Mary gives birth without having known a man

I was reading this crude (but interesting) response by Dan Savage to Mary Cheney's decision to have a child:

And so long as your party insists on making the fitness of homosexuals to marry or parent—or, hell, exist—a subject of public debate, Mary, your decision to become a parent is germane and very much fit for public discussion and debate. The GOP’s selective embrace of some pregnant dykes—only knocked-up lesbians with powerful connections will be treated with respect—is a disconnect that demands answers. From you, from your father, from your venomous mother, from the idiot president you helped elect. Is that fair? Maybe not. Want to blame someone? Go look in the mirror -- and then come out swinging, Mary -- for yourself, your partner, and your child.

And then the thought hit me. Do we really need to bring homosexuality into this equation at all?

What I mean is this: Suppose that this is the year 1998. (Oh, if only.) And suppose that one of Al Gore's daughters decided to have a child out of wedlock. Let us further suppose that said child was conceived via an ill-considered one night stand with a "Zap Brannigan" type, someone that said daughter would never marry. (Sorry. Couldn't resist the reference.)

Just how would the FOX crowd respond? How would Limbaugh treat the news? How many books on the collapse of American morals would Regnery publish, all pasting Al Gore's face on the front cover? How would the Washington Times react? Hell, how would the Washington Post react? Do you think Wolf Blitzer would have been nearly so gentle and deferential during an interview with Clinton's veep?

As Atrios recently noted:

CNN can segue almost seamlessly from a puff piece on a potential Newt Gingrich run to a discussion about how Gavin Newsom's affair might be a "career breaker."

God damn it, but I am sick of this double standard!

MSNBCrap

Here's a partial transcript from MSNBC's The Most, by way of Media Matters -- Mike Viqueira, speaking on the nonbinding Iraq resolution:

Russ Feingold, on the lefthand side, says it doesn't go far enough. There are others like Joe Lieberman, more towards the center, more aligned with the president on Iraq, who says it goes too far.

The center? Only 24% of the country backs the Bush/Lieberman position. I suspect that a larger percentage of the American population believes in Bigfoot. If that's Viqueria's idea of "the center," then if he and I ever have to split a sub sandwich, I think I'll do the cutting.

Viqueira has a history of this sort propagandizing. Last October, Firedoglake carried a story on his strange handling of the Foley scandal (see also here):

Viqueria lapsed into right wing talking points we are certain to be hearing more of in the upcoming days. After perpetuating the "over friendly but not overtly sexual in nature" meme regarding the original emails, he goes on to reduce the entire matter to partisan bickering...

And here's what Mikey V actually said:

[A] lot of Republicans suspect that Democrats have held onto this and disseminated it at the last minute just six weeks before the midterms elections. Of course we know the Democrats stand a better chance than ever in the past 12 years of retaking the House. All they need is 15 seats. A lot of people think that they can do that; Republicans whispering to us and among themselves and to us that this was the plant...

In retrospect, doesn't that bilge sound an awful lot like the "Blame Hillary! She smeared Obama!" meme that the right tried to push after their smarmy "Madrassa" fabrication was exposed?

As for Russ Feingold: His proposal to use the power of the purse to stop the war is indeed centrist.

While Feingold's Senate colleagues have largely shied away from talking about the proposal, it may have traction outside Washington. In a Newsweek poll released last week, 64 percent of Americans surveyed said Congress has not been assertively challenging the Bush administration on its handling of the war. Twenty-seven percent of respondents said it had been.

Let's tell MSNBC to stop defining the end zone as "the center."