Return to Liberal La-La Land -- the Paris Hilton Edition

Lorie Byrd
|
Posted: Jun 08, 2007 12:00 AM
Return to Liberal La-La Land -- the Paris Hilton Edition

Observing recent events has landed me back in Liberal La-La Land. I use the term to describe the fantasyland that I enter when watching most network news reports or when seeing things that don’t make much sense. One example I have given in the past is Al Gore preaching about conserving energy to decrease global warming, while flying around the world on private jets and traveling in gas guzzling limousines. Sometimes it is necessary to suspend disbelief in order to live in the alternate reality where such things make sense. I call this fantasy world Liberal La-La Land.

The trigger this week was the realization that Paris Hilton has already spent more time in jail for her violation of probation for driving with a suspended license than former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger will in his entire life for stealing and destroying classified national security documents. That could only happen in la-la land. Many people said they were happy to see Hilton go to jail because it showed that no one, no matter how rich or famous, is above the law. (And sadly a lot of people probably thought it would provide many hours of entertainment value, as well.) I really don’t care one way or the other whether or not Paris Hilton serves time in jail, but if one message sent by her sentence was that everyone must follow the law, then what did Sandy Berger’s sentence say?

In a blog post this week at Wizbang, Jay Tea pointed to another situation that doesn’t make much sense in the real world. Tea said he did not understand why “the Democrats say that we need the courage to talk to everyone, even those with whom we disagree, but refuse to allow Fox News to co-sponsor their debates.” Many Democrats, and some Republicans, even encourage engaging in a dialogue with the terrorists so that we can understand “why they hate us.” I personally have a hard time understanding those who would prefer talking to a member of al Qaeda than to Brit Hume. In all fairness, Democrats have not proposed that any terrorist groups sponsor any of their debates, although I am not so sure about terrorist apologists. After all, according to one of the leading Democratic Presidential candidates, the war on terror is only a bumper sticker slogan.

Speaking of the debates, those on CNN this week certainly produced a few “la-la” moments. One was when Scott Spradling asked some of the GOP candidates, beginning with Tommy Thompson, “…how would you use George W. Bush in your administration?” Only in a fantasy world can I imagine George W. Bush wanting to be anywhere other than on his ranch in Crawford Texas after 2008. Of course, in Liberal La-La Land, George Bush will be sitting in jail by then, so either way it seems to me to be a moot point.

Last, but not least, certainly in the real world I would not have heard the replacement for Don Imus in MSNBC’s morning time slot get away with asking guest Craig Crawford if the beautiful, young wife of soon-to-be-official GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson “works the pole.” In spite of the reference to what is commonly referred to as a stripper pole, it appears that Joe Scarborough was not insinuating that Mrs. Thompson took off her clothes and danced for money. Earlier in the program he had a segment about women who used pole dancing as exercise. Even though he was really only making a tacky comment about her appearance, it seemed a little bit strange that there was not an outcry from feminist groups protesting his comment on the grounds that it objectified women. Instead the biggest outcry came from some on the right who wanted Scarborough to apologize for the tasteless comment.

It is not so out of the ordinary to see those on the left ignore sexist, and even potentially criminal sexual conduct, when committed by one of their own. Anyone questioning that need only look to the Bill Clinton example. It is more unusual to see Republicans get a pass. The lesson I took away from this incident is that it is possible to get away with talking about the appearance of a Republican candidate’s wife without too much uproar from the left, even if you are a Republican. (Scarborough is still officially a Republican isn’t he?) I don’t know whether or not the same treatment would be given to a Republican talking about the appearance of a Democrat candidate’s wife, but unfortunately I have a feeling we might just find out sometime between now and November 2008.

In this trip through la-la land I have gone from Paris Hilton and prison bars to references to stripper poles. Okay, so maybe it wasn’t such a long trip after all.