Ingraham: bland nonentity

Jim C. writes:

Laura Ingraham guest hosted for O’Reilly tonight. She covered the black thuggery problem without mentioning the race of the thugs or the distinct possibility that they were singling out Caucasians. That’s all, folks!

- end of initial entry -

June 29

Michael P. writes:

As you more than anyone know, there is a very limited range of acceptable topics, or angles that can be brought up when discussing certain topics, in “polite” society. Mainstream “conservative” commentators are not particularly inventive, and understand their limitations within the system. That is why blogs such as yours are important. The blogs get the unfiltered message out, and soon, as more people begin speaking about the topic, a “critical mass” develops. It then becomes more or less acceptable for the mainstream to approach the subject, albeit cautiously. Expect an ostensibly neutral moderator with a couple of debaters running it down in a five minute session. One can expect a liberal black journalist who will be opposed by a not too threatening white. The black will blame it on racism, or poverty caused by racism, or lack of educational spending due to racism, etc. The white will try and blame it on years of welfare dependence, maybe bring up the lack of an integral black family structure, the lack of jobs, and ultimately lay it at the door of Obama, if possible. The real reasons will never be discussed on television.

LA replies:

You are more understanding and forgiving of the Ingraham types than I. For myself, I cannot understand how any person in good conscience can discuss the phenomenon of black youth riots, black flash mobs, black-on-white “wilding” attacks often resulting in extreme injury to the victims, going on almost daily in one U.S. city after another, and not mention the fact that these actions are being done by blacks, but instead refer to them as the actions of “teens.” To me, such gross, in-your-face dishonesty, such Pravda-level dishonesty, is unforgivable.

And this is all the more the case when the dishonesty comes, not from a politician who must be careful what he says, but from a prominent “conservative” commentator whose job is to speak the truth.

Jim C. writes:

I can’t add anything to what Mr. Auster wrote. I’d only ask Larry to add “journalistic fraud” to his site’s meta tags.

Greg W. writes:

I think the title of your post should be “blonde” nonentity, in honor of Ingraham.

JC from Houston writes:

Ingraham, a single woman, adopted a mestizo girl from Guatemala and a boy from Russia. How does that fit in with the conservative “family values” principle that a child needs a stable mother-and-father two-parent family?

Jim C. writes:

Greg W. writes: “I think the title of your post should be “blonde” nonentity, in honor of Ingraham.”

I believe the PC nature of the piece reflected O’Reilly’s and Roger Ailes’s editorial policy on racial issues. I’ll Google this to find out if Ingraham, on her radio show, is more honest.

June 30

Spencer Warren writes:

I used to listen at times to Ingraham’s morning radio program. She is a lightweight, as a perusal of her website reveals (listing her favorite pop songs, for example). She is an entertainer/jokester—ie a manufactured media “Personality”—perhaps more pronounced than her colleagues because as a morning program and lady host she may attract a bigger female audience. And also perhaps as a result of capitalizing on her very outgoing personality.

And this is a woman, a lawyer, who clerked at the Supreme Court! She also was a leading Bush-licker, even going on a bicycle ride with W. early in his presidency, to be schmoozed no doubt.

Ingraham is a convert to Roman Catholicism. But her religiosity does not prevent her doing commercials for Purina dog and cat food—which any informed pet owner knows is absolute garbage, containing diseased body parts and grain (i.e. cheap filler) and more. See the excellent life-saving book and expose, Dr. Pitcairn’s New Complete Guide to Natural Health for Dogs and Cats.

Just as bad, Ingraham’s current dog was acquired as a puppy, not from a shelter, where literally millions of good dogs are desperately in need of loving homes. Not to mention the millions put to death every year in shelters for lack of homes—the shame of a nation. Evidently, her personal desire for a Labrador and a puppy was more important.

Ingraham, thus, is a grade A phony!

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 28, 2011 09:36 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):