mean it’s OK to call her a slut, but neither does Palin’s status as a public figure mean it’s OK to call her a c[***].

And also addresses the failure of the former funnyman to consider the possibility that he may have erred:

Maher seems sincerely oblivious to the fact that “different tastes and different opinions” tend to color people’s views about when sexist epithets are acceptable and when they are so “disgusting” that they are beyond the pale.

Via Instapundit.

Comments

  5. Interestingly:

    Two Cheers for Double Standards
    By STANLEY FISH

    If we think about the Rush Limbaugh dust-up from the non-liberal–that is, non-formal–perspective, the similarity between what he did and what Schultz and Maher did disappears. Schultz and Maher are the good guys; they are on the side of truth and justice. Limbaugh is the bad guy; he is on the side of every nefarious force that threatens our democracy. Why should he get an even break?

    There is no answer to that question once you step outside of the liberal calculus in which all persons, no matter what their moral status as you see it, are weighed in an equal balance. Rather than relaxing or soft-pedaling your convictions about what is right and wrong, stay with them, and treat people you see as morally different differently. Condemn Limbaugh and say that Schultz and Maher may have gone a bit too far but that they’re basically O.K. If you do that you will not be displaying a double standard; you will be affirming a single standard, and moreover it will be a moral one because you will be going with what you think is good rather than what you think is fair. “Fair” is a weak virtue; it is not even a virtue at all because it insists on a withdrawal from moral judgment.

    http://tinyurl.com/6su5szv

    “Morally different”, eh?

    “‘Fair’ is a weak virtue.” Isn’t “fairness” what liberalism is based on? Can we throw “equality” on there too?

  7. Vince,

    Are you reading this? It is a pretty good introduction to the subject of moral relativism. Perhaps you might begin to understand the concept if you can also begin to see how Maher is playing the “free speech for me, but not for thee” card.

  12. Vince,

    Deliver your evidence of my moral relativism and I will gladly, fully address it. However, you clearly have no concept of what constitutes moral relativism, so I do not expect any response or anything of substance. But, I would be delighted to be surprised.

  14. I have another beef with the Reps and their pundits who didn’t speak up and defend Gov Palin while they tried to destroy her, where were they??? Oh, that’s right, the people who were running McCain’s campaign that started this assault in the first place to deflect the blame of their absolutely horrible campaign and she was their escape goat. There were only a few pundits and Newt who I heard a peep from and it was the TParty that fought back the accusations of MURDER for God’s sake. There’s blame all around for this disgusting climate, I don’t know about you but I demand better for our country and our future, so did Gov Palin. That’s why she has the support she does and always will.