A commenter on another thread posted this in response to someone defending Ingraham.
“Hey steve, how about her remarks on “Obama better get a BLACK helicopter or have a rainbow colored one as a backup”??? That sounds pretty sketchy to me! I’m a moderate/indie and I am so sick and tired of both sides bitching at each other as if we’re at the playground. Go back to your sandbox and do some reading- this isn’t the first time Fox News has gleeked out some comments that had more than a hint of racism to them. I guess that Christian, family-focused conservative mask is starting to melt off their faces and show us what’s really happening. That whole network disgusts me- and I’m Roman Catholic!!!”
well said, my friend. The fact is is that Laura Ingraham makes racist, dishonest and homophobic statements like this on a daily basis. It’s amazing that people like Laura Ingraham, Don Imus, Dog Chapman and others get rewarded for being a racist.
The problem with our society right now is this idea that racism no longer exists because we have a black president. Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito, who was a member of the same racist group that Laura Ingraham was a member of, the Concerned Alumnist of Princeton, writes a Supreme Court Opinion that favors elminating African Americans from protection against discrimination. As long as racism is tolerated and rewarded in our society, things will never change.
Real Clear Politics is one of the greatest sites around. They put out every viewpoint available. Today while I was scouring the site, I noticed an article by Laura Ingraham’s protege, Monica Crowley. Of course the article appears in the Far-Right Washington Times, which has a circulation of next to nothing. For the record, I usually never read anything by, or listen to Monica Crowley . She is a Shock Jock of the worst kind. She is juvenile. She calls Obama names; insults people’s personal appearance. You get the point- just like Laura Ingraham.
Anyway, for some reason today I decided to read her garbage. I really regret my decision. Crowley, like Ingraham, tries to use rarely used words to impress the one or two people reading the article, but in the end it’s all the same: Barack Obama hates America.
Crowley opines “The man who acknowledged that his story would only be possible in America seems intent on destroying the very individual liberties and limited government that made it so.”
Really, Monica? We are somehow less free now under Obama than we were under Bush? Can you give me an example of an individual liberty we no longer have? 61% of Americans agree that Obama is trying to destroy this country? Argh, do you see how far out this people are?
The clorox blonde who has a reported history of plagiarism goes on: “When government gets out of the way, the people achieve great things because of the promise of great rewards. When government inserts itself into every nook and cranny of American life, the people wither, disincentivized from the hard work and sacrifice required for high accomplishment.”
Where have you been the last 8 years, Monica? Every person with a brain understands that it was deregualation that got us in this mess in the first place. Should we have continued the Bush Administration’s policies? I guess the government should not get in the way of the 44 million seniors who receive it’s healthcare. I guess the government should not get in the way of a drowning city like New Orleans.
Folks, it’s people like Monica Crowley who ensure that the President will not have any credible opposition. I wish you all the misfortunate in the world Monica Crowley; your dissent is not honest- it is just for the sake.
It is my opinion that Laura Ingraham is a racist. I believe I provide evidence on this site to back my opinion up. In the past, Ingraham has stated that Latinos are not Americans; “true Americans are White, Christian, Southerns”; While writing for the Dartmouth Review, Ingraham reportedly called an African American professor at Dartmouth a “brillo-head.” You get the point- I could go on and on and on.
Today someone forwarded me another example of Ingraham’s bigotry. Apparently Laura Ingraham’s bigotry not only reaches minorities. This one dates back a while, but it shows you a mindset.
I find it absolutely oustanding what conservatives get away with. Just the other day we had Glenn Beck agree with his guest that the best thing to happen to America would be to be attacked by Al Qaeda again. What is this world coming too? I understand Ingraham’s comments about Italians are not on par with Glenn Beck agreeing we should be attacked again, but it shows you how we take for granted the horrible things conservatives say on a daily basis.
Ever since Laura Ingraham insulted the brave Navy Seals who rescued Capt. Richard Phillips, the Star Ledger has been blasting. A senator called for her to apologize, and you’ll recall, Laura’s outraguous comments prompted a prominate Ex-Navy Seal to put up the website www.apologizenowlaura.com.
A few days ago Phil Mulshine of The New Jersey Star Ledger correctly pointed out that Laura Ingraham is not respected by other conservatives. In his article ” Why Laura Ingraham is a lightweight,” Mulshine attributes this for a few reasons, but neglects to mention the various reports of Laura’s unstable behavior as a possible cause. Perhaps Mr. Mulshine should have read this site before writting this
article. If he had done so, he may have gotten a better perspective on why people do not like Laura Ingraham. In any event, though, I agree with most of the article.
