Let's call a spade a spade: the arrogance, hypocrisy and racism of Salon's Joan Walsh knows no bounds.
On PBS's Tavis Smiley Show Monday, this so-called "editor at large" had the nerve to depict some Republicans as "a white, older base that doesn’t quite understand the way healthcare works" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
TAVIS SMILEY, HOST: Speaking of the American dream, that’s what this healthcare debate is all about.
Mr. Obama and his supporters believe that it is a protection of, an extension of, an expansion of the American dream. The right, of course, sees it the exact opposite, as an attack on freedom of choice and on liberty, government intruding too much into our lives – you know the argument.
JOAN WALSH, SALON: Yes.
SMILEY: What’s your sense, though, of how the right, the political right has played this since the decision came down? Have they done about what you thought they would do and say?
WALSH: Yes, maybe a little bit crazier. I think the attacks on Chief Justice John Roberts have been tragic and awful, people going so far as to suggest that an illness caused him to change his mind, or medication, as well as people just being very angry and calling him a traitor.
This is laughable given how liberal media members have been mercilessly attacking Roberts since George W. Bush first nominated him for the Court in 2005. Now that he's ruled in their favor on ObamaCare, criticism of him is "tragic and awful."
This certainly won't be the case if next year the Court upholds states' rights to define marriage as between a man and a woman or rules against affirmative action. Then folks like Walsh will be right back to attacking the justice they've recently promoted to saint.
But I digress:
WALSH: There’s such anger, Tavis, that it really points to the fact that I think a lot of Republicans believed that they controlled the court and there was only one way this ruling was going to come down, and that’s a little bit worrisome.
We don’t want the court to just be an arm of one party or another, so some of the personal anger and nastiness has surprised me.
This too was laughable as later in the interview she told Smiley, "I think you’re going to get to October and November and people are going to really look at what happens if we give Republicans another shot at more appointees, because they have taken the court to the right, and we will see rulings that we don’t like already, even with this court. It will not be the democracy we want if we have more conservative justices."
That bears repeating: "It will not be the democracy we want if we have more conservative justices."
Yet moments earlier, Walsh said, "We don’t want the court to just be an arm of one party or another."
Quite the contrary, that's exactly what people like Walsh want: a court filled with exclusively Ginsburgs and Kagans passing extreme leftwing decisions on the society.
If hypocrisy were gold, Walsh would be Midas. But I once again digress:
WALSH: On the other hand, I think President Obama is probably going to be kind of lucky on this one. The ruling helps him politically, but also his opponents are such incredible disarray.
The House Republicans want to repeal it, they want to run on this, they want to appeal to that base, and let’s say it – it’s a white, older base that doesn’t quite understand the way healthcare works, but they’re worried that some people are going to get something for nothing.
"It’s a white, older base that doesn’t quite understand the way healthcare works."
Now imagine for a moment if a conservative commentator said of Democrats supporting ObamaCare "it’s a black, younger base that doesn’t quite understand the way healthcare works."
There would be immediate calls from the left for said person's suspension or termination. But because her racism is pointed at white Republicans, it's just fine.
Lest we forget this is the same woman who in March wrote a column titled "What's the Matter With White People" and is so proud of the idea she's turning it into a book.
You see, racism for Walsh is a common theme to be repeated whenever possible.
As for Republicans being "worried that some people are going to get something for nothing," shouldn't that concern all Americans?
Or is the country Walsh pines for one where a growing majority of idle citizens take from the decreasing minority that actually work for a living?
Yes, those last two questions were rhetorical.
As for Walsh, she sadly represents the voices on the far-left in this nation that don't believe people are entitled to more if they work harder and smarter than others, and even more sadly speaks for those that still want to divide this nation along racial lines.
How someone so arrogant, bigoted, and closed-minded could become the editor at large of any publication in this country today is both shocking and disheartening.
Even worse, Walsh has now become a mainstay on that joke of a so-called "news network" MSNBC.
You can't swing a dead cat anymore without hitting her on some MSNBC program spewing her divisive opinions.
Let's hope it's so frequent that viewers have become numb to her much as they did Keith Olbermann.