Well, I guess I'm going to have to read Al Gore's new book, since apparently none of his critics have.
Of course, that didn't stop them from trashing it. It seems the book's title was a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Follow Eric Boehlert as he takes a spin around the stinking wasteland that is our media elite:
The Washington Post -
"Ferguson made a whopping error when he condescendingly observed that The Assault on Reason had no footnotes."
Except, as you all now know, there were endnotes and Ferguson could have answered his own question ... except that he's an idiot. No wonder he works for the Weekly Standard: he makes his boss feel smart.
Diane Sawyer -
"Are you saying, in this book and this morning, that Americans -- 3,000 of them -- died unnecessarily?"
Well, Diane (may I call you Diane?), unlike George Bush, Al Gore can speak English. So I think it's safe to say that, if Al Gore had wanted to say that 3,000 3,500 Americans died unnecessarily he would probably have written something like "3,500 Americans died unnecessarily.
I know, I know. It's all so very complicated.
More tea?
Nightline -
'Moran, who like so many journalists was determined to portray The Assault on Reason as a bitter, anti-Bush screed, asked Gore if it was "the book you wanted to write after the 2000 election?"'
Or at least that was Moran's favorite comment on his brother's right-wing blog. Seeing, however, that the book concerns things that happened after 2000, this seems highly unlikely, even with the kind of time-traveling skills that conservatives seem to have, whereby Nixon's energy crisis becomes Carter's fault, Bush shutting down American counter-terrorism for eight months makes 9/11 Clinton's fault, Carter's Afghan policy becomes Reagan's accomplishment, etc.
I haven't even read the thing and even I know that.
ABC -
"Tapper theorized that, although there is no mention of it in the book, Gore would probably support impeaching Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Gore, in fact, does not support impeachment, which, of course, is why Gore did not write about impeaching Bush or Cheney in his book."
I would refer Mr. Tapper to my comments to the diaphanous Diane Sawyer, above. (note to Mr. Ferguson: you will observe that that was a citation) He did not write that and so you would do well to deal with what he did write, which you can't, presumably, because you didn't.
The New York Times -
"At The New York Times, conservative columnist David Brooks ridiculed Gore for writing a book that Gore did not actually write."
You know, there seems to be a lot of that going around. I wonder why conservative men seem to run and hide behind the nearest strawman these days?
Oh, and speaking of conservative manliness, here comes that connoiseuse of all emissions manly and ravishing, Maureen Dowd:
Maureen Dowd -
"Like clockwork, she typed up a derisive, trivia-based column to greet Gore's new book. Believe it or not, she thought the most telling facts about The Assault on Reason were that A) Gore's image does not appear on the cover; and B) Gore's author photo on the jacket dates from the 1990s. And neither reflected well on Gore."
Well I could have told you that because I've read every column Maureen Dowd has ever written. That was easy to do because they're all only five words long: "Democrats don't make me wet." I say five words with the contraction because all strong verbs seem to whither and contract around Maureen Dowd. It is her curse and sentence.
Dowd's fellow sufferer follows hotly behind. The far right's most cherished HIV+ barebacker could hardly bring himself to open the book at all. In fact, he didn't:
Sunday Times -
"Ridiculing The Assault on Reason in the Sunday Times of London, Andrew Sullivan also stressed very high up in his review that Gore's face does not appear on the book cover."
It seems that Dowd and Sullivan will be addressing their shower-nozzle and Churchill bobble-head doll, respectively, by names other than "Al" for the foreseeable future, the requisite stroke-material being either to hard to find with sticky fingers or being of a vintage, the 90's, that conservatives find ... distasteful.
The Washington Post ... again -
"Alan Ehrenhalt, whom the Post described as an 'intellectual,' leveled a personal attack on Gore in the review's second sentence, complaining that he 'annoy[s] the maximum possible number of people.' (Ehrenhalt offered no proof for that attack.)"
Tsk, tsk, Mr. Boehlert. Conservatives don't need evidence (ask Iraq) and they don't like evidence (ask Charles Darwin).
The Washington Post ... again -
"Three days later, while covering a local speech and book signing, the Post's Dana Milbank literally made fun of Gore for even discussing topics of historical importance, such as the Enlightenment and the Information Age."
This attitude, embodied by Mr. Milbank, explains why Republican voter identity no longer trends with education, why overall Republican voter identity is trending down (falling below Democratic voter identity some time in 2002), and why FOX News viewers are the dumbest people on earth.
This is how ignorant, flip, and intellectually cowardly you would have to be in a day and age ruined by the failure of conservatism. They can't help themselves: they just proved Al Gore right (or at least his title).
I appreciate Eric Boehlert doing yeoman's work here, digging through the trash and finding all these "intellectuals" showing how clever they are by being complete morons. I say that I appreciate it because this is why I stopped reading them and I would never have found these quotes otherwise.
You people really just aren't very bright, are you?
And so, if you will excuse me, I have a book to read. Something written by someone with a brain.
Shocking, I know.
.