“Why Laura Ingraham is a lightweight
Posted by Paul Mulshine June 29, 2009 10:40PM
Various commenters have asserted that radio pitch-woman Laura Ingraham is in some vague way a representative of the conservative philosophy in American politics.
Nonsense. Here is a review I did on her book several years ago that demolishes that concept for all eternity:
Power to the People
Laura Ingraham
Regnery Publishing, 384 pp., $27.95
Why do radio talk-show hosts write books? Because they can sell books.
Hence we have “Power to the People.” The book by WABC radio talk-show host Laura Ingraham purports to describe how to restore conservative values in America by energizing the masses.
One problem: Ingraham herself is not a conservative but a populist. This holds true for most radio talkers. Forced to appeal to what the conservative writer Edmund Burke termed “the swinish multitudes,” they spend most of their time fomenting the sort of class warfare normally associated with the left. The typical radio talker has just one target: those nasty elitists who think they’re so smart. For Ingraham, any elitist will do, from Plato all the way down to Madonna.
Her theme is that people should rise up and take back control of the mass media. But the mass media by definition appeal to the masses. In a chapter on the “pornification” of our culture, Ingraham puts the blame not on the low nature of mankind but on the elitist hotel executives who make pay-per-view porn available. She ignores the reason they do this: The people will pay for peep shows. If Americans would pay to watch Shakespeare, then his plays would be on hotel TVs.
Speaking of Shakespeare, when he portrays Henry VIII bumping off his wives he is not necessarily endorsing wife-killing. Such a subtle distinction is lost on culture critic Ingraham. In an attack on those Hollywood types trying to change “the traditional definition of family,” she cites the HBO series “Big Love” for what she takes to be its endorsement of polygamy.
“Critics love it,” she writes.
Perhaps that’s because those critics understand that the portrayal of an action does not represent an endorsement thereof. The dysfunctional family in “Big Love” is no more an advertisement for polygamy than the Soprano family is for Mafia life.
And like virtually all the self-appointed “conservatives” of talk radio, Ingraham fails to understand that so-called “neoconservatism” is not the intensification of conservatism but its negation. She attacks “Hollywood moguls” for “wanting our military to use its might to spread democracy around the planet.” She also supports the Iraq War, which was a neocon scheme to do just that.
Ingraham is similarly obtuse on constitutional law, though she clerked for the U.S. Supreme Court. After railing against activist judges who “invalidate democracy at the state and federal level” she goes on to attack the notorious Kelo decision on eminent domain, in which the judges let a democratic decision stand.
The reader looks in vain for some indication that Ingraham is aware of such contradictions. But her approach is entirely emotional rather than intellectual. The best parts of the book concern her battle with cancer and her conversion to Catholicism. There she can indulge herself in the gooey sentimentality that is her specialty.
As for her political philosophy, it is best expressed on radio. But why anyone who has heard it would want to see it in print is a mystery to this conservative. ”
Comments policy: If you don’t know who Edmund Burke was, please do not comment here.
Janet provided the lastest comments:
“THEY OFTEN SAY THAT PPL WHO HATE GAYS SOOOMUCH MAY BE GAY THEMSELVES.
SHE DOES NOT HAVE HER OWN KIDS!
SHE LOOKS MANLY
SHE SPEAKS LIKE A GUY!
HER BROTHER IS GAY—-DOES SHE HATE HIM??
I BELIEVE AT SOME POINT IT WILL COME OUT THAT –”SHE IS GAY”
You may be right, Janet. For the record, I have no proof that Laura Ingraham is gay. However, I can tell you that a fair percentage of the searches that lead to this site are, “Is Laura Ingraham Gay,” ‘Laura is Gay.” “Laura Ingraham Outed.”
People question her sexuality on a daily basis. Afterall, she is very good friends with Tammy Bruce. Bruce has spent time at Ingraham’s home while filling in for her. David Brock wrote that Ingraham was a tomboy, along with her hygiene not being up to par.
One thing is for sure: Laura Ingraham is an unstable person. She may come out and say she is gay just for attention. She may convince herself she is gay just so she can have some sort of companion. Hell, she may even become a liberal one day. That would suck for me because there would be nothing left for me to report,lol.
Folks, it doesn’t get more backwoods than this. Look at some of her band mates. Pretty scary stuff.
Thanks to Brian for sending this in. In this clip, Ingraham implies that the government is taking over everything; she goes as far as to compare us to the Soviet Union. Furthermore, Ingraham uses the discredited story by Dana Millbank (Who was banned from Keith Olbermann’s show for dishonest reporting”) that the Huffington Post gave a question to Obama in advance.
