GQ’s Editor and Chief, Jim Nelson, has his Tea Party disdain firing on all cylinders in the latest issue. In his Letter from the Editor, Mad About You, he writes:
“What I know from Tea Partiers RE their hot simering rage is, Where was it before? When it was called for–when your country needed it. Why weren’t you fired up and out in the streets in your colonial britches when President Bush drunk-drove the country into the hell of the Iraq war, which not only put our troops in harms way but has cost us—and here’s where I thought you might relate—possibly 900 billion (!) of your tax money? (More if you count the cost of caring for our soldiers, and please do.) Tea Partiers! Compatriots! We could have used your rage, your rabid hatred of taxation, and your Magic Markers in that fight. But you were nowhere to be found, because your anger had not yet been funded by corporate interests,” (GQ, November 2010).
I wonder if Jim has ever read the preamble to the Constitution. The last time I checked it’s pretty clear:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Guess what, Jim? I don’t mind if my tax dollars go to defense spending or wars that (while you might disagree) secure the “blessings of liberty” for future generations. If you haven’t noticed, nation states in the Middle East have this odd tendency to fund and foment the kind of extremism that gives Juan Williams the creeps when he gets on a plane (and fired from NPR for acknowledging that jetliners seen as dual-use ballistic missiles to Islamic terrorists created those feelings). I don’t have time to detail how Saddam Hussein fits into the larger puzzle (e.g., Palestinian suicide bombers, UN Resolution 1441 and its significance in the aftermath of 9/11), but I’m sure it will find its way into a future blog post. Although, Google works if you’re impatient…
Jim also fails to mention that Tea Party activists are certainly not happy with the GOP’s elitist, weak-kneed, unprincipled “leadership,” or that the federal deficits under President Obama put Bush’s fiscal sins to shame. There’s a big difference between unprincipled Republicans who allow the country to slowly shuffle down the Road to Serfdom, and the liberal who straps a rocket pack fueled by liquid hydrogen on the nation’s back and redlines it.
Speaking of shame, I find it odd that the Editor in Chief who’s perfectly okay creating a sexual GQ photo shoot with the cast of Glee (that probably has pedophiles on cloud nine), would bring up Carl Paladino porno flaps:
“Of course, what Attorney General Helmet Hair was really mad about were other, more alarming polls that showed that his dramatic lead was quickly evaporating and he could be beaten by an unhinged, porno-loving Tea Partier (An old coot named Carl Paladino who got in trouble for mass forwarding bestiality videos and who loves the Constitution so much he couldn’t wait to e-share his First Amendment rights to deepthroatlove.com)”
What about you, Jim? You put actresses who portray high school girls into spread-eagle poses in your magazine. Isn’t that a little “unhinged”? (or is it “cool” since it’s in GQ?) Although, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised since liberals are the ones who regularly downplay the significance of Roman “I get teenage girls drunk and hopped up on drugs, but I didn’t ‘rape-rape’ them” Polanski. It really doesn’t matter if the Glee actresses are closing in on 30 if their characters realistically (or semi-realistically) portray high schoolers. Guess where I bought my copy of GQ today, Jim?—at Target, on the magazine shelf right next to all the magazines baring Justin Bieber fever…
We can argue over the effect that sort of thing has on the culture for days (teenagers need someone to love too, right Jim?), but one thing I do know: You oversee a magazine that fills its ad pages with liberal man-boys who mug for the camera while simultaneously hocking someone’s product and promoting the progressive cause de rigueur. New media allows conservatives to point out that Leonardo DiCaprio and George Clooney and the liberal media heads behind the scenes who try to convince Americans they should adopt European moral relativism as the litmus test for cool…are anything but cool. In a few years they’ll be just another Rob Reiner—out of shape, uncool, and ranting for anyone in their like-minded playpen who will listen. Give me Clint Eastwood over Rob Reiner any day.
See you in November, Jim.