Folks, dishonest rhetoric from Laura Ingraham contributes to right wing violence in this country. In this clip, Laura Ingraham makes a whole series of accusations against Obama without any facts or anyone to dispute.
I was watching a disturbing video of this nut and couldn’t help but notice how much Shawna Forde sounds like Laura Ingraham. I’m going to research this, but I have a feeling the two knew each other. Ingraham is very close to Chris Simcox, the bigot that is running for Arizona Senator against John McCain. Please send in info if you have it.
Laura Ingraham Makes Right- Wing Violence Inciter List!
21 Jun
Posted by: admin in: Laura's Friends.
Ever since the April DHS report and a string of right wing attacks, Conservatives on television and radio have been scrambling every-which-way to justify their incitiful rhetoric. One of the main lies they have been telling is that the left says things just as hateful. Laura Ingraham has been on television and radio trying her best to draw some equalivancy between what she does and what Keith Olbermann does. As Eric Boehlert of Media Matters points out, there has not been one incident where a liberal commentator has ever made a dehumanizing comment or called for violence against any of the following: private citizen (Dr. Tiller), an actor, a Supreme Court Justice, or anyone else. Furthermore, there has never been a terrorist who was found to have been influenced by any liberal commentators. If Michelle Malkin or Laura Ingraham could hang a quote around the next of a liberal, they would have.
Crooks and Liars just posted an article title “Mythbusting Right-Wing Domestic Terrorism.” The article completely debunks any of the ridiculous claims by conservatives.
6. All that crazy stuff you hear on the right — you can find the left wing saying things just as bad. They’re equally culpable for how bad it all its.
False. There is no equivalency whatsoever to be drawn here.
It’s absolutely true that the commenters can get just as out of hand on liberal sites as they do on conservative ones. (And most of us who’ve been hanging around the Internets for a while have the flamethrower scars to prove it.) But the problem has nothing to do with the commenters. It has to do with the opinion leaders who are driving the conversation.
On the right, it’s actually hard to name a single major voice who hasn’t called for the outright extermination, silencing, harassment, or killing of liberals. Rush. Bill O’Reilly. Ann Coulter. Sean Hannity. Laura Ingraham. Michelle Malkin. Michael Savage. Glenn Beck. Bernard Goldberg, who has been cited by at least one assassin as the inspiration for his actions. Michael Reagan, just yesterday. This kind of eliminationist language is stock in trade on the right. A lot of them literally cannot get through the week without it.
And I’m sorry — but you just don’t hear anything like this same murderous vitriol coming from any of the major voices on the left. Kos’ commenters may engage in that, but Kos himself does not. Nor does Arianna. Ed Schultz talks tough, but he’s never called for liberals to silence conservatives. Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are flaming liberals — but they would choke on air before actually threatening anyone with bodily harm. Both of them have said repeatedly that they regard that kind of thing as a grossly irresponsible use of a media soapbox. Every reputable left-wing leader or talker wholeheartedly agrees.
Furthermore: you don’t see Volvos and Priuses (Prii?) out there sporting “conservative hunting licenses,” despite the fact that “liberal hunting licenses” have been a hot item on the right for years. We’re not the ones driving the huge surge in gun purchases, either. And most importantly: You don’t see us out there shooting up fundamentalist churches, crisis pregnancy clinics, conservative gatherings, or cops. You have to go all the way back to the 1970s to find anything like that kind of overt political terrorist violence coming from the left. But starting in the 1980s, we’ve had ongoing waves of it coming out of the right — now including the nine separate violent right-wing attacks on innocent Americans since Obama was inaugurated.
I agree that it’s time to dial this down. But since it’s the right wing who gathers power by whipping up people’s fear and anger — and it’s the right wing (and only the right wing) that’s now actually taking up arms and killing people — then all I have to say is:
You first.
Search
Categories
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- brian on More Racist Comments From Laura Ingraham!
- scarsnstripes4ever on Laura Ingraham Attacks Judge Sotomayor.
- JANET on Ingraham’s Gay Student Outing!
- admin on Laura Ingraham Sang in Sleazy Country Band.
- admin on Laura Ingraham Sang in Sleazy Country Band.
- brian on Laura Ingraham Sang in Sleazy Country Band.
- admin on Laura Ingraham Uses Same Old Bigoted Attack Agaisnt Illegals!
- brian on Laura Ingraham Uses Same Old Bigoted Attack Agaisnt Illegals!
- admin on Laura Ingraham Uses Same Old Bigoted Attack Agaisnt Illegals!
- brian on Laura Ingraham Uses Same Old Bigoted Attack Agaisnt Illegals!